Its a matter of principle. He may be guilty, or he may be innocent, I don't know and the trial hasn't happened yet so all I know is that he's legally innocent until proven guilty; but I disagree with suspending without pay without a trial.
Fire, or don't fire. But if someone is employed with you then they have a right to an income. I'm surprised you disagree on this.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Sounds reasonable. Suspension without pay is sometimes used as a punishment isn't it? But in that case that would be the punishment, not what you get while waiting on it.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
The suspension is a favor. The employer saw behavior he didn't like, thats worth a firing. But the employer allowed this to play out legally, and by leaving the employee suspended until that legal outcome the employee has the ability to find other work, but also come back and pick up his duties, and all his benefits, right were he left off. Firing the employee would have removed most, if not all, of the progress he had made as an employee.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It's not a favour to the employee, its a boon to the employer. I'd love to be able to suspend people without pay if I thought they were worth firing before it was resolved but I'm not allowed to. Until I've fired them, I have to pay their wages.
It is a favor to the employee. Because (s)he's still represented by their public sector union, as are any new hires or shifted officers who fulfill the person's duties while they're suspended and who also can't be fired easily.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
goverment and public agencies cover their asses a little tighter then. An employee thats already under investigation for harming someone, who then goes and harms another person is a lawsuit. A employee who is fired, and the investigation later determines that firing was without merit is a lawsuit.
A suspension covers everyone's asses, reduces possible court time, and benefits the employee both during the suspension and after a favorable ruling.
There are reasons we place officers who discharge their weapons (outside of a shooting range) on administrative leave while the incident is investigated.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
In either case this one I'm OK with going to trial (some of the evidence is murky, the more shots after he crawls away is a bit troubling). But lets not forget an important lesson here. Don't be an overly aggressive moron that causes fear in homeowners which leads to them calling 911. And when the police show up don't be an aggressive ass-hat. I don't understand why people can't act rationally.
Suspension with pay, though. Without pay it's a conviction in advance.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The law in the US does seem to allow suspension without pay in cases such as this one although it's possible they'll end up owing him back-pay.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
All depends of the severity of the offense. The boss saw enough to warrant a firing (not to mention the DA seeing enough for charges) but because this is a taxpayer and union protected job one must make sure all the Ts are crossed and the Is dotted. Granted going 2 years without pay would suck, especially without picking up another job, but thats easier on the taxpayer than paying someone like this to not work for 2 years. If the officer is reinstated from a suspension he could go for back pay, but he also keeps his years of service on record and all the benefits that are included in that. Even if the officer wins the criminal case the department still has the ability to fire him through their own review process. You don't need to be guilty of something to get fired from a job, but you don't want someone high up with a chip on their shoulder costing the taxpayers lawyer fees and court costs in lawsuits for bad dismissals.
The alternative here is to simply fire someone who has been charged with a crime that could make the organization look bad, extremely common in the private sector or without unions.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
That's nice. Does he also get money back for overdrafts, late-pay fees and such?
And I stand by my opinion: Fire him or don't. But keeping people in such a limbo state is a shitty stunt to pull.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Nobody is debating the notion of suspensions, the issue doing so without pay. If the employee was either suspended with pay, or put in a desk job until it was resolved then that is a way to resolve it without a punishment in advance of a conviction.
What makes you think the commissioner has to wait for this to go through the courts in order to be allowed to punish him?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Neither of which are options the taxpayer should have to burden. And why the hang up on punishment before conviction? The officer behaved in a way that resulted in charges and shame on the department. A suspension of can occur for that wholeheartedly without the need for a conviction for murdering someone.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
You think innocent people should be punished? Interesting attitude to take.
What shame?
There's only shame if he's guilty. Oh and this may be news to you but charges don't mean guilty as much as you always seem to assume guilty unless proven innocent
A man in an emergency died at the hands of an officer. The court case, with or without a conviction is not something the department would want.What shame?
There's only shame if he's guilty. Oh and this may be news to you but charges don't mean guilty as much as you always seem to assume guilty unless proven innocent
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
No shit Sherlock. But if the officer was doing what he needed to because he felt threatened (which is what the court case will determine) then he's done his job, as regrettable as it may be.
The court case will determine if the officer is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not if he was doing his job correctly. They are separate, and could have separate outcomes. The 2 year unpaid suspension suggests that the department does not have the confidence that this officer was doing his job correctly.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Because that's just a perversity with the public sector unions like the police officer's and the correctional officers. When there are no charges and no trial the higher police administration has more freedom to act but when there is one, they get bitten on the ass hard when their decision is at variance with the trial outcome on the same topic. So while they technically have the power to do something now, they run a high risk if they do so because of how Americans on juries are so very reluctant to indict or convict cops, as was discussed on here some months ago.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Or they bowed to political pressure in order to appease the community. Darren Wilson is a great example of someone who did nothing wrong and put down a violent criminal who tried to kill him. He's not working at that department anymore.
So, you support the view that charges alone are sufficient to rob someone of his livelihood? That's fucked up to the highest degree.
And two years of unpaid suspension? That's a travesty. Again: Fire him or don't. But this here is pure bullshit.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
You don't need charges filed against you to be fired. The department didn't have to give him a suspension. The department doesn't agree with how he performed on the job hence an unpaid suspension, separately the DA found such an issue for how he performed that files were brought. The suspension doesn't stop him from finding other work. What the suspension does do is protect him by making it so he has the union benefits, and preserves his progress on the force (performance raises earned, vacation accrued, etc) in case he wins the case and any internal investigations and returns to work.
No sane person in his position would pick being fired over being suspended. No matter how long it takes to work out.
Maybe its a cultural thing, but US workers have few rights when it comes to employment. Arrests and charges, even for things unrelated to your job, are generally a one way ticket to unemployment. Hell, even Subway's Jared couldn't dodge that. A suspension that at least allows you a glimmer of hope of returning to your job is a fucking godsend. You understand losing an internship over facebook comments, but not a suspension while waiting for a court verdict on murdering someone? You think the suspension is bullshit in that comparison?
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-08-2015 at 09:09 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It's not often I agree with Khen but I do here totally. OG I hope you never get charged with a crime that you may not have committed and end up with people saying "well he was charged so that is enough". I never realised how much contempt you had for civil liberties or justice.
This is a total comprehension fail on your end if you think this is the position I hold. At no point did I suggest anything close to this. All I've done is explain why, in America, a suspension is a favor compared to the alternative, being fired. Thats simply how employment works around here.
If not for the union this officer likely would have been fired with no option to return to his "livelihood" because he performed below his bosses' expectations (creating and/or not disarming a situation that resulted in the needless loss of life).
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-08-2015 at 10:58 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Not going to take a side here, but I don't often think of employment, or its loss as a confirmation or violation of civil liberties. If someone loses their position as a spokesperson for a company because they were caught up in a scandal, is that a violation of their civil liberties?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 08-09-2015 at 02:23 AM.
And you do understand that I demanded "Fire him or not"? No, such a suspension without pay is only "We're too fucking timid to draw any consequences ourselves." It's a cop-out.You understand losing an internship over facebook comments, but not a suspension while waiting for a court verdict on murdering someone? You think the suspension is bullshit in that comparison?
And you seriously can't tell me that you're believing this "Oh, but there's a chance he might return to his job!" What? You're arguing ALL THE TIME THAT THEY DEEMED HIM GUILTY (from the employer's side, that is,not the legal one) already and you're honestly telling us "Oh, that's just in case we were wrong!"
Do you really not see how illogic that is? And on top of that, you're trying to get us to swallow some bullshit about this being a "favour"?
Seriously, if that is your idea of doing someone a favour, then I don't want to see your idea of punishment.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
As part of a union, he might not be able to fired until the findings of the court are determined.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Just to be clear, in this situation, he has been as free as anyone who's been fired from a job--and is about to go on trial for manslaughter--to get another job. The difference is that, because he can't be fired outright, there is a possibility that he'll either be able to return to his job and resume where he left off (not quite, but still) or at least have a fair shot at getting back pay if he wins. He is in effect in a better position than someone who's fired outright. The suspension doesn't disadvantage him more than being fired would have. It is obviously worse than working and getting paid or getting a paid suspension, but how does anyone figure being suspended without pay is WORSE than being FIRED?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
How the hell does this sort of thing keep leading to trials??!
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/vide...lied-about-it/
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If he's not a cop, he gets charged with attempted murder.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote