Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Vtfla t1_j1z06kh wrote

Paid leave. Paid. Imagine any other job where you get a paid vacation while they investigate you for theft.


Kixeliz t1_j1znykv wrote

How about an IT director who refused to implement new security measures so hackers got the personal info of thousands of people?

Or a utility clerk who is accused of stealing $150,000 from a city?

Or a city manager accused of stealing from a local business?

Idk why people act like paid leave is some benefit or luxury only certain people get when it's standard HR procedure these days. You put the person on leave so they can't potentially keep doing what they are accused of, but they still get paid in case the allegations are proven false so they can't sue you later.


Green_Message_6376 t1_j21m9sd wrote

We asked you to bring pitchforks and torches, not logic, reality and reason. You're out of the mob Kixeliz! /s


bond___vagabond t1_j1z3j40 wrote

Yeah, it's messed up. They really need to have private liability insurance just like doctors and lawyers, and structural engineers and contractors, truck drivers and mechanics and commercial fishman. In fact, it's really weird that they don't!


Real-Pierre-Delecto2 t1_j1zc65q wrote

Probably not much to "investigate" either. This wouldn't become public unless the evidence was overwhelming and even then it's hard to get past the thin blue line as they call it.


ManOfDrinks t1_j1z35x4 wrote

Good point, we should do the right thing and just fire people without cause.


Vtfla t1_j1zg4z6 wrote

Where did I say fire? I said paid leave.


ManOfDrinks t1_j1zp2mf wrote

If you're against paid administrative leave in this circumstance, then you are either

A) Against it in all circumstances, including those where it is obvious no wrongdoing occurred and the subject will be exonerated, or

B) Automatically assuming he's guilty, will be fired, and could have been fired immediately if it weren't for those pesky rules saying we need to prove he did it.

Given you're apparently unaware this process is the standard for any unionized workplace, it seems likely that you just have some ideological beef with the police, and see police unions as an extension of the police rather than a union protecting its workers. If you're against collective bargaining, you're against job protections such as requiring investigation and cause for dismissal.


Real-Pierre-Delecto2 t1_j1zgv63 wrote

Lol He's obviously the cops union rep or close buddy. Who the fuck defends a thieving cop without some personal connection.


Real-Pierre-Delecto2 t1_j1z3oui wrote

How's the leather taste?


ManOfDrinks t1_j1z78ts wrote

Bootlicking is when you support fair labor practices, got it.


Real-Pierre-Delecto2 t1_j1zbvvp wrote

Hilarious. Cops don't go after their own unless they got him with hard evidence. Try that at just about any other workplace and your out on your ass. Fair labor my ass. Now what was it you were saying officer? Or could it be union rep.?


ManOfDrinks t1_j1zfcb3 wrote

I was saying maybe we should focus our energy on getting more places to unionize, so the protections that come along with unionization aren't exclusive to a few select labor markets.