SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the eye-think-we-are-being-watched dept.
A pilot program was scheduled to start last week. But after no officers volunteered, Commissioner William Evans ordered 100 officers to wear the cameras. That prompted the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association to ask a judge to issue an injunction to halt the program until a new agreement can be negotiated.
Union President Patrick Rose testified Tuesday that the city violated its agreement with the union when Evans assigned officers to what was supposed to be an all-volunteer program. Rose acknowledged that he told members not to volunteer for the program before the union had reached an agreement with the city.
[...] Evans said he wants the program to begin next week and believes it's within his authority as police commissioner to order officers to wear the cameras.
No word on whether or not the Commissioner volunteered to wear a camera.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday September 08 2016, @09:38PM
Seems like someone is trying to make a "big story" about police behavior out of what amounts to standard labor/management wrangling. The union head simply asked his members to not volunteer until the city negotiates this with the union. That is his job, and like it or not, any change in the working conditions need to be negotiated so all the legals t's and i's are crossed and dotted. If anyone is trying to subvert protocol here, it is the police commissioner.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @10:04PM
The police unions are part of the story of police corruption. They lie to the media whenever an officer shoots somebody, and they lie to protect the blue brotherhood. They resist the adoption of body cams or push for legislation so that body cam footage can be locked away from public record requests. They do everything you would expect as the representation for armed criminal gangs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @06:57AM
Seriously. How come the anti-union folks always give police unions a pass? If you're going to bust and hate on unions, you gotta do them all, not just specifically blue collar worker and teacher unions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @02:05PM
So, did the labor unions complain when the department wanted to issue pepper spray in addiiton to the gun?
Did they complain when the department wanted to issue them a tazer to go with the nightstick?
Did they complain when they were issued handheld radios to complement the car radios?
Did they complain when they were issued car radios to replace signal lights and call boxes?
And..... was no single officer allowed to decide that the union is wrong and therefore volunteer? Or did the silent blue wall move in lockstep?
Cops don't get to decide what equipment they'll carry anymore. (Gee, I'd like to do patrol with my Dirty Harry S&W 29 .44 Magnum.... so it'll blow somebody's head CLEEN off....) Maybe they don't feel lucky. They can inform the process.... They should not be allowed to decide. (And, writ large, that's a big problem with militarizing the police as well - what civilian authority decides police can have armored vehicles etc.?)
(Score: 1) by i286NiNJA on Sunday September 11 2016, @10:09PM
It may be the union guy's job but it's totally acceptable and desirable for the public to start shaming the police and especially the police union. Let the guy do his job but maybe eventually the police will start giving a shit about how things look to the public. It's amazing compared to most jobs, compared to the military, compared to pretty much every public servant who doesn't have a strong union or massive amounts of political clout... they just don't give a fuck how things look to the public eye anymore.