Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ManOfDrinks t1_j1z35x4 wrote

Reply to comment by Vtfla in Vermont state trooper suspended during investigation of barracks theft by casewood123

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

1

Vtfla t1_j1zg4z6 wrote

Where did I say fire? I said paid leave.

0

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.

2

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.

0

Real-Pierre-Delecto2 t1_j1z3oui wrote

How's the leather taste?

−7

ManOfDrinks t1_j1z78ts wrote

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

7

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.?

−5

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.

10