Printable View
ok, the whole cop - anti cop thing has died down.
I don't want to flare it up or cause anti cop sentiment, but dag nabbit I just can't help it.
so here it is, what do you think about this:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...ed.WAGT?hpt=T2
GA department fires officer for getting pregnant
I'm curious what folks here think of this, especially the LEOs here.
I didn't even have to open this thread and I knew it had something to do with law enforcement.
Well, at least you're consistant.
X2Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
how so?
have I bashed police in this thread?
one of the anti police arguments folks have is the "blue line", how police look out for their own.
it would appear from the video that they don't.
imagine she wasn't a street cop, that she just had a desk job. does that change your opinion?
Nobody said it was going to be a thread about you bashing cops, just knew it was going to be about Cops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elhuero
If the story is accurate then she'll probably win a big settlement. Women get pregnant. I don't believe policewomen have to take vows of chastity. One of my neighbors is an LEO and he's got a pile of kids.
At the same time, it is true she can't do a lot of police activities while in this condition. Wrestling with drunks is not a good idea.
I don't see it as a police issue but as an employment issue. It was dealt with really unskillfully. The updated video shows more. She's essentially disabled for awhile. If a male officer had broken his leg off duty should he be fired? There's such things as leave. The town might be broke and lacking resources but this seems like plain old dumb.
Steve
85% of LEO's give the rest of them a bad name.[ROFL1]
I think it's a load of crap and the Citizens need to oust their Chief of police and make changes in their city council.
I See this city funding a whole lot of diapers and a college tuition or two before its all over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Luckydog
[ROFL1][ROFL2][ROFL3][LOL]
You are a bad bad bad man.
You owe me a new screen.
I thought it was against the law to fire a woman cause she's pregnant? I had a similar situation come up with my girl and her work. We were worried that she could get fired because she got pregnant (my boys can swim!!! lol) and then got the job but didn't say anything during the interview. She was afraid that she wouldn't get the job if she had. Anyway she told them a few months later and explained to them her fear of being fired because of it and they said "it was fine" and that they couldn't fire her even if they wanted to. This may be an individual state law, not sure but if I were this woman's husband/boyfriend I'd be calling lawyer's right now!
Wow...where to begin...
Okay. In law enforcement, you are expected to do your job, unless there is a compelling reason not to be able to. All the agencies I know, will immediately take a female off patrol duty if she is pregnant, not necessarily for the sake of the pregnancy, but to avoid a lawsuit later if she was to be injured and lose the child.
Now, having said that, larger agencies have places and duties they can stick someone like that to work during their 9 months. Very similar to what they would do with any officer who injured themselves on duty; a light duty status. That could be desk officer answering phones or assisting in investigations or evidence. My old agency, it was desk duty, handling the walk in complaints and telephone reports. After a week or so of that, you wanted to lie and say you were fit for duty and get away from the station! I know of a friend of mine who is pregnant and she is doing that for her Denver area department. She hates it! I personally had shoulder surgery with 6 months of rehab and I forced the rehab to get out of it early, in order to get a doctor's clean bill of health and back on the street and away from all the damn lost or stolen cell phone report requests for the people who misplaced their damn cell phones and the carriers wouldn't replace it without a police report. I was taking 5-10 of them a day.
However, smaller agencies may need that body on the street and may not have enough non-street work for a person to do to justify paying them a salary while pregnant or on light duty. If the department has 5-10 employees, what does an agency like that do? I think that is what is going on with this department.
While it sounds wrong, that female was hired to do a job and she can't do that job. Do they put her on unpaid leave (but still with a job) and hire a temp until she returns from FMLA (and then what do you do with the temp?), or do they permanently terminate her for not being able to do the job she was hired for?
If she was a good employee, I would hope they would work with her, possibly hiring a part time person, authorizing overtime or whatever else is needed to cover her patrol shifts, but also only pay her a salary in which she earns through working at the department. If that is 4 hours a day, then she should only be paid for 4 hours a day. She shouldn't be able to sit around the department for 8-10 hours a day and do nothing and collect a paycheck solely for being pregnant. She should be allowed to burn her sick time and vacation if she chose, in order to make up for the loss of income from a normal 40 hour work week.
For the computer people here; you were hired for your skills and knowledge with computers. What would happen if you broke both hands and couldn't type due to casts? Would your company allow you come into work and sit around and watch your fellow employees work and collect a paycheck for six to nine months?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
or how about if I had a critically ill child in NICU and could not concentrate on critical military communications circuits.
Yes
Then your company would most likely put you on FMLA, have you burn your vacation and sick time and then likely put you on unpaid leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
Some companies have the luxury to allow you that time off without losing pay, but as many here on the forum howl about their .gov wasting money, isn't that also a waste of money? To have an employee on the payroll who isn't actually working (I just opened that up for ALL the comments about .gov employees never working! Go ahead Elhuero, take your shot![Tooth] ) getting a paycheck for nothing?
I am pretty sure they have an office position for her somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
you mention Cost..
wonder what its going to cost to retrain her partner to another officer?
If it even works, depending on the program and how long she has been with her K-9 it may well just be a wash.
Wish I had $300-500K to throw away
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elhuero
Patrol and low ranking officers look out for their own. Officers are caught in a constant battle between their administrations and the public. Both don't like them and think they are a problem so the blue line has to look out for its own to protect each other at both ends.
I had a subject fight me once and he was tazed. There was an automatic use of force investigation launched by the department, not because the individual complained, but because they thought they should (I should point out that this is not mandatory). After everything was said and done I was cleared of the force issue but was in trouble for cussing. I said "fuck" three times during this fight and was given an official reprimand.
But I also should point out to answer your question without reading the article (so I am not fully educated here) is that if they fired here merely on being pregnant that is wrong and should be fought. I imagine there might be more but am not going to speculate on it just yet, having not read it.
I'm still not really sure how the whole "at will employment" thing in colorado works in cases like this... Had they terminated her for "no reason" would there be an issue? Or was she told that it was because she was pregnant"
Yep, Government Employee. [ROFL1] That should stir the pot some more.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
I also have my own disability, been paying it for years for this exact reason.
You are guessing about a office position; you don't know that. Depending on the size, they easily could not. Seen far too many small departments in the southern part of Colorado who could not gainfully employ someone in a light duty capacity for that length of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
We don't know the specifics on the dog. It could be hers or it could be the department's. If it is a narcotics only dog, a new handler isn't that hard to do.
Where'd you get the $300-500K figure and what is it for?
My old agency had people who milked their injury for months (or years) and were given deadlines to get medical clearance to go back to full duty or get laid off on a disability. The agency was required to offer a job that the employee could do, given their limited physical ability (most were dispatch), and they would give up their cop pay for the lower pay of the position offered. One or two took the job offers in dispatch, but most left on disability. The fact is, that agency was large enough to allow light duty positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnihcraes
Someone, I dont know who, worked for nine months before he could get surgery to correct a horrendously painful condition in his hand. He could barely draw his gun.
He knew that if it go brought up, he'd be out of a job.
I've done it, and nearly every cop I know has worked with very very painful stuff going on - it's STUPID to have to do so, but in the environment we work in it's almost essential (i.e. City Risk management personnel running things) if you want to keep your job.
I'm with the small department thing. I think they SHOULD have put her on unpaid leave, with an unspecified future rehire date (first available opening) at the least.
But "high risk" pregnancy SOUNDS like she was trying to just stay home - I don't know anything about her "high risk" status as stated in the brief notes in the video, but the only instructions I ever saw for a woman with "high risk" pregnancies, is "stay home, stay off your feet." They might not have any procedures in place for dealing with this - most small departments do not have enough policy depth to deal with it effectively. Thomson sounds like one of them.
But did you see the FAT BODY that was the chief of police? Can you honestly tell me he can wear his uniform with body armor and patrol in a normal crown vic AND jump a fence if he needs to?
Talk about HIGH RISK....
In the service back in the day I knew a couple of single parents, and the service put them through all kinds of stuff in order to assure that having a child wasn't going to interfere with duty. I was one of two people who had to sign affadavits stating that we would serve as a child's guardian in case of deployment or extended TDY. You had to be a civilian in order to be a guardian in that case. Don't know about today. If there was any chance that pregnancy would present you as unfit to perform your duties, they looked to see if you'd fit in another MOS, if you couldn't or they didn't have a slot - they would give you an honorable discharge and get you out of there - and back then you didn't have any recourse in the matter.
We also don't know how good of a cop she was, but that's begging the issue, sounds like they took some time to "prove" she was unfit for duty.
Think about it, 9 months of "high risk" pregnancy, followed by six months )?) of maternity leave (FMLA) unpaid, after which they HAVE to hire you back?
The town is about 6,000 people, and she was a K9 officer. If I'm not mistaken, to keep your K9 certified for duty you have a LOT of training to do and test on - I'm guessing her "high risk" pregnancy would have interfered with that - thus losing them their K9 unit. Not to mention that a tracking dog or apprehension dog is going to cover a lot of distance at times - and at several months pregnant there is no way she could keep up.
I think they just did a bad job of explaining why she had to be let go. I've seen cities mess with officers in a very very big way, far more politics invovled than in any other city department - they could have handled this better.
Retards...
Just thinkin....
"Stop! Show me your hands! Quit resisting or I'll break water on you!!!"
had to do it....
I came across a similar situation while taking a class on Labor Relations. The article I wrote about concerned a police officer in Detroit who was pregnant. She hid the fact from the department because she knew she would be fired and ended up passing out one day which brought her situation to light.
Short version: the police department was acting in line with an agreement reached in arbitration in 2004 (for that department). A male officer was not allowed light duty after an off duty incident and as a result of arbitration no one was allowed light duty status for off duty incidents.
As with anything in the media there's more to the story here. What past events dictated the department's policy? Is the policy the result of previous litigation? Is the policy in-line with all the various Federal Acts to protect employees? I don't know.
IMO this is not a police issue, it's a labor issue that can be seen across industries. Results will be consistent with the various employment acts, arbitration and agreements reached with the unions.
The article is no longer available for free but I left the link in case someone can access a library database or something.
Long version:
1. The Civil Rights Act was created to provide equal opportunity for workers. Detroit police officers have filed complaints against the police force’s policy of not allowing pregnant female officers to be placed on light duty. These officers are forced to take unpaid leave and are not offered maternity leave. The police department claims it is stuck with the policy following an arbitrator’s ruling in 2004 in which the police union filed a complaint on behalf of a male officer who was not allowed to be placed in light duty status following an off duty injury. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that the pregnant police officers have a valid complaint since they are being specifically targeted by the police department’s policy. The EEOC has recommended that Mrs. Prater is entitled to back pay and the police department should review their policy since it specifically targets women. Currently an officer is dismissed once they admit to being pregnant. While the Family and Medical Leave Act requires the police department to rehire the officers after their pregnancy, the department is not legally bound to place pregnant officers on light duty. The city is disputing the case. In my opinion pregnant women should not be forced to hide their condition nor should they be forced to go on unpaid leave. A policy specifically for pregnant women should be implemented to allow them to work as long as possible and allow for maternity leave. This policy could also allow for paternity leave which would allow male officers to attend to their families.
Egan, P. (May 8, 2008). Detroit officer battles policy that forces pregnant cops to take unpaid leave. The Detroit News, Retrieved November 8, 2008, from http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ETRO/805080379
"Employment-at-will" means a person can be fired for no reason but can't be fired for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by hammer03
A supervisor (or someone with the authority to fire) can terminate an employee for no reason. An employee can quit for no reason. If the employee can prove in litigation that they were fired for a reason that is protected by various acts (age, sex, disability, etc) then they would probably win or force a settlement.
Pro's: Managers can make better use of resources (employees) by cutting costs in bad times and hiring in good. The argument is that companies won't hire employees if they can't get rid of them later. Hire an employee that costs X per year or temp labor for a couple months? If done correctly a manager is allowed to get rid of deadbeat employees.
As a subject of armchair debate does forced employment by unions hurt or help a business?
Con's: Managers can act as dictators bending employees to their will/abuse of power. The number of protection acts show the abuses in the system. If done wrong a manager can threaten employees with being fired if they aren't producing enough. Example: person with the least amount of sales gets fired every quarter. Ok, what if that person was sick? or maybe low sales but good at interacting with customers and handling returns?
Another con argument is that employers hold the power and thus employees are at their whim. In this case I don't imagine there are many civilian options for a K9 officer so by the threat of firing her the employer holds power over her.
If the K-9 cannot be retrained and placed to a new officer Costs are in the Hundreds of thousands... depending on the animal/Training, it can be almost a half Mill.
The department claimed it was a High-Risk. No medical documentation exists that says it was, this was an assumption and unlawful medical practice on the part of the department.
my thinking is that there is more to the story as well, just something against the department because as we are all sure if it were something against the officer, there would be paperwork on it and they would have been more than happy to offer it up in their defense.
K9 training isn't that expensive, Byte, especially for narcotics-only dogs. A couple thousand for a good dog from a pure line and a few thousand for the training, then a couple thousand more to train the officer. All told, $10-15K max. I've even heard stories of dogs gotten from the pound who have been successfully trained for narcotics work.
There is continuous training that needs to go on and annual certifications. Plus, the cost of the maintenance of the dog; food and vet bills.
If a dog costs upward of a half mil as you state, then there would be very few agencies with dogs. Most of the agencies can't afford that price tag for a tool used on occasion.
Here is a link to one of the Denver area agencies looking for funds to buy two dogs: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17493347
They are estimating costs at $20,000 each (but I know from personal knowledge they are going to train them for narcotics, search and aggression, so the cost is higher)
thanks for the great replies.
this interested me because whenever I hear women bitching about unequal pay in the workplace they always get mad at me when I point out that it could be possible that a man makes more because he's not going to get knocked up and miss the better part of a year on maternity leave.
they REALLY love it when I add that I support a woman's right to choose... to keep her legs closed if she doesn't want to get pregnant.
anyway, I agree there's more to the story. methinks she was a pain in the ass that they wanted to get rid of.
I don't think the dept handled it very well, and she could be justified IF she had some type of desk job.
but as a street cop? yeah, if the dept is too small to put her on dispatch or a desk than she's SOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
I guess costs have drastically changed. I Hadn't seen where they said it was a narcotics only dog, I guess I made the assumption it was fully trained.