bbauska wrote:Can a CEO force an employee to resign because they gave money to the anti-Prop 8 campaign? That would be the same thing. I am all for an employee having the choice to work if hired, and the employer having the choice to release an employee. Regardless of reason. This would apply with the Eich case. The board did not want to have to keep Eich, and Eich made the choice to leave. No biggie.

Well I could easily hypothesise something like that - a senior employee of a Catholic-owned or affiliated organisation is found to have donated towards a pro-same-sex marriage campaign, and that individual is identified, and later promoted, prompting a boycott or other campaign by Catholics. When it's seen that this could have adverse impact on their work / revenue / brand, the employee is encouraged to resign.

Is that ideal? No. Is it the worst tragedy to befall mankind? Hardly. It does speak to the tactics used, but it's better than some political campaign tactics that have been used in the past.

Wait, it becomes a biggie if the rules are not equally applied. Can an employer force an employee to quit if they did not like the political stance of the employee?

Under your proposals, yes.

I personally prefer stronger labour laws that protect employees. But then I am a union rep and so see the kind of stuff that people are sacked for (sometimes reasonable, sometimes unreasonable).

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I did not propose that it would be meaningless if EVERYONE stopped using Firefox. I was talking specifically about the boycott. It was announced and boom he resigned. There is no way it had a significant fiscal effect in that timeframe.

It was days . . .

This is taking "nitpicking" to its zenith. I say there is no way there could have been a significant financial impact and you point out it was not instantaneous, but took days! Wow! Thanks!

It was days, and while it may not have had an impact in that time, the potential future impact is what companies look at.

Thanks for the education. I mean, gee, based on my post . . . oh wait . . . anyone who actually read my post would think I understood that.

Again, perhaps you don't 'get' corporate culture. No reason you should, if you haven't much experience of how large companies work.

Perhaps you don't 'get' English. No reason you should.

He was not CEO two years ago. It is entirely relevant what the actual facts are and the timelines. The information was actually public from 2008, but was not noticed until 2012. I've seen no evidence that people who found it were looking specifically for dirt on him (so not a 'hunt') but just at who had funded the Yes campaign.

Yes, it was such a major issue that no one noticed until 2012. Then it lay dormant until recently. #vital

that did cause a stir at the time, with people involved in the Open Source community criticising Eich's position. So why did they not launch a boycott back then? Probably because until last month he was not being promoted by Mozilla, who by then would have had knowledge of the donation.

Again, this smacks of a few (maybe one?) embittered person who discovered the info and either had an ulterior motive or whatever. You can SAY it's not a witch hunt, but why him?

You know what "seems" means, right?

Yes, it's a weasel word so you can invoke it and claim you didn't 'really' mean what you said, possibly, if it becomes an issue. That's what it means.

So what does your comment really mean then? You have now had a couple of chance to explain why my 'seems' is wrong.

It is an indirect way of saying what you really mean--making an accusation while maintaining plausible deniability . . . or so it seems.

By the way, 'seems' means that the interpretation is based on inference - as in my reading - not in implication - your intent.

Meh. Your implication was clear. I didn't have to infer anything that you did not intend. You're not half as thick as you'd like to pretend on occasion.

No, it's more than failing to agree with me. It's when they don't know the size of the Debt, know who the Speaker is, know who the VP is, know much of anything about their government, etc. Again, you have succumbed to the temptation of putting words in my keyboard.

Sorry, I was basing my comments on the other thread where you called most people who said that they don't want Medicare or Medicaid changed 'know nothings', I don't recall those polls being about the basic facts, but their opinions. Ho hum...

Because, and do try to pay attention, they have been duped into believing THEIR Medicare is under assault. It's not. If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed reference to the "throwing granny over the cliff" commercial and other examples of demagoguery. Oh yeah, I almost forgot: you commented on this. So, I suppose you're simply being disingenuous. How rare.

No, but oddly when there is a visible public campaign against homosexual rights, gay-bashing often becomes more prevalent. I'm sure it's entirely co-incidental...

I'm sure it's entirely made up.

I was pointing out that your 'never' was factually incorrect. Nero may have been a terrible person, but I never said he wasn't. His gay marriage (which was not the only one, of course) was legal. I'm not citing him as a moral standard, but as a legal precedent.

Meh. Since we don't acknowledge much of what Nero or other dictators establish as "legal precedent," that's not too impressive. Sorry. Oh, and did it continue for centuries to be acknowledged in Western civilization? If not, that's very unimpressive. In fact, if it was not linked to so evil a man, it would be laughable.

Doctor Fate wrote:

It was days, and while it may not have had an impact in that time, the potential future impact is what companies look at.

Thanks for the education. I mean, gee, based on my post . . . oh wait . . . anyone who actually read my post would think I understood that.

Not really. I have no confidence that you understand how companies actually work, any more than I understand the internal workings of police forces.

Yes, it was such a major issue that no one noticed until 2012. Then it lay dormant until recently. #vital

I never said it was a 'major issue' or 'vital'. What I was pointing out was another error in your assertions. You seem keen to point out errors when it comes to ricky, I thought you were thus open to correction. meh.

No, but oddly when there is a visible public campaign against homosexual rights, gay-bashing often becomes more prevalent. I'm sure it's entirely co-incidental...

I'm sure it's entirely made up.

Unfortunately not: Surge in anti-gay hate crime cases from early 2009:

San Jose Mercury News wrote:Hate crime cases involving anti-gay sentiment shot up in Santa Clara County last year, a striking increase that a leading prosecutor attributes to controversy over Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

Anti-gay incidents accounted for more than half of hate-crime cases last year — 56 percent — a big jump from only 15 percent in 2007. There were 14 anti-gay cases out of 25 hate-crime cases in 2008, compared with only 3 out of 20 in 2007.

"My belief from having done this work for many years is that surges in types of hate incidents are linked to the headlines and controversies of the day,'' said Deputy District Attorney Jay Boyarsky, who is assigned to monitor hate crimes. "Marriage equality and Proposition 8 have been in the news, and we have seen an increase in gay-bashing.''

So no, not 'entirely made up' unfortunately.

Meh. Since we don't acknowledge much of what Nero or other dictators establish as "legal precedent," that's not too impressive. Sorry. Oh, and did it continue for centuries to be acknowledged in Western civilization? If not, that's very unimpressive.

I was simply disproving your 'never'. Let it go, dude - you have been proven wrong. Try not making flat assertions of definitive fact without checking first to see if they are actually true, and I'll not need to check it out and highlight where you are wrong.

danivon wrote:Not really. I have no confidence that you understand how companies actually work, any more than I understand the internal workings of police forces.

The thrust of my comment apparently escaped you. I was referencing the time issue. You were too, I guess. I just don't believe that over the course of a very few days Mozilla noticed such an impact that they had to panic. I've seen zero evidence of that. Have you any? You project something I've never seen demonstrated: that as Mozilla peered into the future they saw fiscal disaster. Based on what?

Yes, it was such a major issue that no one noticed until 2012. Then it lay dormant until recently. #vital

I never said it was a 'major issue' or 'vital'. What I was pointing out was another error in your assertions. You seem keen to point out errors when it comes to ricky, I thought you were thus open to correction. meh.

It was not a salient point. I grant the error, but it demonstrates . . . nothing.

San Jose Mercury News wrote:Hate crime cases involving anti-gay sentiment shot up in Santa Clara County last year, a striking increase that a leading prosecutor attributes to controversy over Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

Anti-gay incidents accounted for more than half of hate-crime cases last year — 56 percent — a big jump from only 15 percent in 2007. There were 14 anti-gay cases out of 25 hate-crime cases in 2008, compared with only 3 out of 20 in 2007.

"My belief from having done this work for many years is that surges in types of hate incidents are linked to the headlines and controversies of the day,'' said Deputy District Attorney Jay Boyarsky, who is assigned to monitor hate crimes. "Marriage equality and Proposition 8 have been in the news, and we have seen an increase in gay-bashing.''

So no, not 'entirely made up' unfortunately.

Oh, for the love . . .

1. That's not enough of a sample to genuinely make your point.
2. If you don't think politics is involved in that, you should google Jay Boyarsky. I did. It's a bit of an eye-opener.

I was simply disproving your 'never'. Let it go, dude - you have been proven wrong.

Woo, good one. Yeah, I should have qualified my "never" with "never in the history of rational behavior" or "except for a crazy dictator or two."

Big win.

Try not making flat assertions of definitive fact without checking first to see if they are actually true, and I'll not need to check it out and highlight where you are wrong.

Certainly well played. I mean, wow. Your point is certainly central to the development of Western Civilization . . . or utterly meaningless. Oh. Wait. Let me clarify: "almost utterly meaningless," meaning only having any meaning to you.

Doctor Fate wrote:The thrust of my comment apparently escaped you. I was referencing the time issue. You were too, I guess. I just don't believe that over the course of a very few days Mozilla noticed such an impact that they had to panic. I've seen zero evidence of that. Have you any? You project something I've never seen demonstrated: that as Mozilla peered into the future they saw fiscal disaster. Based on what?

Disaster? No. Brand damage and potential financial implications, yes. Mozilla will be monitoring usage through cookies etc, and will have been able to see a trend just from the first few days. I don't expect them to make that public (they are, after all, a private company without shareholders and would have no reason to do so even if they were a public company).

It also may well have been about internal debate and controversy. Again, we may not see a lot of evidence due to the way companies try to keep things inside.

Of course, there's also no actual evidence that they did panic and make Eich resign. It seems to be a common sense interpretation of events, but there's no paper trail to show that they forced him out. So a lot of the discussion is based on supposition, isn't it?

danivon wrote:Of course, there's also no actual evidence that they did panic and make Eich resign. It seems to be a common sense interpretation of events, but there's no paper trail to show that they forced him out. So a lot of the discussion is based on supposition, isn't it?

Oh, I think it's clear that they panicked. The only question is how much impact was the boycott really going to have? We'll never know.

Again, let's change things a bit. Let's say a police officer gave $1000 to support Prop. 8. Should he be fired? Many departments have clauses that require officers to be non "homophobic." Under some interpretations, supporting Prop 8 is homophobic. Should those officers be fired? What if it was $500? $200?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Of course, there's also no actual evidence that they did panic and make Eich resign. It seems to be a common sense interpretation of events, but there's no paper trail to show that they forced him out. So a lot of the discussion is based on supposition, isn't it?

Oh, I think it's clear that they panicked. The only question is how much impact was the boycott really going to have? We'll never know.

All I am saying is that I am sure that Mozilla have a far better idea than you or I do.

Again, let's change things a bit. Let's say a police officer gave $1000 to support Prop. 8. Should he be fired? Many departments have clauses that require officers to be non "homophobic." Under some interpretations, supporting Prop 8 is homophobic. Should those officers be fired? What if it was $500? $200?

I personally expect police officers to not be actively and publicly political, as such things can undermine the image of and confidence in the force. I am dismayed by our country's recent move to elected (and in many cases party political) police commissioners, as that risks polticising what should be a politically neutral function of government - now I do think that the police need to be responsive to public needs and wants, and that there does need to be democratic and political oversight, and also that there are clear political issues around policing.

So, when it comes down to it, I would expect a police officer who made a clear and unambiguous public political act to be disciplined in some way. If it were serious enough, that could well result in a sacking.

And I can see a good reason when it comes to issues like this. Would a member of the public have confidence in a police officer who was, say, investigating a situation that involved a gay married couple if they knew that officer had clearly opposed gay marriage? Or supported it? It might suggest a bias. Such things can interfere with cases, leading to lost prosecutions.

danivon wrote:I personally expect police officers to not be actively and publicly political, as such things can undermine the image of and confidence in the force. I am dismayed by our country's recent move to elected (and in many cases party political) police commissioners, as that risks polticising what should be a politically neutral function of government - now I do think that the police need to be responsive to public needs and wants, and that there does need to be democratic and political oversight, and also that there are clear political issues around policing.

You get points for consistency, but I think you are wrong.

Furthermore, their unions are heavily involved in politics. To ban one, you would have to ban the other.

So, when it comes down to it, I would expect a police officer who made a clear and unambiguous public political act to be disciplined in some way. If it were serious enough, that could well result in a sacking.

I'd love to see it happen. I'm sure there is at least one cop in CA who gave to Prop 8. They should hunt him down and fire him!

Oh, the money he will win.

And I can see a good reason when it comes to issues like this. Would a member of the public have confidence in a police officer who was, say, investigating a situation that involved a gay married couple if they knew that officer had clearly opposed gay marriage?

Can a bank teller who opposes gay marriage open an account for a homosexual couple? Can a doctor opposed to gay marriage talk to the homosexual spouse of his patient?

Sometimes personal feelings don't come into the job. I was nice to a lot of people I didn't want to be nice to.

Or supported it? It might suggest a bias. Such things can interfere with cases, leading to lost prosecutions.

I'm dubious of that. If that is the case, we need to replace all officers with robots because they are the only ones with no opinions. Every human has one. If they don't impact job performance, their opinions are irrelevant.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I personally expect police officers to not be actively and publicly political, as such things can undermine the image of and confidence in the force. I am dismayed by our country's recent move to elected (and in many cases party political) police commissioners, as that risks polticising what should be a politically neutral function of government - now I do think that the police need to be responsive to public needs and wants, and that there does need to be democratic and political oversight, and also that there are clear political issues around policing.

You get points for consistency, but I think you are wrong.

Furthermore, their unions are heavily involved in politics. To ban one, you would have to ban the other.

Our police 'union', the Police Federation is not that heavily involved in politics - and gets a bad rap when it appears to be, as it recently did over a run-in between a cabinet minister and a police officer - it was claimed that the politician, who had been riding his bicycle through the gates of Downing Street and been stopped, called the officer a 'f--ing pleb'. There were two ways in which it was escalated by police - another officer lied about witnessing the event, and three Police Fed reps went to meet the minister and gave misleading public statements about that meeting. The liar was prosecuted and sacked, the lairs are under investigation, and it has hit the reputation of the police massively - the head of the Police Fed recently resigned.

Our police are banned from striking by law, and their 'union' was set up by the government at the time the ban came into force, and as such is barred from overt political activity.

I'd love to see it happen. I'm sure there is at least one cop in CA who gave to Prop 8. They should hunt him down and fire him!

Oh, the money he will win.

How will he win it? I do hope he won't be taking the awful 'liberal' route of resorting to a law suit. How demeaning for him!

And I can see a good reason when it comes to issues like this. Would a member of the public have confidence in a police officer who was, say, investigating a situation that involved a gay married couple if they knew that officer had clearly opposed gay marriage?

Can a bank teller who opposes gay marriage open an account for a homosexual couple? Can a doctor opposed to gay marriage talk to the homosexual spouse of his patient?

Sometimes personal feelings don't come into the job. I was nice to a lot of people I didn't want to be nice to. [/quote]You seem now to be mixing your hypotheticals...

It's not about 'you' as a police officer or how nice you are. It is about the public confidence in the police and individual officers. Why? Because a police officer has a fairly unique role, very different from that of a bank teller or a doctor.

They are agents of the state, empowered by the state with the ability to arrest and detain people, to pursue (or to not pursue) investigations into alleged crimes, and they have the responsibility to maintain public order. Moreover, as agents of the state, they also have the responsibility to treat people fairly.

Because they represent the state (at whatever level they serve it, local, city, state or federal), law enforcement officers should in my view not be political actors. Precisely to avoid situations in the US where you have 'strong' unions that act within politics to help entrench the power of the police.

For anyone who has concerns about the power held by governments, surely Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a key question. And it's particularly relevant to the police, who are custodians of the public peace.

Or supported it? It might suggest a bias. Such things can interfere with cases, leading to lost prosecutions.

I'm dubious of that. If that is the case, we need to replace all officers with robots because they are the only ones with no opinions. Every human has one. If they don't impact job performance, their opinions are irrelevant.

It's not what their opinion is, it's what public and individual perception is of their opinions that can be relevant - especially as juries are made up of the public.

I am not calling for robot cops, I am saying quite simply that the police should not be seen to have political or other biases. Clearly it is impossible for an individual to be 100% unbiased, but we should not be able to tell what it is, and it should not come through in their work or in ways that can affect their work.

Seriously, of all the possible hypothetical employees that could have an issue with overt political activity, I think perhaps a cop is one of the weakest. IRS agents are another -Would you, given your position above, have less of a problem than I would if it turns out that IRS agents involved in the allegations about targeting conservative groups had made political donations to (for example) a liberal campaign?

Personally I would find that highly questionable on the basis that such federal agents should not be political actors, and even if that were tolerated they should not be anywhere near investigations that are close to politics. YMMV.

danivon wrote:Our police are banned from striking by law, and their 'union' was set up by the government at the time the ban came into force, and as such is barred from overt political activity.

Our police are also banned from striking. However, they lobby like crazy. In fact, it was their lobbying that made me oppose the union. They consistently supported anti-gun candidates on the basis that they were "pro-labor." We, as police officers, were more pro-gun than pro-labor by quite a bit. However the union was a "necessary evil," especially as management became stocked with people who had no idea what it meant to actually be on the line. I was a labor rep and defended officers from some bizarre charges--some charges didn't even pass the laugh test.

But, to ban the police union from lobbying, they'd have to do something to other public employee unions . . . and Democrats can't permit that.

I'd love to see it happen. I'm sure there is at least one cop in CA who gave to Prop 8. They should hunt him down and fire him!

Oh, the money he will win.

How will he win it? I do hope he won't be taking the awful 'liberal' route of resorting to a law suit. How demeaning for him!

Oh, I had a real good suit before I left the department. I just didn't want the notoriety that would accompany it--no matter how much money I got.

It's not about 'you' as a police officer or how nice you are. It is about the public confidence in the police and individual officers. Why? Because a police officer has a fairly unique role, very different from that of a bank teller or a doctor.

They are agents of the state, empowered by the state with the ability to arrest and detain people, to pursue (or to not pursue) investigations into alleged crimes, and they have the responsibility to maintain public order. Moreover, as agents of the state, they also have the responsibility to treat people fairly.

Yes, but the presumption has to be that they will--until they demonstrate otherwise. How can a white cop fairly police a predominately black area? How can a Hispanic cop fairly police a predominately Asian area? How can a gay cop fairly intervene in a heterosexual marital tiff?

Because they've all had training and know what the rules and laws are. If they break them, deal with that situation. A cop's background, personal feelings, and political outlook have nothing to do with how he does his job. If he violates that, shame on him--and discipline too.

It's not what their opinion is, it's what public and individual perception is of their opinions that can be relevant - especially as juries are made up of the public.

I have no idea how this is relevant. For example, I am pro-life. If I was sent to an abortion clinic to deal with pro-life protesters, I'm going to follow the letter of the law. That's my responsibility and that's what I'm going to do. I'm not going to throw down my uniform and join the protest. Thankfully, I don't know many cops who disagree. The law is the law. Now, there are times where the law needs "help," but that's outside the scope of this conversation.

I am not calling for robot cops, I am saying quite simply that the police should not be seen to have political or other biases. Clearly it is impossible for an individual to be 100% unbiased, but we should not be able to tell what it is, and it should not come through in their work or in ways that can affect their work.

And, you wouldn't be able to. No one can slap a "I support Prop 8" sticker on their radio car. They can't use derogatory language toward anyone.So, I can't see the issue here.

Seriously, of all the possible hypothetical employees that could have an issue with overt political activity, I think perhaps a cop is one of the weakest. IRS agents are another -Would you, given your position above, have less of a problem than I would if it turns out that IRS agents involved in the allegations about targeting conservative groups had made political donations to (for example) a liberal campaign?

Not if they're honest--unlike Ms. Lerner. I'm sure there are IRS agents in this position and some of them went too far, as we are learning. Ideally, they should simply be blindly enforcing the law. If that is questioned, there should be an impartial investigation. That's what would happen to cops. However, the Federal government seems to be above that at the moment.

Doctor Fate wrote:Our police are also banned from striking. However, they lobby like crazy. In fact, it was their lobbying that made me oppose the union. They consistently supported anti-gun candidates on the basis that they were "pro-labor." We, as police officers, were more pro-gun than pro-labor by quite a bit. However the union was a "necessary evil," especially as management became stocked with people who had no idea what it meant to actually be on the line. I was a labor rep and defended officers from some bizarre charges--some charges didn't even pass the laugh test.

I am a rep as well, and believe me the same stuff applies in terms of management delusion in private companies.

I'm not really bothered about the reasons for your police union's lobbying, I think reading through what you've written you can see the problems that arise from allowing it, regardless of those reasons.

But, to ban the police union from lobbying, they'd have to do something to other public employee unions . . . and Democrats can't permit that.

Would they? Because that is not the case in the UK. Certain public positions are denoted as non-political, and officeholders cannot be involved in politics. Others are not. So there are unions that represent different types, and the former are not supposed to be political, but the latter are free to.

The former are still fully able (as is the Police Fed) to represent members on individual cases or collective concerns when it comes to management policies or actions.

I can see it would be harder in the USA, given the prevalence of elected posts in public administration which are often fought on party political lines or other political bases, to restrict the political aspects of political involvement from public employees in sensitive positions. But the principles are there to aspire to.

I'd love to see it happen. I'm sure there is at least one cop in CA who gave to Prop 8. They should hunt him down and fire him!

Oh, the money he will win.

How will he win it? I do hope he won't be taking the awful 'liberal' route of resorting to a law suit. How demeaning for him!

Oh, I had a real good suit before I left the department. I just didn't want the notoriety that would accompany it--no matter how much money I got.

So... it would be a suit, then.

Yes, but the presumption has to be that they will--until they demonstrate otherwise. How can a white cop fairly police a predominately black area? How can a Hispanic cop fairly police a predominately Asian area? How can a gay cop fairly intervene in a heterosexual marital tiff?

Because they've all had training and know what the rules and laws are. If they break them, deal with that situation. A cop's background, personal feelings, and political outlook have nothing to do with how he does his job. If he violates that, shame on him--and discipline too.

You are conflating 'being' something (black / white / gay / straight) with someone's actions.

It's not the white/black/hispanic/asian cop that we have an issue with, it's the racist one. Right?

It's not what their opinion is, it's what public and individual perception is of their opinions that can be relevant - especially as juries are made up of the public.

I have no idea how this is relevant. For example, I am pro-life. If I was sent to an abortion clinic to deal with pro-life protesters, I'm going to follow the letter of the law. That's my responsibility and that's what I'm going to do. I'm not going to throw down my uniform and join the protest. Thankfully, I don't know many cops who disagree. The law is the law. Now, there are times where the law needs "help," but that's outside the scope of this conversation.

Because you are only relating it from your point of view (still), and not that of the observer or other person. Also, your example is flawed. It's not that you would join the protest, it's whether someone might view your actions as biased. So whether if a protester flaunts on the edge of the law, would they be dealt with, and do we have trust that the same would occur if it were a pro-choice protest and people were acting on the edge of the law?

Now I know your answer would be the same - you would not act differently and you don't know many cops who would. But as I keep trying to point out, your intentions and your perception are not the issue when it comes to how the public and individuals view the police.

And, you wouldn't be able to. No one can slap a "I support Prop 8" sticker on their radio car. They can't use derogatory language toward anyone.So, I can't see the issue here.

There is more to it that what people do on duty or in uniform. It extends to things that are done that can be identified to a police officer as well.

Actually, it's similar to the employee of a company who on their free time at home goes on to facebook and slags them off. If the company find out, they will not shrug it off on the basis that the employee wasn't on the clock or using company resources.

Seriously, of all the possible hypothetical employees that could have an issue with overt political activity, I think perhaps a cop is one of the weakest. IRS agents are another -Would you, given your position above, have less of a problem than I would if it turns out that IRS agents involved in the allegations about targeting conservative groups had made political donations to (for example) a liberal campaign?

Not if they're honest--unlike Ms. Lerner. I'm sure there are IRS agents in this position and some of them went too far, as we are learning. Ideally, they should simply be blindly enforcing the law. If that is questioned, there should be an impartial investigation. That's what would happen to cops. However, the Federal government seems to be above that at the moment.

[/quote]Honesty is not the issue. Evidence of potential bias is. Perception is.

You clearly believe that there was political bias at play. And if evidence surfaced that one of the IRS agents involved made a donation to MoveOn.org or whatever, I am sure there would be (justifiable) calls for proper action.

danivon wrote:Would they? Because that is not the case in the UK. Certain public positions are denoted as non-political, and officeholders cannot be involved in politics. Others are not. So there are unions that represent different types, and the former are not supposed to be political, but the latter are free to.

There's a separation, so to speak, between one's work and one's private life. As long as I didn't ID myself as a cop, I could do whatever I wanted, providing it was not criminal. :)

The former are still fully able (as is the Police Fed) to represent members on individual cases or collective concerns when it comes to management policies or actions.

The union could not strike, but behaved in every other way as a union.

Yes, but the presumption has to be that they will--until they demonstrate otherwise. How can a white cop fairly police a predominately black area? How can a Hispanic cop fairly police a predominately Asian area? How can a gay cop fairly intervene in a heterosexual marital tiff?

Because they've all had training and know what the rules and laws are. If they break them, deal with that situation. A cop's background, personal feelings, and political outlook have nothing to do with how he does his job. If he violates that, shame on him--and discipline too.

You are conflating 'being' something (black / white / gay / straight) with someone's actions.

Hmm, no I'm saying the "perception" would be there would be a bias--that's just as reasonable as the donation argument.

It's not what their opinion is, it's what public and individual perception is of their opinions that can be relevant - especially as juries are made up of the public.

If you really believe that race and orientation have nothing to do with perception, you should be in management--because they have argued for years that appearance (race, gender) matter.

I have no idea how this is relevant. For example, I am pro-life. If I was sent to an abortion clinic to deal with pro-life protesters, I'm going to follow the letter of the law. That's my responsibility and that's what I'm going to do. I'm not going to throw down my uniform and join the protest. Thankfully, I don't know many cops who disagree. The law is the law. Now, there are times where the law needs "help," but that's outside the scope of this conversation.

Because you are only relating it from your point of view (still), and not that of the observer or other person. Also, your example is flawed. It's not that you would join the protest, it's whether someone might view your actions as biased. So whether if a protester flaunts on the edge of the law, would they be dealt with, and do we have trust that the same would occur if it were a pro-choice protest and people were acting on the edge of the law?

I think it depends on the officer. If someone actually understands their job, there should not be an issue. The problem I ran into, across the board, was the slackers who refused to do their job. I can cite many examples where problems were created because deputies would not do the right thing, namely their jobs.

Now I know your answer would be the same - you would not act differently and you don't know many cops who would. But as I keep trying to point out, your intentions and your perception are not the issue when it comes to how the public and individuals view the police.

If a department runs according to the perception of the public, it's going to resemble a dog chasing its tail. If it consistently does the right thing, the public will figure that out.

And, you wouldn't be able to. No one can slap a "I support Prop 8" sticker on their radio car. They can't use derogatory language toward anyone.So, I can't see the issue here.

There is more to it that what people do on duty or in uniform. It extends to things that are done that can be identified to a police officer as well.

Actually, it's similar to the employee of a company who on their free time at home goes on to facebook and slags them off. If the company find out, they will not shrug it off on the basis that the employee wasn't on the clock or using company resources.

The standard, as I hinted, is that an officer may not ID himself as such, but otherwise he remains a citizen with all the rights pertaining to said citizenship.

You clearly believe that there was political bias at play. And if evidence surfaced that one of the IRS agents involved made a donation to MoveOn.org or whatever, I am sure there would be (justifiable) calls for proper action.

It's not my belief. It is fact.

Doctor Fate wrote:There's a separation, so to speak, between one's work and one's private life. As long as I didn't ID myself as a cop, I could do whatever I wanted, providing it was not criminal. :)

There is to a point, and when your private life impinges on your work life, or vice versa, then that separation is not a Chinese Wall.

The former are still fully able (as is the Police Fed) to represent members on individual cases or collective concerns when it comes to management policies or actions.

The union could not strike, but behaved in every other way as a union.

And as I say, there are gradations in between that would seem more appropriate for a police union, or one representing sensitive public staff.

You are conflating 'being' something (black / white / gay / straight) with someone's actions.

Hmm, no I'm saying the "perception" would be there would be a bias--that's just as reasonable as the donation argument.

Except where the responsibility lies. If a citizen perceived a cop as being biased simply because of the cop's skin colour, then the issue is with the citizen.

If the citizen perceives the cop as biased because of the cop's behaviour, then it is not completely with the citizen, the issue is at least in part down to the cop's behaviour.

It's not what their opinion is, it's what public and individual perception is of their opinions that can be relevant - especially as juries are made up of the public.

If you really believe that race and orientation have nothing to do with perception, you should be in management--because they have argued for years that appearance (race, gender) matter.

No, I understand that they do have something to do with perception. Notwithstanding your gripes about management, the point is not just perception, it is how a cop, or the force/department feed that perception.

I think it depends on the officer. If someone actually understands their job, there should not be an issue. The problem I ran into, across the board, was the slackers who refused to do their job. I can cite many examples where problems were created because deputies would not do the right thing, namely their jobs.

Maybe so, but you are skipping the point a little - it is not so much whether the cops are doing their job properly or not (that is a separate problem, and of course combined with a perceived bias it multiplies both issues greatly). It is about whether people will trust that the officer who is doing their job properly actually is.

Try to bear in mind that ordinary members of the public observing are not going to be able to read your mind to divine your intent to do your job properly, or to be experts on police procedures and the law to know that you are. But if they do know that you favour one side in a debate, and are policing something related to it, that will potentially affect their perception of your actions as a cop.

If a department runs according to the perception of the public, it's going to resemble a dog chasing its tail. If it consistently does the right thing, the public will figure that out.

I am not saying they should run completely on public perception, but of course you do have to accept that if the public do lose faith in the police, then it becomes harder for the police to do their job. "The right thing" is itself a matter of perception, especially where "the public" is concerned.

And, you wouldn't be able to. No one can slap a "I support Prop 8" sticker on their radio car. They can't use derogatory language toward anyone.So, I can't see the issue here.

There is more to it that what people do on duty or in uniform. It extends to things that are done that can be identified to a police officer as well.

Actually, it's similar to the employee of a company who on their free time at home goes on to facebook and slags them off. If the company find out, they will not shrug it off on the basis that the employee wasn't on the clock or using company resources.

The standard, as I hinted, is that an officer may not ID himself as such, but otherwise he remains a citizen with all the rights pertaining to said citizenship.

Sure, but not all citizens are entitled to be cops, are they?

Having rights as a citizen is about protecting you from government as a government. It is less about protecting you from employers, even if the employer is a government. In the same way as the company may have a view about your actions as a 'private' citizen, but one identifiably an employee, so may the police of a police officer.

You clearly believe that there was political bias at play. And if evidence surfaced that one of the IRS agents involved made a donation to MoveOn.org or whatever, I am sure there would be (justifiable) calls for proper action.

It's not my belief. It is fact.

If that is the case (and I am not sure it is a proven fact, more a supposition based on a view of the evidence), and if there is an identifiable political act by someone involved, even in a 'private' capacity, then it certainly does suggest something should be done.

But even if the IRS situation was not down to bias, the public donation of a member of staff to a political organisation would go a long way to adding to the perception of bias, would it not? It would be paraded across the right wing blogosphere, and sites like Brietbart and HotAir would call for the person's job. And I think the IRS would have cause to at least discipline the member of staff.

I would apply the same reasoning to the IRS as to the police. Would you?

danivon wrote:

Hmm, no I'm saying the "perception" would be there would be a bias--that's just as reasonable as the donation argument.

Except where the responsibility lies. If a citizen perceived a cop as being biased simply because of the cop's skin colour, then the issue is with the citizen.

Sorry, but this is funny. It's not your fault, but it's just not reality. You're right, intellectually, but this is not how the world works.

If the citizen perceives the cop as biased because of the cop's behaviour, then it is not completely with the citizen, the issue is at least in part down to the cop's behaviour.

Again, how does the public find out that a cop in a car gave money to something? When they're pulled over, they google the officer? #silliness

If a department runs according to the perception of the public, it's going to resemble a dog chasing its tail. If it consistently does the right thing, the public will figure that out.

I am not saying they should run completely on public perception, but of course you do have to accept that if the public do lose faith in the police, then it becomes harder for the police to do their job. "The right thing" is itself a matter of perception, especially where "the public" is concerned.

I agree perception matters. I disagree that non-criminal activity of non-management personnel materially affects perception.

I would apply the same reasoning to the IRS as to the police. Would you?

No. Every US citizen has to interact with the IRS--it's non-optional. The IRS reviews all of our tax forms and makes determinations based on their understanding of the tax code.

Many people will NEVER interact with the cops. Further, cops don't have any particular reason to care about the politics of criminals. They either broke the law or they didn't. I know of no case, ever, where someone I worked with said, "I got me a Democrat" or "If they've got dope and an RNC ID card, I cut them loose."

On the other hand, the IRS clearly more carefully scrutinized conservative groups than liberal groups.

bbauska

A CEO was fired for his donating money to Prop 8. Is this acceptable for a company to fire someone for their beliefs?
Should this be a litmus test for employment? Are there other positions that should not be allowed to filled with non-PC beliefs?

Awfully interesting similarities between the ban of Donald Sterling and the forced resignation of Brandon Eich.
They both expressed non-PC beliefs that a majority of stake holders in their organizations could not abide. Sterling verbally. Eich through a political contribution and subsequent restating of his position.
The Sterling ban and probable revocation of his NBA franchise seems almost universally accepted.
The Eich forced resignation has some appalled. The only difference is that the discrimination against blacks is repugnant to everyone. But the discrimination against homosexuals (Through a refusal to accept their unions as legal and equivalent marriages in law) is still acceptable to many.