Hutchinson Leader - LETTER: Police supported in effort to organize union - Comments

I could care less if the

johnsonthom — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:52:43 -0500

I could care less if the police department chooses to be a part of a union or not. What I do care about is why the city hired an outside attorney. Was the city attorney busy? The city can't afford mosquito spraying but we can afford to hire an outside attorney to include police sergeants in a union vote . From what I have read here they can join their own union. Where can I find out how much the city spent on this attorney. Maybe they could have used that money to keep me mosquito free next year. Does the mayor approve this? city council? did you get any answers tNt4ever?

You are correct many do not

ThAtSsOrAvEn — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:29:40 -0500

You are correct many do not call hutch home. Some leave because they are not pleased about this or that... some just leave.

Oh Banderson, are you still

Aura_Lee — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:10:12 -0500

Oh Banderson, are you still upset that the cops pulled over one of your buddies for no reason?

ThAtSsOrAvEn. You are

Terry Davis — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:13:38 -0500

ThAtSsOrAvEn. You are absolutely correct. Not everyone in every profession necessarily intends to make their entire career in Hutchinson. But isn't that what I said? I never said I cared who left or who stayed. I was pointing out, based on my professional experience and contacts, some reasons some officers move on.

It is no different in my profession. I've seen literally dozens of co-workers come and go for various reasons — many for a career change, some because a spouse makes a career move, but others to advance on to larger papers, including dailies.

Yes, I do know several police officers. You don't put in more than 28 years in this business and not get to know many of them. I even played rec league softball with a couple of them 22 years ago soon after I moved here and they were still teenagers in high school.

(Terry Davis is a Hutchinson Leader staff writer. E-mail him at davis@hutchinsonleader.com.)

The whole thread is about

gopher5 — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:05:34 -0500

The whole thread is about police wanting to unionize so why would he bring up other occupations. Terry was responding to another post in which it was said that police officers were leaving because of bad morale.

terry, Couldn't the same be

ThAtSsOrAvEn — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:45:02 -0500

terry,
Couldn't the same be said of teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers? Not everyone who gets dumped in this town wants to crank off 40 years here... Terry, why such a fondness for the cops... why do you feel compelled to give a crap about who stays and who leaves.

If this truly was about

williamj.lepetomane — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:56:22 -0500

If this truly was about employee freedom it would give employees who don't want to belong a union and pay union dues the oppurtunity to opt-out in a union shop in order to negotiate their own contract. A simple majority takes away that option for ALL employees, period.
"once a majority of workers indicate they want a union by signing cards". You conveniently forgot about the "in front of their employer, coworkers and the nlrb representatives" part. And this harmless little sign-up event becomes a de-facto election with no privacy and every oppurtunity for coercion on both sides. Also indicating your wish for a secret ballot election is a default indication you wish to vote "no". Again, no privacy.
"because one side has all the power"- so if I decide to make the investment in time, infrastructure, etc. to open a business I shouldn't be able to tell employees who have agreed to work for me of their own free will what to do while at work, what I expect from them at work and, if I don't believe union organizing activities are conducive to a healthy and efficient work environment that I can't discourage that activity or tell my workers of my opinion? Doesn't sound like I'm the boss anymore. Also, the potential employee has the power to refuse the offered employment.
"Strengthens penalties for companies that illegally coerce or intimidate employees in an effort to prevent them from forming a union" How about some penalties for union organizers who disrupt an efficient workplace and diminish the moral of employees who don't wish to join.
Union proponents fail to understand that the market for jobs is like any other market, both sides have to agree that what the other is offering is worth what they are giving in return, otherwise no deal(no job). Unless you are in a communist country, you can look at other jobs. Also, the assumption that being in a union is the best and only way to deal with your employer and that as an employee there is something wrong with you if you don't agree with that just shows how much respect union supporters have for a person to make up their own mind.
And my favorite bit of union speak for the day-"America’s working people are struggling to make ends meet, and our middle class is disappearing. The best opportunity working men and women have to get ahead is by uniting with co-workers to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits.". Increasing what it costs an employer to employ someone by adding another cost layer decreases the number of employees that a company can afford and takes away funds that could be used for capital investments and company growth that would result in more jobs. The bosses money is not yours until you EARN it. Then you can decide what to do with it. Boss not giving you enough?-find one who will. Can't find one who will?-Maybe you need to look at what you're offering the boss or maybe a different career path altogether. This is not a communist country.(yet-we're already a socialist nanny-state)
Again I say that arguing to take away the secret ballot(and this IS what this bill is about) makes me question where the value of freedom lies an your values list. You want to be concerned about employees without power or freedom?-go to China, North Korea or any other communist country. I'm happy where my boss and I can both agree what we're worth to each other. No need for an artificial layer of middle men and regulations. If one of us isn't happy, we both have options. And that, my fellow Americans, is beautiful, simple, and true freedom.

gov.

Why do we need new federal

hutchleo — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:51:43 -0500

Why do we need new federal legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act?

America’s working people are struggling to make ends meet, and our middle class is disappearing. The best opportunity working men and women have to get ahead is by uniting with co-workers to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits.

But the current labor law system is broken. Corporations routinely intimidate, harass, coerce and even fire people who try to organize unions—and today’s labor law is powerless to stop them. Every day, employers deny working people the freedom to make their own choice about whether to have a union:

* Employees are fired in one-quarter of private-sector union organizing campaigns;
* 78 percent of private employers require supervisors to deliver anti-union messages to the workers whose jobs and pay they control;
* And even after workers successfully form a union, one-third of the time they are not able to get a contract.

What does the Employee Free Choice Act do?

It does three things to level the playing field for employees and employers:

1. Strengthens penalties for companies that illegally coerce or intimidate employees in an effort to prevent them from forming a union;
2. Brings in a neutral third party to settle a contract when a company and a newly certified union cannot agree on a contract after three months;
3. Establishes majority sign-up, meaning that if a majority of the employees sign union authorization cards, validated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a company must recognize the union.

Does the Employee Free Choice Act take away so-called secret ballot elections?

No. If one-third of workers want to have an NLRB election at their workplace, they can still ask the federal government to hold an election. The Employee Free Choice Act simply gives them another option—majority sign-up.

“Elections” may sound like the most democratic approach, but the NLRB process is nothing like any democratic elections in our society—presidential elections, for example—because one side has all the power. The employer controls the voters’ paychecks and livelihood, has unlimited access to speak against the union in the workplace while restricting pro-union speech and has the freedom to intimidate and coerce the voters.

Once a majority of workers indicate they want a union by signing cards, the company should not be able to drag the process out for months as they can under a management-controlled election process. The will of the majority should be recognized.

Having covered the "police

Terry Davis — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:53:35 -0500

Having covered the "police beat" for about 15 years, I've seen a slight increase in turnover of officers on the force. The reasons for someone moving on are varied. In many cases, officers have moved on to metro area police forces, some to suburbs, others to Minneapolis or St. Paul departments.

The same stability some have alluded to can itself be a reason for moving on. If you are an officer with 5-10 years experience and have aspirations of advancement, that might be difficult to achieve on a force where most of the sergeants are late 20s to late 30s and likely here for another 10 to 15 years. That might cause someone to seek a larger, more fluid department with possibilities for advancement.

Others may seek "more action" than is provided in what is essentially a pretty quiet law enforcement town for the most part.

And finally, not all officers are natives of Hutchinson and see making this their home forever. They may seek to move closer to their homes. Even some Hutchinson natives have moved on to larger departments.

So I don't think we can make blanket statements that all officers are moving on because of some hidden dissatisfaction with how HPD is operated. That may be the case with some, but others have reasons more related to opportunities for advancement.

(Terry Davis is a Hutchinson Leader staff writer. E-mail him at davis@hutchinsonleader.com.)

I absolutely agree that the

marjoriehope — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:30:17 -0500

I absolutely agree that the union has nothing to do with lazy workers, which is why I was so suprised when blogger implied that it did. I highly doubt that there is a group of lazy police officers sitting around in Hutchinson thinking that they need a union to protect their laziness. I am sure they have many valid reasons for believing that a union would improve their work environment and I hope they have a chance to find out.

I have lived in this area

henryjohn — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:16:49 -0500

I have lived in this area for many years. I can remember back when there would not be an open position for extended periods of time at our police department. As a member of the community, I like when there is stability at our police department. I think a familiar face is nice, easier to work with, and easier to share your problems with, which in turn would help create a safer community for everyone. I have noticed over the last several years that we continue to lose employee after employee at our police department, so I looked into it for myself.

Since the year 2000, that police department loses an average of 3-4 employees every year. Granted, some of these are due to retirement, but apparently very few (approximately 4). I have seen several young faces leave this community for other communities and I am tired of it. I have noticed that there is not much difference between our community and the ones that we are losing our employees to. So given that I ask the question, why are they leaving? How can we become more competitive and keep these employees here? What is the problem with our Police Department? I think only the men and women of our law enforcement agency could answer that best. I do know that most, if not all cities the size of Hutchinson or larger are organized (union). I have heard unions are supposed to create a more equal and fair work environment for all employees. I am not sure why the thought of a union is so scary for some people, but times have changed and maybe it’s time for our police department to change as well. I am not sure why we have lost all of the employees down there, but I think that a union could not hurt the police department. Maybe it will create that stability that the department once had. My thought is, why not try the union, what can this city possibly lose?

As to the individual known only as “blogger”, I think your blog is very inaccurate and unjust. I have personally met and know most of the employees that make up our police department. I think it is an unfair statement to say any of them are “lazy”. I believe each and every employee at that department brings something unique to this community that could and should make our Police Department one of the finest. Now it’s just a matter of how do we hang on to those employees and I think, if they want a union, give them what they want, we need to stop this rotating door.

The issue of union or

ThAtSsOrAvEn — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:57:46 -0500

The issue of union or non-union has nothing to do with any police officer being lazy. The police officers are no different than any other work-group. Some may be lazy and some may be hard working. No different than a group of teachers, lawyers, farmers, or nurses... some are lazy and some are not... we have lazy 3M workers and HTI employers...

Lazy police officers??? I

marjoriehope — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:59:11 -0500

Lazy police officers??? I have been reading the newpaper articles and online comments regarding the unionization of our police department. I was suprised by the comments submitted by canthelpbutlaugh and blogger. They were very different from the previous postings, which were mostly debating factual information. The undertones and emotion within the two most recent comments, suggest that they were written by someone who is closely involved with the police department or possibly works there. I, as a tax payer and member of this community, was shocked to read that we supposedly have "lazy" police officers. I would be interested to know how many of our officers are truly productive and how many are "lazy".

I also would like to comment on the statement that unions protect lazy workers. I am a member of a union and have seen, throughout my career, colleagues reprimended for not properly doing their job. The union did not prevent our supervisors from correcting those worker's actions or giving a consequence; however it did allow the workers the right to have someone present to ensure that their rights were protected and that they were treated fairly.

Why Unionize is the

Blogger — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:35:44 -0500

Why Unionize is the question?

The union (grouped as a whole) seems like they are just out there for the money. It doesn't matter to them as long as they are getting a check every month.

I have talked with several people that have dealt with union's or been apart of unions and it seems like to me that the union is there for the "lazy employee," that is worried about being reprimanded for something they percieve as wrong or incorrect. If these people would actually do the job correctly and without complaining about it then you shouldn't have to worry about it.

It would save a whole lot of trouble, and we wouldn't even be discussing the matter. These are my opinions.

(I will be quiet and read the posts)

If unions were such a great

Canthelpbutlaugh — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:00:01 -0500

If unions were such a great thing and they truly were looking out for every workers best interest, then why doesn't everyone belong to one? You would thnk that if they were doing such great things for "all workers" that people would be jumping all over the chance to join, but that simply is not the case and that alone begs the question, well why not?

LETTER: Police supported in effort to organize union

Melissa Sullivan — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:00:00 -0500

From Diane Leonard
Darwin

I am writing in support of Hutchinson police officers being organized and part of a union. I belong to Education Minnesota, one of the largest unions in our state.