but their own power

they give a bad name to unions.

Politicians didn't turn their backs on all cops when the 5% of criminal bad apples murdered civilians. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...that union head must have an IQ of zero.

Throw the book at them.

he did not order, warn or threaten, and in fact made it clear he wasn't doing so in his statement. It was only a request because he lacked the authority to order them not to protest the mayor, and if he had tried, the matter would already be before the NLRB or federal court with an injunction countermanding the order. The First Amendment and labor and contract law apply to conservative groups and individuals as much as those with whom we agree, and no public official can order the police to offer fealty to the anyone.

As with the events at the Ramos funeral, I thought the back-turning was generally disrespectful, distracted from the solemnity of the event, and was unnecessarily provocative in a tense and dangerous atmosphere. I also similarly acknowledge that it was perfectly legal and permissible.

NYPD uniforms to not protest the mayor? That is a political action. Political actions while in police uniform are almost always prohibited by contract. (Bringing fealty into the conversation is absurd.)

ETA I am asking for specifics as to their contract and you have stated previously that this is your legal field of work in NY (although when asked, you didn't reply as to whether you, as a trial attorney, represent only the police, or also take cases representing victims of the police.)

that prohibit protests while in uniform. I believe you are expressing your belief in what the contract and law should be, not what it actually states. If you were correct, Bratton would not have needed to have been so clear and careful in his statement.

If you (or the mayor or police commissioner) believe that the police conduct violated any rule or regulation, you would bear the burden of both establishing the explicit rule and proving its breach. The police would not need to prove their innocence.

I do not currently represent police or those alleging civil rights violation against them, and have no direct professional or pecuniary interest in the NYPD, either from the perspective of a plaintiff or defendant. My knowledge of labor law and unions is based upon my work at the NLRB (Region 29 - Brooklyn), my prior labor practice including both unions and management, and basic NYC law and politics.

They're using their special status as uniformed officers to make a political statement.

You seem to have some knowledge of what's in their contract and how the law applies. Or at least a belief or two.

I get that you're generally throwing a big bucket of cold lawyerspeak over the idea that they're doing anything wrong but perhaps you could do a little more than simply shut down the conversation.

What is acceptable behavior in uniform? What are the historical limitations? Any cases to cite?

I doubt I'm the only one who would appreciate the expert opinion of someone at least tangentially involved in this sort of thing.

In fact, I've explicitly and repeated stated that the back-turning was disrespectful, was inconsistent with the solemnity of the funeral and distracted from the grief of the family, and was unduly provocative.

My objections are solely about the demands and expectations that the officers suffer discipline over entirely lawful and protected conduct.

I've discussed the legal issues in greater detail in a number of posts and threads over the past week or so. However, if someone asserts that the officers should face discipline, it is incumbent on them to cite the law and regulation that was purportedly violated, demonstrate the nature, type and extent of the violation, and how the suggested discipline in consistent with the Constitution, federal, state and local labor law and the express provisions of the relevant collective bargaining agreement. General allegations of "disrespect" and "insubordination" as a basis for termination are ridiculous.

DU is usually a bastion of support for labor and union rights, free speech and protests against authority. However, when those rights are enjoyed by a conservative group like the police, suddenly many are prepared to arbitrarily fire unionized public employees peacefully protesting the powers that be without due process.

I was asking if you were aware of any historical cases that might help us laymen establish the dividing line between allowable behavior in uniform and behavior that was punished.

It's not a typical union versus management situation with public safety at risk, is it? As much as we love unions here at DU I doubt there are many of us that would put the union scoring political points over somebody's life.

It does not prevent them from engaging in the political process akin to the restrictions of active duty military.

The issue of political action while wearing a uniform is part of a large body of law concerning speech by public employees. The relevant issue is whether the speech of the employees can reasonably be understood as that of the government, with the uniform, whether the conduct occurred on or off-duty, and if it was a collective action concerning terms and conditions of employment, all being relevant factors in any analysis. The terms of the collective bargaining agreement are also usually dispositive. Unsurprisingly, the law generally favors the public employees.

In this instance, the off-duty police were protesting the mayor concerning his comments about issues related to the police such officer safety and support and their contract. They were wearing their formal uniforms in connection with a funeral of an officer slain in the line of duty. They were not engaging in any campaign or related activities.

The criticism of the involved officers was actually that it effectively opposed the government's position, not that it was in any portraying or confusing the position of the government. That is why neither the mayor nor police commissioner have suggested discipline and the commissioner was very explicit that his request that the officers not turn their backs to the mayor was only a request, not an order, and any refusal would not be subject to discipline.

It appears that all the relevant players in City government understand all these basic issues, and many here are just lashing out without realizing that if the police were actually disciplined under their conditions, apart from the labor hypocrisy, the "slippery slope" legal precedent would be set to virtually crush other public employee unions and their political activity.

Who encounters those same officers in uniform the next day be reasonably expected to see a difference?

I concede your point. I'm not trying to argue that they should be disciplined under these circumstances for the offense of turning their backs. There are free to do so.

They'll pay a price in the court of public opinion and probably in their negotiations with the city. That was their choice.

That said, wearing the uniform of an organization that supposedly is there to protect the entirety of the general public while making a political statement that is offensive to many members of that public still bothers me.

Again, as you acknowledge, the primary issue is whether the police activities were legal and permissible, not whether anyone agrees with them. Public unions often take active positions that are disagreeable with much of the public, and it barely registers with the press. The entirety of the Guiliani administration was one long stream of public unions being disrespectful to the duly elected mayor of the city.

Note that if the officers were actually campaigning against the mayor in an election while in uniform, with political buttons on the uniform and carrying signs, the legal analysis might be different, or at least less certain. Nevertheless, the discipline would be minor, probably a warning, and would not result in termination, as many here demand.

that turned their back on the mayor and booed when he addressed them? Aren't they on probation or something that could allow for discipline? I was really outraged by that action.

not the actual cadets, although I admit my knowledge of that particular incident is not exceptional.

However, the cadets weren't really on-duty, at least as I would expect such condition to be defined under the relevant contracts, and they still would have extensive public employee speech and general free speech protections. I would hardly be surprised if legally, any actions by the cadets were examined in the same manner as would graduates at a state college turning their backs on a controversial graduation speaker. Do not make the mistake of equating the police academy, a civilian institution, with the expectations and obligations of the institutions like the military.

Further, even if discipline were a legal possibility, enforcing it would be a political disaster. Mayor deBlasio has been reading the polls, attempting to lower the tension with the NYPD, and praising them incessantly. If he were to try to punish a bunch of very young men and women for opposing him politically, he would be portrayed as a thin-skinned bully by much of the NYC press, not just conservatives on Fox, and the rest of the force would no doubt employ every legal and questionable means to punish the mayor. Punishing the cadets, if possible, might prove cathartic for many on the left, but it would have little political upside and significant and long-lasting disadvantages. It would also set a poor precedent for acceptable discipline of public employees beyond the NYPD. I would imagine that behind the scenes that other union bosses, although the disagree with the NYPD, would oppose anything that could hurt them and their members in the future, particularly with less liberal administrations.

and this is the problem. Cops are rarely held accountable for their actions. This is a huge problem. Their reaction to honest criticism of excessive force.

deBlasio has held his own here and I hope he survives this temper tantrum by the police. The city of New York needs a mayor who will stop coddling cops and make them answerable to the public. The NYPD are New Yorkers too, and they must be feeling some heat in the city.

Thanks for answering my question.

which is unsurprising in a pro-union state and city like NYC and NY.

I believe that the tension between the mayor and NYPD will mostly subside, particularly after the PBA contract arbitration, and assuming no officers or citizens die in politically tenuous circumstances. Remember that every mayor in NYC, liberal and conservative, fights with the mayor. It's as NYC as the Statue of Liberty and the Yankees. Even law and order Guiliani and stop and frisk Bloomberg fought with the NYPD.

They just sat there, listened to his speech and gave him polite applause at the end of it. It was some people that were there to attend the graduation in the family/friend/etc. section that booed.

They are nothing more that graduating students who at the time were not under ANY police department since being new graduates did not yet have any jobs, and like most academy graduates many if not most won't be working for the NYPD anyway but some other police department elsewhere. As graduating students they're only subject to the rules of the academy, and like any school any behavior the school finds to be inappropriate can result in disciplinary action.

by the notion that the police somehow give up their right to protest peacefully because they are police. If the powers that be were condoning facism, would it be improper for the rank and file to protest?

we turn our backs on our bosses. That is insubordination and is always a firing offense. The fact that they are in uniform means they are representing the department and as such , they have no right to display political views.

This is ridiculous!

with the actual law or relevant contracts, and quite frankly, either your union is ineffective, lazy or you are just too cynical.

I doubt anything I write will make much of a difference. However, next time a more popular or liberal union engages in controversial political activity or fights against issues like right-to-work laws, not only will they have my support, I'll be sure to point out how many here believed such conduct was actually "insubordinate" or "disrespectful" of authority.

makes a stand for the right of their workers to beat the shit out of random people without consequence you'll have a lot of DUers right there with you.

I've enjoyed reading your posts however I don't think you've made a good case that police unions are the moral equal of traditional labor unions. They enjoy the same legal protections but their special relationship with the general public holds them to a different standard in terms of right and wrong.

Just this Liberal's perspective.

However, the result is that the state is now basically right-to-work, except for the police and fire unions.

Divide and conquer among different unions is just plain bad for the labor movement. Police are essentially no different from any other public employees, and in fact are far more typical of a blue collar employee needing protections against management than highly trained and paid white collar employees such as teachers or nurses.

There are also means to differentiate police from other unions without affecting their fundamental nature. For instance, certain unions dealing with essential services, such as the police in New York State or the air traffic controllers, may not engage in a strike.

forget how the law perceives them. Imagine how the public perceives them and how that plays into the right wing divide and conquer strategy. Walker isn't as stupid as he looks.

The police unions are dragging the union movement down. They aren't a last bastion to defend.

They are a perfect conservative foil for unions in general......provided they take their positions to the extreme.

Which is what they're doing.

However, to the extent that the law is not already clear, I do not want to see negative legal and political precedent established because of challenges to the police unions, particularly because the represent such a small part of overall union solidarity.

I agree that they are, in many way, the perfect "conservative" union. That is precisely why we must be vigilant not to make foolish choices concerning them when those same laws and rules apply to every "good" union from the teachers to autoworkers. I assure you that the Republicans would readily and happily sacrifice the police if it meant striking a blow to all public sector unionized workers.

I will concede your point. But they don't and shouldn't.

because it violates US constitutional law and labor standards.

These are government employees, and the First Amendment certainly protects anyone against restraint of speech by the government. Blasio and Bratton are government.

I figured a few hot-headed assholes would pull that stunt again.

Have you seen the photos?

Looks to be several hundred.

after being warned.

I am all for free speech, but a funeral is not the time. Not at all while you are in uniform. Don't they have a code of ethics for work times-that they can't be involved in a political action? WTH?

irrespective of wearing the uniform, and would likely still be protected as unionized public employees for such a silent and peaceful, albeit disrespectful and provocative, protest while on-duty.

That's the thing about free speech, it applies to people, positions and circumstances you may find repugnant.

I was said to be representing the US Army and my unit, and I'm pretty sure there would have been repercussions for bad behavior.

Similarly, at my present civilian job, if I'm walking around in a shirt bearing the company logo and I act stupidly, my actions can be construed as reflecting on the company, because by wearing the logo I'm representing the company. I'm pretty sure there's a policy that says I can suffer consequences from that.

So it doesn't make sense to me that police officers wearing the uniform, whether on or off duty, could be considered to not be representing the department, and free to act as stupidly as they want. Would it be ok for same officers to go to a party or a bar and get drunk and outrageous while in uniform, even if not breaking any actual laws? Would it be ok for same officers to participate in some lewd but not illegal behavior while in uniform?

When you wear the uniform, you are representing the Department. And everything you do is under color of the law.

The police are unionized civilian public employees, and their protest was a collective employment action, and as such are entitled to some of the greatest legal protections available to any employee in the USA.

Comparisons to the military or unionized or non-union private employees are just not applicable in terms of law and politics.

Normally, DU members strongly support and are proud of the protections, accomplishments and solidarity of unionized and/or public employees and treasure their political involvement and activism. Labor and union support should not change simply because the message is conservative.

Untouchable?

Think again NYPD!

You are disgracing all the 9/11 good deeds and actions by being petty a holes.

the off-duty police back-turning, and is more ludicrous than comparing the NYPD to the military as a legal matter.

The back-turning was rude and disrespectful, but is was hardly illegal or constituted a strike.

If and when the police in NYC actually engage in an organized union strike, which is prohibited by NY law, then we'll talk.

similarly, burning a cross on someone's yard could merely be a conservative message.

a peaceful tactic often employed by liberal protesters, particularly on college campuses, by the police who are engaged in union contract negotiations with the city after working without a contract for five years, as equivalent to burning a cross on someone's yard?

It's the hate, disrespect, and exploitation that are at issue here.

And again, if you want me to give a flying fuck about the police union, you're going to have to show me some other service union that closes ranks to defend its members' right to murder their wards. Do teachers, firefighters, and nurses get to strangle people on the street, on camera, and have the union rally up for them?

although I don't believe you make the distinction between supporting the labor rights of police officers versus support for their message. However, if you believe that only unions that agree with you are entitled to legal and contractual protections, you certainly should never consider yourself a pro-labor Democrat.

Your issue also has nothing to do with the police unions, but rather just hatred of the police generally. I could cite ample horrors by teachers, firefighters and nurses that were zealously defended by the unions, as they should have been, and it would make no difference.

be sure to include the final results of this support.

Teacher arrested for molestation of a child. The union fought to make sure this teacher got $10,000 severance.
http://m.eagnews.org/?url=http%3A%2F%2Feagnews.org%2Fparents-are-stunned-that-the-teachers-union-is-seeking-a-10000-severance-for-the-teacher-who-molested-their-son%2F&dm_redirected=true#2907

1) The teacher was arrested. Already way more than faces any kilelr cop
2) Doesn't look like the union was out to protect his job or position on the staff.
3) Rather, enforcing a contractual obligation.

Also, I hope you stumbled on this one through a google search, and aren't a regular visitor to eagnews.org, because holy shit.

while eating dinner.
But they still fought to get that $10,000 for that pervert teacher. If I were the union I would, at MOST pay for the defense attorney. Or probably just refused to take his call.
But, I agree there needs to be more accountability for the cops. But the union can't be faulted for doing everything it can to protect its members. That's why they exist. You don't want your union to say, "I'd love to fight for a better dental plan (Lisa needs braces), but that wouldn't be good for the company." You'd want your union to fight tooth and nail to help you. Can't expect PBA to do any less for their members. Fight them in court, fight them in the city council, fight them at the ballot box. Just don't expect them to help you fight their members.
For good or ill, unions protect their own.

Even if that student was 18 years old or older. Forget about it with a younger student under the age of consent!! In either case, though, all teachers wanted that teacher gone, for two reasons: first, it was dangerous to the students; second, it made us all look bad. And I have seen this three times in my 23 years in public schools. Each time, the teachers were irate at the teacher who did this - they became pariahs.

Amazing that the NYPD doesn't feel the same way about cops who kill unarmed men and boys.

That's a murderous, terroristic threat. This action was entirely unlike that.

Branford is ENTIRELY right on the legal aspects.

I cannot believe that you made this statement. I implore you to rethink and withdraw it.

These people are the new KKK

certain things you could NOT do while wearing the uniform. such as you could not were a politically affiliated button, baseball hat etc. One could not campaign for a party in uniform.

whole-heartedly. In WI, a place where teachers used to be unionized, and I guess some still are, you were not allowed to say whatever you wanted. I can't quote the law case, I have the citation at work, but basically you are always representing education, and are always "on duty".

If a police officer is off duty don't they still represent the force? And if they have their uniforms on, can they just do whatever?

Teachers who have pretty much non-union status as public employees in WI have a 'handbook'. And it very clearly states in that handbook that there can be no politicking while on the job. No soliciting, no wearing of buttons, etc. And if we want to publicly criticize our state education system or local district, we have to be very careful what we say and do. If we wore uniforms, I'm pretty sure we would have to mind our p's and q's even more so, working or not.

and their actions were much worse than than the police back-turning. The police also have additional labor law and contractual protections beyond the First Amendment.

Like the Westboro Baptist Church, I oppose their message, but support their right to speak without government intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

shit kicked out of them.

Are you actually commenting on the legal protections provided to unionized public employees, the First Amendment, or anything remotely related?

Is your comment nothing more than a short anti-police screed or actually call for violence against the police? If so, it's the exact opposite of Mayor deBlasio's message.

while not on duty. The uniform represents the department. I can't believe you are defending their actions.

The city is also free to try to place limits on officers wearing their uniforms while off-duty as part of any contract negotiations or state law. I doubt they'll achieve much success, particularly as it relates to funerals of active duty officers.

Unions protect workers in the working environment. I don't know of any other occupation that allows workers to wear uniforms outside of work except the military and that comes with consequences if their behavior while wearing it isn't consistent with military standards.

they were respectfully asked not to turn their backs.

Right now they look very much like a bunch of spoiled brats.

Arrogant assholes...and if they are such pricks to do this, what will they do TO YOU?!?

That's really all that it is.

I hope the city council and the mayor hold a tough line during collective bargaining.

After 5 years of the patrol officers working with no contract, there's not much the city council or mayor can do at this point, and most tactics runs the risk of backfiring given current polling trends.

Poll from a few weeks ago:

Since you misrepresented the support the police (don't) enjoy, I'll put it here again:

Jan 2013 -
70% total approval
Whites 80%
Blacks 56%
Hispanics 67%

November 2014
54% total approval
35% black approval
43% Hispanic approval

The mayor would be thrilled if his numbers were as high as the police, and it explains why he's playing so nice and being so complementary about the NYPD.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/nyregion/mayor-de-blasio-finds-support-in-handling-of-protests-poll-finds.html

But you ignored them.

the mayor's overall approval rating is the relevant number. He appears to acknowledge this fact, I don't know why you are having such difficulty.

However, the greater polarization between whites and minorities demonstrate in the polling is hardly going to make the mayor's job any easier. Just ask David Dinkins.

They keep saying 'several' when it is hundreds....

protecting the interests of the 1% just like the NYPD

They own the media. Did you forget?

Do what Ronnie Raygoon did. Fire the lot of them.

Probably not. But if they are also not doing their job and it's documented, then yes...

Insubordination is a firing offense.

I doubt, but does anyone know for sure?

However, as a matter of custom, the families of NYPD officers never lack for large numbers of voluntary mourners at officer funerals, no less formal public funerals when the officer died in the line of duty.

nor is it a firing offense for turning their backs.
Police who come to funerals do it on their own time.

For the time they spend at the funeral?

the many other thousands of officers were there in voluntary attendance on their own time, including many officers outside the NYPD.

Why would you even think that mourners were being paid? The unions in NYC are strong, but not that strong.

I don't.

Fire the pampered, entitled brats. Or at least suspend them without pay while an investigation is done as to whether they would honor their oaths to protect. Seems like they wouldn't.

When it comes to police unions, DU often reads like Free Republic.

Just the opposite. If DeBlosio did fire them the repliCONS would scream bloody murder.

the city could probably discipline, including terminate, the participating officers.

However, the patently illegal PATCO action is nowhere near comparable to the back-turning by the off-duty police officers, despite the rage and exasperation of many here on DU.

Reagan's actions were also very controversial at the time, subject to legal challenge, and were highly criticized by liberals and unions nationwide.

Lastly, I do not base my positions on the legitimacy of unions and labor on who and what Republicans support.

Not one union joined with PATCO in the strike. Which by the way was to lessen unsafe working conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_%281968%29
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/reagan-vs-patco-the-strike-that-busted-unions.html?_r=0

support the law denying them that right. Turing their backs on the mayor however, is a childish act and insubordination that shouldn't be tolerated. I am sorry you can't see the difference.

MAJORITY of New Yorkers in his district - unlike the police thugs.

There is no defending this blatant insubordination by officers in uniform. You wanna protest the Mayor cuz he hurt your feelings? Leave the taxpayer funded uniform HOME.

I can't believe there are a few on this board who are adamantly defending the misconduct of the militarized police force after they blatantly MURDERED an unarmed civilian - and got away with it. Blind defenders are tyrants' bestest friends.

I'm very pro union but don't feel obligated to approve of every single action by every union.

and I certainly do not.

However, the police officers do not lose the support and protections of the Constitution, multitudes of labor laws, and the express contractual provisions of their collective bargaining agreement, because their message is conservative or offensive.

Are you really pro-union, or does your support for labor rights falter when confronted by strong unions activity, just with a message you do not support?

but draw the line where their activities negatively impact the common good.

No union is above reproach as a matter of principle. I think the police unions have and continue to make mistakes that are not acceptable.

They aren't building cars or digging coal out of a mountain, are they?

They, too, are not building cars or digging coal. Rather, as Scott Walker or the Kochs migh assert, they are responsible for our children, and those who are incompetent or engage in worse conduct like sexual assault do not deserve union protection.

Again, I strongly disagree with the message being sent by the officers, but acknowledge and defend their right to send the message.

Republicans would be delighted if union legitimacy and protection faced a "common good" standard. It would spell the beginning of the end to many unions, particularly those in the public sector.

What teacher's union where is defending that?

Straw man?

Police unions face unique "common good" standards. I wouldn't even bother with the "" what with being a liberal and all.

Common good.

See how easy?

So that now we know who all the loose cannons are there.

This OP article also describes as "several" all the officers who turned their backs at the earlier funeral. The photographs posted of that earlier funeral showed many hundreds of cops turning their backs.

Law enforcement officers turn their backs on a live video monitor showing New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as he speaks at the funeral of slain NYPD Officer Rafael Ramos on Dec. 27
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/nypd-commissioner-to-officers-dont-turn-you-backs-to-de-blas#.krwyG9NV1

fire their insubordinate murder tolerating asses.

by anyone. They were requested by Commissioner Bratton to not turn their backs. There is no insubordination.

I'm still trying to find out what the mayor is supposed to apologize for. Does the NYPD require an apology because the mayor and the citizens witnessed a cop get away with a murder caught on video and people are upset about it?

Also, how many #blacklivesmatter protesters would be arrested, tasered, tear-gassed and/or killed outright if they showed up at a police funeral and demonstrated equal disrespect.

on these assholes. At the very least, it's stunning insubordination...

If they were active military and it was the president it would be a different thing altogether but they arent and he isnt.

I wish the widows involved would complain - publicly. It is just not right to go to a funeral and make a scene like this.

That's why they win elections. Wrong and strong sells, just ask John Kerry and Al Gore. This nation of fools will soon be in History's dust bin.