[Chain]

I initially posted this in the Po-Po Forum, but decided to put it here in Off-Topic to get some feedback from outside the law enforcement community.

Free speech or gross insubordination? You be the judge...

http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/4283439/detail.html

From the Politics Makes for Strange Bedfellows file, the ACLU came
to Kevin's side, at least figuratively, in an op/ed piece in the local fish wrap this weekend. Sadly, it was too little, too late to prevent Kevin's firing.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=609&u_sid=1358025

So what do you guys think? I was the editor of the Shield for four years and served as chairman of the police union executive board for a term as well, so my feelings are such: so long as Kevin was wearing his union hat (which clearly he was), this is a free speech issue.

But perhaps I'm being less than totally objective here...

[sheepofblue]

Having not read the story my inclination is that he is getting the shaft. While his statements were harsh they were not made on duty nor in an official capacity. In my opinion you cannot be insubordinate while off the clock. Rather if they had an issue they could pursue slander charges (and probably lose)

[Heavy-Dee]

Hm, strange situation. I have some initial feelings, that are admitedly not fully thought out, so take them w/ a grain of salt.

Initially I'm inclined to say that if you can claim any type of benefit, or are held to any type of responsibility to your job while "off the clock", then I would say that you can be considered insobordinate as well.

It's just not a good idea to criticize management in an open forum. It's a line of loyalty that you just don't cross. If this officer had critizms of the chief he should have expressed them a little more professionally. For example, in the VP debate this past fall. Dick Cheney said "The President and I disagree on this issue, but he's my President and I support his policy." Same thing, IMO.

HD

[Newfie TLR]

OK, you're a cop of any rank, and you accuse your supreme leader (The Chief) and his boss (the mayor) of "lying" and "acting like petty criminals" and think you should not be held accountable for those statements???

I have said that kind of stuff to bosses before, (industry related, I'm not a cop), but it was behind closed doors. I didn't send an e-mail plant wide (which I guess would be the same as printing it in the Shield). Jeezuz Crow!!

Chain, if you were the Editor still, what would you have done with that article??

[bubba]

free speech or not he was making inappropriate comments about a superior. In the military he would have been Court Martialed and possible sent to make big rocks into smaller rocks

"he chastised Police Chief Thomas Warren and Mayor Mike Fahey, saying they're acting like "petty criminals" trying to "conceal some kind of crime."
" - he just called the Chief and Mayor criminals basically in front of the entire Police Force - he got what he deserved

[BDA116]

Freedom of speech does not mean there is no responsibility for things said, it only means that "Congress shall make no law......abridging the freedom of speech."
It may not be a happy situation, but his actual Constitutionally protected right was not taken away.
Anyone has the right to criticize their boss. However, that boss then has the right to reprimand that employee.

[luvtolean]

Based on another article I read about this, far worse things have been said in the Shield than what he said. I'd say this man said bad things about the wrong egomaniac.

I'm conflicted, it is real bad to publicly say nasty things about your superior, but based on those past articles, I can see why this officer thought it was OK to rant away.

I don't know enough about the rules of being a cop to say...what I will say is it is pretty tough to say "he was wearing his union hat"...and then other times he's wearing his "cop hat"....to me you're a hypocrite to say you have different rights at your own choosing.

[Chain]

Originally Posted by Newfie TLR

OK, you're a cop of any rank, and you accuse your supreme leader (The Chief) and his boss (the mayor) of "lying" and "acting like petty criminals" and think you should not be held accountable for those statements???

I have said that kind of stuff to bosses before, (industry related, I'm not a cop), but it was behind closed doors. I didn't send an e-mail plant wide (which I guess would be the same as printing it in the Shield). Jeezuz Crow!!

Chain, if you were the Editor still, what would you have done with that article??

The crux of the union's position is this: he wasn't speaking as a police officer when he made those statements. He's a duly elected union official. Our union is AFL-CIO and a member of the International Association of Police Unions. He was editorializing in the union paper on a matter of public safety. The police union will argue this insulated Kevin... but clearly it has not, at least not for the time being anyway.

I'll have to answer your question forthrightly, however, and admit I probably would have exercised some editorial authority over the piece were I still the union's lead scribe. Believe me when I say though, my poison pen was turned in the direction of many people and organizations during my four year tenure (the mayor, two police chiefs, district court judges, the local media, the ACLU and other community activist groups, etc.), but I tended to fight people on a very issues-based platform. That made me a harder target.

Having said that and even though I wouldn't have written the editorial in the same way Kevin did, I believe the only honest thing to do is to support him. We're talking about very rudimentary labor law here. An employer can't fire a union official for partaking in union business.

What's next? Firing members of our contract negotiating team when we engage in collective bargaining? Or what's to stop the chief from reaching out and nailing someone for what they might say over a couple of beers in a union meeting?

You think the rhetoric you saw in Kevin's editorial was bad?

Heck, you should attend a steel workers union meeting sometime, these guys are leg breakers!

[Chain]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Based on another article I read about this, far worse things have been said in the Shield than what he said. I'd say this man said bad things about the wrong egomaniac.

I'm conflicted, it is real bad to publicly say nasty things about your superior, but based on those past articles, I can see why this officer thought it was OK to rant away.

I don't know enough about the rules of being a cop to say...what I will say is it is pretty tough to say "he was wearing his union hat"...and then other times he's wearing his "cop hat"....to me you're a hypocrite to say you have different rights at your own choosing.

Great observations/opinions in paragraphs one and two.

A question on your third, however...

Isn't the simple answer this? He's a police officer when he's on duty and/or during times he makes a claim that he's speaking as a police officer or on behalf of the PD versus when he's actually in the union office, wearing an embroidered golf shirt which says Omaha Police Union, working on the union's monthly books (he's the Secretary, as opposed to secretary), or writing an editorial in the monthly union rag?

[Newfie TLR]

Chain, by supporting him, you are publicly agreeing with what he said, right???

Don't compare this incident to a negotian of a Union Collective Agreement. That's like comparing US beer and Canadian beer!!

• USWA - United Steel Workers of America, '78 - '87
• UFCW - United Food and Commercial Workers '87-89
• CAW - Canadian Auto Workers '95-'99

Don't talk to me about Unions. I have very strong, personal opinions that would get me flamed to no end here, and everywhere else I get into a discussion on that subject. It ranks right up there with Religion, Politics and Medicine.

[Chain]

Originally Posted by Newfie TLR

Chain, by supporting him, you are publicly agreeing with what he said, right???

While I don't agree with the exact manner in which he said it, yes, I'll publicly say I agree with the point he was trying to make. The administration has been obfuscating for years regarding the issue of police response time to a citizen's call for help. If they were more forthright regarding this issue, citizens might feel less protected than they would like and a good case would be made that we are in need of more police officers. Everything is governed by politics, even public safety. Sad but true.

Originally Posted by Newfie TLR

Don't talk to me about Unions. I have very strong, personal opinions that would get me flamed to no end here, and everywhere else I get into a discussion on that subject. It ranks right up there with Religion, Politics and Medicine.

Hrmm.

Maybe Conq should move this to Politics then...

[Chain]

Originally Posted by Newfie TLR

Don't compare this incident to a negotian of a Union Collective Agreement.

Fine, but where do we draw the line then? Should a boss have authority over what goes in a union publication? What's said at a union meeting? Etc?

That's a slippery slope I don't want to go down.

[slodsm]

Originally Posted by bubba

free speech or not he was making inappropriate comments about a superior. In the military he would have been Court Martialed and possible sent to make big rocks into smaller rocks

Being this is the only association to this incident I can relate with, I would have to agree. Although you can't stop him for excercising his right to free speech, there are consequences to everything you do and say. He could have perhaps been a bit more tactful and still gotten the point across. Like I said though, I am a Marine, not a Cop so I can't really comment inteligently on it.

[Chain]

Originally Posted by slodsm

Being this is the only association to this incident I can relate with, I would have to agree. Although you can't stop him for excercising his right to free speech, there are consequences to everything you do and say. He could have perhaps been a bit more tactful and still gotten the point across. Like I said though, I am a Marine, not a Cop so I can't really comment inteligently on it.

I appreciate both your comments and the ones made by bubba that provoked them, but we're really not the U.S. Military.

A para-military organization, yes, but there is a mighty big distinction to be made here, don't you think?

[slodsm]

I believe there is, thats why I said I couldn't really make an inteligent comment on it. I have often contemplated leaving the corps to be a cop but I just have not made the move yet for fear that the politics will be even worse. Reading things like this make me think I may be right. When the general public gets too involved in certain organizations, it seems they tend to start screwing up a good thing.

The 20/20 videos on the pinning of the jump wings back in 96 for example, it should have never been shown because it sparked a lot of things that rolled down hill and made the military egg shells for a long time, still is in a way. I think a lot of the police brutality BS videos which were shown from a very one sided point of view did the same in your proffesion.

Damn I can get off topic quick when I start thinking about this stuff.

[Chain]

You're still in? Props to you!

My uncle George (whom I never knew) was one of the Marines of the Frozen Chosin. Was awarded the Bronze Star, posthumously. His name is inscribed on a monument in Omaha's Memorial Park in mid-town.

I have nothing but respect for you and yours...

[Newfie TLR]

Originally Posted by Chain

snip.....obfuscating...snip

MOM, THEY'RE USING BIG WORDS AGAIN!!!

Originally Posted by Chain

SNIP..... Everything is governed by politics, even public safety. Sad but true....SNIP

Unfortunately, I have to agree.

[Newfie TLR]

Originally Posted by Chain

Fine, but where do we draw the line then? Should a boss have authority over what goes in a union publication? What's said at a union meeting? Etc?

That's a slippery slope I don't want to go down.

Normally, no, definately not. However, the statement in question is bodering slander, that's different.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Chain

Isn't the simple answer this? He's a police officer when he's on duty and/or during times he makes a claim that he's speaking as a police officer or on behalf of the PD versus when he's actually in the union office, wearing an embroidered golf shirt which says Omaha Police Union, working on the union's monthly books (he's the Secretary, as opposed to secretary), or writing an editorial in the monthly union rag?

Cops, on duty or off, have special privelages. With this, come certain restrictions.

While personally, I'd imagine what he said is probably true, he could have chosen the high ground, a well argued case for the issue at hand, without pointing fingers. Let the information tell the story. IMO, this is what he should've done.

I do think it really sucks he was sacked. I'm sure he'll sue, and in the end, as usual, we'll pay for a politician being a prick.

I do not think being in a union gives one special rights of ANY kind. Especially since a union is a political entity. This officer engaged a "real" politician, and got his ass kicked. He chose his battle poorly.

But of course, my union sentiments are probably along the lines of those of Newfie...

[Newfie TLR]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Cops, on duty or off, have special privelages. With this, come certain restrictions.

While personally, I'd imagine what he said is probably true, he could have chosen the high ground, a well argued case for the issue at hand, without pointing fingers. Let the information tell the story. IMO, this is what he should've done.

I do think it really sucks he was sacked. I'm sure he'll sue, and in the end, as usual, we'll pay for a politician being a prick.

I do not think being in a union gives one special rights of ANY kind. Especially since a union is a political entity. This officer engaged a "real" politician, and got his ass kicked. He chose his battle poorly.

But of course, my union sentiments are probably along the lines of those of Newfie...

Well said LTL, especially the part about getting his ass kicked by a real politician.

Don't get me wrong Chain, I hate to see anyone fired, especially for something as trivial as a bad choice of words at the wrong time. But he made his bed, so.................................

[Fig]

Originally Posted by Chain

We're talking about very rudimentary labor law here. An employer can't fire a union official for partaking in union business.

What's next? Firing members of our contract negotiating team when we engage in collective bargaining? Or what's to stop the chief from reaching out and nailing someone for what they might say over a couple of beers in a union meeting?

You think the rhetoric you saw in Kevin's editorial was bad?

Heck, you should attend a steel workers union meeting sometime, these guys are leg breakers!

Chain,
Don't take this wrong, but it seems that less and less people are protected nowadays by these "rudimentary labor laws". I watched 12 people walk out of our building the other day for no more reason than they weren't "needed". I think you are going to find little sympathy from a crowd that walks a line every day not knowing whether or not we are going to have a job the next week even if we do our job at 110% capacity.
I see your position, but when you push limits, you have to expect to get pushed back. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and unfortunately for him, it wasn't the reaction he was expecting. I say he takes his lumps and lets this be a lesson to him.
Fig

[Chain]

Originally Posted by Newfie TLR

Normally, no, definately not. However, the statement in question is bodering slander, that's different.

Parsing words with you here, but it would be libel, not slander (written v. uttered defamation). Either way, I think the City will have to show -in a substantiative way- that the mayor or chief's character, fame, or reputation has been impacted by what Kevin said in his editorial.

It's going to be interesting to see if the judge who eventually finds him or herself in front of this case decides if 'unionspeak' is or is not protected by law. That's what this case will hinge on IMO.

[Chain]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Cops, on duty or off, have special privelages. With this, come certain restrictions.

While personally, I'd imagine what he said is probably true, he could have chosen the high ground, a well argued case for the issue at hand, without pointing fingers. Let the information tell the story. IMO, this is what he should've done.

I do think it really sucks he was sacked. I'm sure he'll sue, and in the end, as usual, we'll pay for a politician being a prick.

I do not think being in a union gives one special rights of ANY kind. Especially since a union is a political entity. This officer engaged a "real" politician, and got his ass kicked. He chose his battle poorly.

But of course, my union sentiments are probably along the lines of those of Newfie...

Pretty hard to find any fault in this post LTL, well articulated.

I appreciate you guys chiming in here. Ten years ago I was more narrow minded than I am these days. I actively look for citizens' opinions on the policing profession and related current events. We are, after all, your employees.

[Chain]

Originally Posted by Fig

Chain, Don't take this wrong... (snip)

Zero offense taken. Interesting stuff, thanks for weighin