Sheriff Fires Cop Who Threatened to Arrest Me for Taking Photos of Cops

I know of many cases where employees were accused of either committing crimes or extreme violations of the "workplace rules" and the Union would not represent them before the company. These instances are the exceptions, of course, and the Union does represent the employee the overwhelming majority of the time -- and are, more often than not, successful in at least saving the employee's job.

This is not a Police Union, of course, so things may very well be different. It is my understanding that the officers in a Police Union are almost always current or former police officers and I would guess that they would represent an officer accused of wrongdoing in all but perhaps the most extreme cases (and, in those cases, it's probably mostly due to P.R.).

In my opinion, an officer accused of wrongdoing is entitled to due process just like anyone else. It does upset me, however, that Police Unions will often do anything they can to save an officer's job regardless of what s/he has done and/or the seriousness of the violation. I realize that that is what they are supposed to do but it ends up reflecting badly on the police department when Officer Smith was found to have done ${whatever} and escapes with little or no consequences.

You don't need to be convicted to be fired; you should not need to be convicted to have your union cut you loose.

For instance if you have approximately 120 allegations against him and 21 cases of sustained misconduct Should you get a 121st (or 142nd/22nd however you count) chance? I wouldn't say this is so much the guild exercising a choice, to defend or not, as them giving up on a 'habitual line stepper'. A whistle blower usually only gets 1 chance to blow the whistle (rather than 20-30) so I'd imagine that's a totally different situation for a number of reasons.

Idealistic sidenote: Being that the Guild is for Police Officers, who's main purpose is to protect the public and stop crime (Ok yes the supreme court said that police are not there to 'protect and serve' but to 'enforce') shouldn't the fact that one of their members seems to be continually in trouble with the public at large concern them rather than be something they blindly have to dispute? /idealism

The right to an attorney are with respect to criminal proceedings. A defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel in any civil proceeding, including a deportation hearing. A fair trial is something that should be available to everyone, but if the lawyers are bogged down defending cases that their own members don't support, then either those unions or those business owners are doomed. I understand this to be a deliberate consequence of union formation, the threat of force is truly a compelling bargaining chip.

Many employment agreements are "at-will" and employers can terminate their employees without cause. In the case where such a firing is really "without cause," I agree that a union should support their member by representing the aggrieved party and making sure they get their unemployment benefits, but if the law says the employer has the right to terminate the employee for any reason or no reason, then this policeman can justly be fired with a laundry list of complaints -- that dwarfs the complaints for every other officer in the precinct -- and a last straw, is this constitutional violation, bullying a person off of public property for taking some pictures of public officials "doing their job."

If I were the union steward, I would meet with the officer well in advance of the hearing, before it had even been scheduled. I would have to open with "OK, convince me."