Harless to get job back

[eye95]

I have said no such thing. You may feel like I have. But that is only if you feel convicted by my general accusations. That is you seeing yourself in what I say. Think on that.

BTW, you did not fully quote my post. Nor did you use "snip" or ellipses to notify readers that you abbreviated what I said. That is dishonest.

The part you left off is "Moving on."

 

[OC for ME]

It seems that the Massillon prosecutor’s office failed to watch the same video I watched.

The city law department asked the Massillon prosecutor’s office to determine whether Harless’ actions warranted criminal charges. John Simpson, chief prosecutor for the city of Massillon, said that he reviewed state law for menacing, aggravated menacing and assault, but there was insufficient evidence to support any charges. -Canton Repository

How could what Harless said, captured on video, not be taken as menacing and aggravated menacing under the law.

2903.21 Aggravated menacing.

(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated menacing. <snip>
Effective Date: 04-10-2001

2903.22 Menacing.

(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of menacing. <snip>
Effective Date: 04-10-2001

Assault, under the Ohio Revised Code, does not apply, apparently.

Not being a lawyer, I would expect that the victim would not have the option of whether or not to file charges. Unless of course a cop who witnesses a misdemeanor in progress is not obligated to intervene.

Separately, must the union retain a member, or can they kick him out for whatever reason they deem appropriate? Does a union have to accept you as a member? I'm fuzzy on why the union would retain Harless as a member given what the video showed. Harless and his behavior certainly taints the union and the rank & file. Even more so based on the comments on this particular thread.

 

[Deanimator]

Separately, must the union retain a member, or can they kick him out for whatever reason they deem appropriate? Does a union have to accept you as a member? I'm fuzzy on why the union would retain Harless as a member given what the video showed. Harless and his behavior certainly taints the union and the rank & file. Even more so based on the comments on this particular thread.

Have you EVER seen a police union condemn (never mind expel) a cop for ANYTHING, no matter what it was?

Remember, the Chicago FOP DEMANDED that wife beaters be allowed to own and carry guns... but only if they were cops.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Separately, must the union retain a member, or can they kick him out for whatever reason they deem appropriate? Does a union have to accept you as a member? I'm fuzzy on why the union would retain Harless as a member given what the video showed. Harless and his behavior certainly taints the union and the rank & file. Even more so based on the comments on this particular thread.

depends upon the type of union shop. some shops are "closed" meaning employers can only hire members out of that union, while the Taft-Hartley act prohibits "closed shops" many employers still choose to voluntarily hire only people who are already union members out of union "hiring halls" this is common in industries like the longshore, or the IBEW, or other technical unions. in that case the union is the one who "hires you" and provides you to an employer who wants you.

The most common arraingment, (the union I worked with did this, and how police unions work too) is that a non-member may be hired, but must join the union after hire. in this case the employer hires you, and the union must generally accept you into the union per the collective bargaining agreement. The union does have some rights to choose not to represent a member, but they generally have a duty of "fair representation" and can be held legally liable if they did not fairly represent a member or acted in an arbitrary or unfair manner. unions can refuse to represent if the union decides that the greivance has no merit or if the CBA specifically spells out terms in which the union is not bound to represent...

 

[OC for ME]

<snip> The most common arraingment, (the union I worked with did this, and how police unions work too) is that a non-member may be hired, but must join the union after hire. <snip>

This is absolutely not true in all cases. In Missouri, not a right to work state, if my "shop" were to organize I am required to pay tribute unto Caesar (dues), or be terminated (fired). I would have had the option to not be a member, not be represented by the union while my money was confiscated from me to support a corrupt, yet legal, ponzi scheme. Don't ask me how that works but it is what was told to me by both the union tyrants and my boss. (Descriptive language added by me.)

The tribute would be confiscated automatically by my employer and redistributed unto Caesar and his Praetorian Guards. All this is historical fact based on a union effort to "organize" my work place.