In your opinion, who do the police work for?

[John Pierce]

Interesting observation. It seems if someone confronts the lack of substance, it is deemed a personal attack. It appears that the ignore feature is the most effective means of dealing with his sideways jabs. Regardless of a poster's education and background, nobody appreciates arrogance modified to disguise a personal attack.

Actually, talking about the lack of substance in an 'idea' put forward by a poster is NOT a personal attack, hence the fact that Joe's post was not edited.


John

 

[aadvark]

The Police work for The State, in the name of The People who give The State the Power that it has.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Actually, talking about the lack of substance in an 'idea' put forward by a poster is NOT a personal attack, hence the fact that Joe's post was not edited.


John

Well, I'm new here and haven't figured out the players or agenda I guess. And I am confused by this response. I was agreeing with simmonsjoe. I'm still trying to figure out why rodbender is getting edited. I find a particular poster in this thread to be insulting and displaying disruptive responses to anyone who might have a differing opinion. And this poster seems to be protected. My comments about the ignore feature were in regards to the obnoxious poster, and how that might help threads from being derailed into another of his "I'm right" threads. Posters like that seem to do better on blogs than forums where a sharing of ideas take place.

 

[Deanimator]

In Chicago they work for themselves... hence the home invasion, burglary, kidnapping and drug operations INSIDE the Chicago PD.

 

[SouthernBoy]

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Thomas Jefferson laid down the foundation and said it best. Not only do we own the government, and all departments, agencies, and offices under it, but we also have the right and the duty to abolish it should the need ever arise. That, my friends, is power and in this nation the supreme sovereign is the People.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Thomas Jefferson laid down the foundation and said it best. Not only do we own the government, and all departments, agencies, and offices under it, but we also have the right and the duty to abolish it should the need ever arise. That, my friends, is power and in this nation the supreme sovereign is the People.

Great post! I wonder what this could be countered with that would have any credibility? A quote from Lenin or Marx? The day comes that we are truly powerless over the police we are no longer a free people. The concept of a police force is socialistic in nature. It differs from what we are accustomed to as far as employee control in our capitalistic society. Consider unions. Employers contract with unions, and typically, those contracts include protections for the employee from the employer. By entering into union contracts, the employer does not have the freedom to hire and fire at leisure. Is he any less the employer of his employees? Tell an employer that he must tolerate intolerable behavior and watch him go through the process to terminate that to which he objects. While he may be bound to the processes of his union agreement, he is far from powerless. It's just a matter of his willingness to pursue the process.

 

[since9]

Thomas Jefferson laid down the foundation and said it best. Not only do we own the government, and all departments, agencies, and offices under it, but we also have the right and the duty to abolish it should the need ever arise. That, my friends, is power and in this nation the supreme sovereign is the People.

You're absolutely correct, and this is something about which we absolutely must remind our government on a regular basis, by visiting our Representatives' local offices periodically to discuss key issues with their aids, or if we can obtain audience, with our Senators and Congressmen themselves, and by writing letters. Comments such as (make sure they're true) "I voted for you last Fall, Sir! But I am aghast at your position on H.R 1234, particularly with the part about x, and here's why: y."

It is our right to request a redress of our grievances, on any matter. Exercise it!

Tell an employer that he must tolerate intolerable behavior and watch him go through the process to terminate that to which he objects. While he may be bound to the processes of his union agreement, he is far from powerless. It's just a matter of his willingness to pursue the process.

One of my first masters classes, back around 1992, was in management. Our instructor was the former director of a large, well-known hospital. They had one problem employee who'd reached a certain level of employ in the organization and his performance started to slide. Whether union or contract rules, I'm not sure, but they couldn't simply fire him. He was still doing some of the work, just not the work they needed him to do, and he was avoiding any and all no-no's which would have been instant grounds for termination.

They let it slide for a couple of years, but then this guy starting creating problems for the other employees, including various comments which, although they didn't cross any lines of continued employment, were causing some real problems with morale and discipline among the staff.

His solution: He created a new unit of a dozen people with a wonderful corner office view. After a month he proceded to remove the people one by one over from that unit until after six months, poor dufas was left up there all alone.

His move was 100% in accordance within the rules and regulations, but what was not forseen is what someone would do when they're left all alone, day after day. Essentially, they starved him of human companionship, to the point where he was faced with either not doing his work just to interact with his fellow employees, or to retire and spent the rest of his time with his family.

He retired at the eight month point, and the next day the manager moved thirty highly-productive individuals up to that choice corner office.

 

[SouthernBoy]

One of my first masters classes, back around 1992, was in management. Our instructor was the former director of a large, well-known hospital. They had one problem employee who'd reached a certain level of employ in the organization and his performance started to slide. Whether union or contract rules, I'm not sure, but they couldn't simply fire him. He was still doing some of the work, just not the work they needed him to do, and he was avoiding any and all no-no's which would have been instant grounds for termination.

They let it slide for a couple of years, but then this guy starting creating problems for the other employees, including various comments which, although they didn't cross any lines of continued employment, were causing some real problems with morale and discipline among the staff.

His solution: He created a new unit of a dozen people with a wonderful corner office view. After a month he proceded to remove the people one by one over from that unit until after six months, poor dufas was left up there all alone.

His move was 100% in accordance within the rules and regulations, but what was not forseen is what someone would do when they're left all alone, day after day. Essentially, they starved him of human companionship, to the point where he was faced with either not doing his work just to interact with his fellow employees, or to retire and spent the rest of his time with his family.

He retired at the eight month point, and the next day the manager moved thirty highly-productive individuals up to that choice corner office.

This is a very good example and case for "employment at will" laws, which we have here in Virginia. In my wife's last full time position, she worked for the Naval Department (Nav Air). During a period, there was a minority women, a "double" actually since she was female, in her office who was somewhat like the man in your example. She knew how to "work" the system and get around things, only doing the absolute minimum to keep her job. She was quite disruptive in the office in that she made work harder for the other employees as well.

My wife's boss during this was a young Navy lieutenant who was bound and determined to get this woman fired. He was called several times by his commanding officer and told to lay off because she was a minority. He didn't - he stuck with it. After about a year and a half, he had developed quite a case against her but EEOC would still not touch it. My wife had to appear before a board several times to give testimony during this time, too.

Finally, one day he gave her a direct order for a task to be completed by noon, making certain everything was within her job description. When he returned to the office, the assigned task had not even been started by this woman. So he went immediately to EEOC with this evidence and she was terminated that day. Needless to say, she was shocked. And my wife was so happy, we had her boss and his family over for a nice dinner as a celebration.