Police Suggestion Union Rep

[Jack P]

Suggestion Title: Union Rep
Suggestion Description: A union rep. This idea was actually created by @Dekkrior but I believe this idea is something that would actually be useful. Like in real life, the purpose of a union rep would be to assist and guide you through if you're going through disciplinary actions or IA, as it is right now I believe command is technically acting as some sort of Union Rep, somebody in actual union rep would be different to actual command and wouldn't necessarily be related to command. Their entire purpose is to make sure people can feel like they have some sort of support system and guidance if they aren't sure what to do or how to do it.

Why should this be added?:
- A better support system for people under Investigation. Both witnin IA and other Disciplinary actions.
- Less stuff for command to deal with, when they are already super overloaded.

What negatives could this have?:
- More paperwork I presume?
- Needs to be planning and guidelines and rules to set up regarding the position/title.

What problem would this suggestion solve?: It would simply show a better support system for people who's not confident in what to do, or how to go about their current investigation and actually know what to do and where to go for help and guidance.

 

[Dekkrior]

 

[SomeUser]

This is something that imo the chiefs should look into, i think IA has a fatal flaw when it come to transparency, i understand that there is some form of confidentiality that needs to be upheld but there should be someone that can help you in my opinion when looking at punishments as theres alot of rules. I also to add onto this point that the way IA’s are rn, of you get an IA you don’t know what you may have been reported for, At least for a few days while on command review

I feel like IF this where to be a thing, what you would have to do is explain what has happened what the min / max punishment how the process goes ect, i feel like another downside is having dank do more work where you would have to make it so they have limited access to IA complaints.

(Sorry if this is all over the shop its too hot even at 3am)

 

[Jack P]

This is something that imo the chiefs should look into, i think IA has a fatal flaw when it come to transparency, i understand that there is some form of confidentiality that needs to be upheld but there should be someone that can help you in my opinion when looking at punishments as theres alot of rules. I also to add onto this point that the way IA’s are rn, of you get an IA you don’t know what you may have been reported for, At least for a few days while on command review

I feel like IF this where to be a thing, what you would have to do is explain what has happened what the min / max punishment how the process goes ect, i feel like another downside is having dank do more work where you would have to make it so they have limited access to IA complaints.

(Sorry if this is all over the shop its too hot even at 3am)

Yeah there would be a bit of work, especially planning into how the role would/should actually be setup, and how much access they would have. It should probably also be something with the defendant themselves having to contact the Union Reps to prevent any union rep being able to see any IA etc, potentially something that just tells the rep that there is an IA on this person, but not particularily any info regarding it, but even that may be too much without the persons consent, so I understand the difficulty it COULD bring, but I also think there needs to be somebody who can be specifically there if you need it.

I found myself quite a few times not knowing what to do or uncertain what would happen to me, and wished I had somebody who could guide me.

 

[miss piggy]

how would this work?

 

[Jack P]

how would this work?

I'm thinking it'll probably be a request thing, which I believe you can still do with command aswell or atleast you used to be able to, but command just seems to have much more work than having to deal with all the people who gets constantly reported etc. Thinking might be something that is fitting into Human Resources or smt like that, you would create a ticket request somebody to act as your Union Rep and they would just guide you through everything you need to do, including potentially some point of idea as @SomeUser also suggested.

 

[Dekkrior]

Well, I wasn't really suggesting this seriously but now that some people seem to like it.

I would structure a union with one union president, who works with command and has a seat at the table for IA affairs. Their job would be to speak on behalf of the union to command, and would coordinate with the elected union reps. How exactly union reps are broken up would be complicated and I'm probably not well versed enough to come up with a great structure so I'm not really able to come up with anything concrete. At a bare minimum, I would say four are needed, one for TFU, one for RTU, one for Patrol, and one for dispatch. They would be responsible for gathering concerns of their constituents and raising them with the union president. They would also work with officers with active IA complaints, or who think they may have been wrongfully disciplined. Their role in IA and with disciplinaries would be purely advisory, particularly with officers who may be less versed in procedures or are just very new.

Union reps and presidents should be chosen entirely through voting. Any officer, SO, or corporal could run for any of these positions, and they would be re-elected frequently. (Probably quarterly) to ensure that the positions aren't held without being adequately fulfilled. Exclusions from eligibility would need to be a result of gross misconduct, not simply a matter of experience or preference.

I would probably say an initial nomination system would be the best way, everyone gets one vote on who to nominate, and everyone who gets at least 3 (Or potentially five) nominations gets put into the general election for that position. Go from there to a general, and if anyone gets over 50%, they win, if nobody does, the top 2 go to a runoff vote. It'd be a lot of coordination, and a lot of effort, but you'd have to be very intentional if this were to work.

The most important thing is that this would all be non-supervisory. Nobody ranked SGT+ would be able to be a part of this, as this is a union, not a formal division of command. While the union would still have to follow the code of conduct and SOP, they would not directly answer to command, nor have hard power over the department.

This is not necessarily me saying we should do all that, this is me saying how I think if would have to work should it be done.