MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1

Main Page No time to bargain over public safety
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: kwflatbed

By Boston Herald editorial staff
Friday, April 4, 2008 -

There are some matters that simply have no business being hashed out at the union bargaining table. Drug and alcohol testing for public safety employees happens to be one of them.
It’s a lesson we all should have learned after the West Roxbury blaze in August that claimed the lives of two Boston firefighters, who were later reported to be impaired at the time of the fire.
Before then and ever since the city has been locked in a battle with the firefighters’ union over the mayor’s demand for random drug and alcohol screening. In return, firefighters are demanding a dramatic bump in pay - and contract negotiations are at a complete standstill.
So we were more than pleased to see that Rep. Christopher Donelan (D-Orange) has filed a bill that would subject all cops, firefighters and emergency medical technicians statewide to random drug and alcohol screening.
No more of the grandstanding, the maneuvering or the posturing between union brass and municipal managers (well, over drug testing anyway).
Testing would be uniform and mandatory for those people who want to take on the very dangerous job of protecting public safety. And no extra goodies would be offered in exchange for “agreeing” to what should be a very basic condition of employment.
Naturally the statewide head of the firefighters’ union was in high dudgeon over Donelan’s proposal, proving once again that he just doesn’t get it. Robert McCarthy, president of the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts, is also miffed that Donelan filed the bill without kissing union rings first. The nerve!
But the Boston Municipal Research Bureau has been calling for this change forever, and the failure of the two sides in Boston to agree to a deal simply reinforces the need to depoliticize the process.
Lawmakers, some of whom are already on the outs with organized labor over their casino votes, ought to swallow hard and back this no-brainer of an idea.

http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion...icleid=1084882

Posted by: HousingCop

Bargaining away rights for an increase in pay or other perks is one thing but to unilaterally GIVE away testing of hair or urine by legislation to an unknown entity is extreme and basically unconstitutional in my opinion. You literally want a piece or part of me? Pay me.

Drug testing has been around for 25+ years and has come leaps & bounds since then. What next, a DNA sample to check your genetics to see if you carry a certain gene for cancer or heart problems? "Ooops sorry, you've got the cancer & bad cardiovascular gene in your DNA so you can't get this Public Safety job because of the Heart & Lung Bill reserved for Police & Fire. You're too much of a risk."

You heard it here first folks. They are boiling the frog on this and other issues like details. Once their foot is in the door, they'll keep chipping away. The unions should step up on this issue and squash it like a bug. I am all for drug / alcohol testing based upon probable cause (not reasonable suspicion) by a supervisor, if it's in your contract. I am subject to it (and am glad we have it) but we got concessions for it way back. Nobody wants to partner with a drunk or druggie who is behind you with a firearm or an axe.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by HousingCop

The unions should step up on this issue and squash it like a bug.

To their credit, the Boston Fire union isn't budging on this, nor should they. The BPD got the Quinn Bill for their drug testing policy, the BFD should get something comparable.

As mentioned, the PD can come to my house every single morning for hair, urine, blood, sweat, or damn near anything else they want to test for drugs; I have nothing to hide.

But they're not coming into my house or body for free.

Posted by: Kem25

When this debate comes up I have flashbacks of the military....Being woken up at 4 Am. ushered into a theatre or hangar and then not being able to leave until you piss in a cup. I agree that a form of testing needs to be in place but there has to be limits and guidelines in place. The fire department does not seem to be backing down on this so it will be interesting to see what happens.

Posted by: Q5-TPR

I have to respectfully disagree with you guys. I think it should be part of the initial hiring. You want the job, you submit to random drug tests, period. We do it in the military, we do it in the State Police. Granted I don't know how it came about in the SP, if it was barganed or it just happened. Me, personally, I want to know my back-up is clean. Everyone has secrets, but drug use is not compatable with our collective jobs. I think we look very greedy wanting money for this one thing. I think it also makes it look like we have something to hide. All the other issues we should fight hard for, but not this one. The way I look at it, it is more of a public trust issue. I personally think it should be mandatory, for all. Just my opinion.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q5-TPR

I have to respectfully disagree with you guys. I think it should be part of the initial hiring. You want the job, you submit to random drug tests, period.

New hires? No problem....they know the rules going in; I signed away my current and future rights to ever smoke any tobacco product when I was hired, but everyone hired before January 1988 was grandfathered in.

If you want me to piss in a cup, get my hair pulled, or have my blood drawn now, 20 years after the fact, you're going to pay me for the inconvenience and invasion of privacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q5-TPR

We do it in the military, we do it in the State Police. Granted I don't know how it came about in the SP, if it was barganed or it just happened.

Random drug testing is a mandatory subject of bargaining, so you can bet the house that SPAM got something for it. For you to suggest that the rest of us should now give it up for nothing, after you got yours, is disingenuous at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q5-TPR

Me, personally, I want to know my back-up is clean. Everyone has secrets, but drug use is not compatable with our collective jobs. I think we look very greedy wanting money for this one thing. I think it also makes it look like we have something to hide. All the other issues we should fight hard for, but not this one. The way I look at it, it is more of a public trust issue. I personally think it should be mandatory, for all. Just my opinion.

I haven't heard from anyone, including the BFD union, that is against random testing. But, that's about as blatant a violation of privacy that there is. That doesn't come for free.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

But they're not coming into my house or body for free.

I thought Elliot Spitzer got into trouble for something similar. You should be careful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q5-TPR

I have to respectfully disagree with you guys. I think it should be part of the initial hiring. You want the job, you submit to random drug tests, period. We do it in the military, we do it in the State Police. Granted I don't know how it came about in the SP, if it was barganed or it just happened.

As a Trainee, you are pretty much hosed.

As a Trooper, SPAM bargained with the Commonwealth on Drug Testing in I believe 2001, and that contract's final salaries bump was a 20% raise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q5-TPR

I think we look very greedy wanting money for this one thing. I think it also makes it look like we have something to hide. All the other issues we should fight hard for, but not this one. The way I look at it, it is more of a public trust issue. I personally think it should be mandatory, for all. Just my opinion.

Call me when you get your third call in three months to "report for a random test, and be there in 30 minutes." or even better, if you are a Mid Shifter and the guy shows up again, and again, and again...for you.

I agree, we should all be drug free, but if you are going to be inconvenienced, you will get paid. That's just the way it is.

Posted by: Q5-TPR

Woah woah woah WOAH! Guys, as I said, just my opinion. I completely understand what you are saying. I did not know that SPAM bargened the testing, and believe me, I am not going to complain about the 20%. I am on mids, and I actually do not mind gettin tested. Just kinda a pain in the ass when i am not "ready" to go. And I am just sayin what it looks like to me. Just my opinion. I am a very strong supporter of the union. I just think we would look good in the public eye if we accepted this. Again, just my $.02

Posted by: Mikey682

I'm going to have to back my classmate's opinion on this one. If the big boss want me to pee into a cup on company time, thats fine. I could be out stopping cars, or looking for trouble, but if the boss would rather have me a the barracks wasting 30 minutes of THIER money, that works. We as armed public servants are held to a higher standard, and I'd rather have paperwork backing up my credibility and character than some rat reporter claiming I could be dirty.

Posted by: MDSP2597

We take our piss tests while on duty. The command staff knows the night before who has to provide a sample and they tell you the day of the test. I believe they use the last digit of our SS# to choose who has to take the test.

I don't see any problem with the piss test, as stated above, if you have nothing to hide then there is no reason to worry. I do not see the test as an invasion of privacy, because we are held to a higher standard then Joe Smuckatelli citizen. I've forgotten how many times I've had to take the test. Is it a pain in the ass, you bet, but I've got nothing to hide so if they want me to pee in the cup so be it.

Posted by: mikemac64

Why not let them check your locker, or your home computer? Bank records? Personal cell phone records? Maybe check you personal vehicle while they're at it? Maybe a bung hole inspection? After all, you have nothing to hide.

We are held to a higher standard, I agree. But we are not held to a lower standard when it comes to search and seizure of our personal spaces, including or bodies.

If someone wants it, they need to ask for it, and offer something in return.

Just my .02.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q5-TPR

I just think we would look good in the public eye if we accepted this. Again, just my $.02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikey682

I'm going to have to back my classmate's opinion on this one. If the big boss want me to pee into a cup on company time, thats fine. I could be out stopping cars, or looking for trouble, but if the boss would rather have me a the barracks wasting 30 minutes of THIER money, that works. We as armed public servants are held to a higher standard, and I'd rather have paperwork backing up my credibility and character than some rat reporter claiming I could be dirty.

To reiterate: A rat reporter can make you look dirty with a test or without. They can write whatever they want, with very few limitations or repercussions.

As far as the "I get paid for 8 hours" stuff, to hell with that. You get paid to do certain tasks outlined in P&P and your contract. If they want you to do more than that, they can bargain for it and pay you. what you give up today...you will NEVER get back.

Posted by: MDSP2597

What is the piss test for? To test for illegal drug usage. It is testing Police Officers that swear to an oath; to be beyond reproach; be of morale character; etc. If one is using illegal drugs then that person has not upheld that standard we all swear too. Do you really want a fellow Officer that is using to be your back up? I know I don't! Rule 1, go home at the end of your shift alive!

A piss test does not give the job the right to search your house, car, other personal property, and etc. We all know that PC is needed for this.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDSP2597

What is the piss test for? To test for illegal drug usage. It is testing Police Officers that swear to an oath; to be beyond reproach; be of morale character; etc. If one is using illegal drugs then that person has not upheld that standard we all swear too. Do you really want a fellow Officer that is using to be your back up? I know I don't! Rule 1, go home at the end of your shift alive!

A piss test does not give the job the right to search your house, car, other personal property, and etc. We all know that PC is needed for this.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.

We all know PC is needed for searches? Why? We "swore an oath". Why not pass a law that all Police are subject to random searches, like parolees? We are held to a higher standard, no?

Why not surrender the black box in your PC on demand of your Lt...or even better, strap a GPS onto your car so if you are speeding, you can write yourself a ticket...I mean, higher standard, beyond reproach and all.

If you wanted to surrender your constitutional rights when you graduated the Academy, you should have stuck your paw in the air and volunteered. I didn't, and I won't. I am a human being, a man EMPLOYED as a police officer. I am not the property of the government.

Sometimes it is crystal clear, God created union guys to save some cops from their own well meaning thoughts and actions.

Posted by: lofu

I don't think ANYONE is against random drug testing. The problem here is that there is past practice of cities and towns giving up money to the unions in order to be able to test them. A Trooper already stated that SPAM got a 20% raise in the contract that allowed random testing, the BPD got the the Quinn Bill. NEVER give up something for nothing, its how negotiations work.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDSP2597

So I can assume you would have no problem with taking random polygraph tests? Where anything and everything is on the table.....work or personal life?

Since you're living your life to the highest standard you wouldn't mind that, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemac64

We are held to a higher standard, I agree. But we are not held to a lower standard when it comes to search and seizure of our personal spaces, including or bodies.

If someone wants it, they need to ask for it, and offer something in return.

Well said.

Posted by: kwflatbed

Take it from someone who has gone through the roadside piss tests
that the feds imposed on truck drivers,stand up for your rights if you
don't it just makes it easier for the next take away by big brother.
I believe the drug testing has it's place when it is used in the right way
but guilty before Innocent is not the way.
I had no problem giving the piss or blood after my accident but the required
or random testing imposed by the feds was just another one of my rights
going down the drain.
Truck drivers get nothing in return,piss or get shut down and fight to keep
your CDL if you refuse,granted just like in any profession there are drug
users driving,there are doctors using,and there are LEO's using as we see
it in the papers all of the time.
If testing is mandated you should get something other than getting to keep doing your job in return for it.
This is just my honest opinion,testing for employment is fine by me,testing
after an incident is fine by me,but just testing for nothing needs something in return.

Posted by: dave7336

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

For those who haven't learned already: You really shouldn't give a sh*t how you "look in the public eye"...because it is very easy to twist anything into an issue in the mind of Joe Bag O' Donuts.

If you spent time worrying about how things "look" to someone who literally has no clue about 99% of your job functions, you would never get anything done.

To reiterate: A rat reporter can make you look dirty with a test or without. They can write whatever they want, with very few limitations or repercussions.

As far as the "I get paid for 8 hours" stuff, to hell with that. You get paid to do certain tasks outlined in P&P and your contract. If they want you to do more than that, they can bargain for it and pay you. what you give up today...you will NEVER get back.

100% agreement...as an aside, when the town managers/city mayors/state representatives, and heads of the public safety departments tell me what drug testing they are subjected to, then I will be more than happy to talk about me giving up my rights. Just once, I would like them to lead by example!

And I also agree with not having drug users on the job. Personally you can test me anytime you want, but there have to be guidelines and I am not giving up my rights for nothing

Posted by: 94c

Another real test about an officers ethics is his financial well being. It has been well documented that officers that are heavily in debt are prone to corruption.

Therefore we should disclose all officers finances to assure they are above board.

This is one thing that is done during the hiring process and should be adhered to throughout our careers.

Any takers on this one?

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

Another real test about an officers ethics is his financial well being. It has been well documented that officers that are heavily in debt are prone to corruption.

Therefore we should disclose all officers finances to assure they are above board.

This is one thing that is done during the hiring process and should be adhered to throughout our careers.

Any takers on this one?

I live within my means and once again have nothing to hide, but if you want to know how much money I have, you're going to have to give me more first.

Posted by: Mikey682

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Sometimes it is crystal clear, God created union guys to save some cops from their own well meaning thoughts and actions.

And thats why we love you so much!

Posted by: PaulKersey

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

I am a human being, a man EMPLOYED as a police officer.

You're really not the football coach?

I feel so betrayed.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulKersey

You're really not the football coach?

I feel so betrayed.

Not the one in my avatar, no...

Or am I?? Oh wait, my avatar is a car now. Forget it.

Posted by: cj3441

I think this whole issue is being over simplified. The BFD union has an obligation to ensure the rights and interests of it's members are protected. The issue's attached to testing are endless, how often, repercussions for positive test, treatment programs, how long out of work, procedure for possible termination..... and on and on. The media likes to simplify it to, the city wants drug testing and the union is "fighting" them on it.

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj3441

I think this whole issue is being over simplified. The BFD union has an obligation to ensure the rights and interests of it's members are protected. The issue's attached to testing are endless, how often, repercussions for positive test, treatment programs, how long out of work, procedure for possible termination..... and on and on. The media likes to simplify it to, the city wants drug testing and the union is "fighting" them on it.

Exactly. Let's not forget that these tests cost money.

We had concerns with a walk-in clinic that was being used because of one of the people working there.

Pissing in a cup and handing it to a complete stranger is literally placing your career in their hands.

You don't think the city is going to shop around for the bargain basement, cheaper clinic?

You can bet they are.

There's no room for error. Even if it only affects one test out of a thousand.

ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108