Police union rejects plan for drug tests

[Chee-to]

Police union rejects plan for drug tests

News: Local | Police union rejects plan for drug tests | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon

The Associated Press

Appeared in print: Sunday, Oct 3, 2010

PORTLAND — The union representing Portland police officers is pushing back against a proposal that would require random drug testing of police officers.

The proposal from the city would also require drug tests after use of deadly force, suspects’ deaths in custody and serious traffic crashes.

The city and police union are negotiating a two-year contract, in which the city has offered no cost-of-living increase in the first year but proposes an increase of at least 1 percent for the second year.

Portland Police Association attorney Will Aitchison said the random testing proposal would violate the officers’ right to privacy. The current standard for drug testing is “reasonable suspicion,” and Aitchinson said any tests beyond that would also violate officers’ protection from unreasonable search and seizures.

The proposal would exempt civilian employees of the department from testing, something lead city negotiatior Steve Herron said is fair “because of the duties and gravity of duties associated with being a sworn police officer.”

“The consequences of law enforcement behavior is significantly more substantial and severe,” Herron said.

The proposal would broaden the current drug-testing policy and the drugs for which they test — including steroids — as well as enforce stricter penalties for violations.

The city has said that multiple agencies nationwide permit similar testing, as does the Salem Police Department. Portland Mayor Sam Adams and former Portland Police Bureau commissioner Dan Saltzman have supported random drug tests.

“We must ensure that an officer’s decision-making thought process including whether or not to use lethal force is not clouded by drugs,” Adams said.

The proposal would also require any officers on leave for more than six months to be tested.

Read More

 

[matt_w]

I guess the "if you don't have anything to hide, you won't mind me poking around your car" mindset that cops use on civilians doesn't apply to them.

 

[sweetbeard]

rule #1.. I hate unions.. all unions every time..


unions ruined America..

screw unions

 

[Woodswalker]

I guess the "if you don't have anything to hide, you won't mind me poking around your car" mindset that cops use on civilians doesn't apply to them.

OH but of couse not...

 

[chemist]

Airline pilots, yup.
Train operators, of course.
Bus drivers, heck yeah.

And some people want random drug testing of EVERYBODY who is on Medicaid:
Ohio House proposal would require random drug tests for Medicaid eligibility « MedCity News

But LEO's? Nah. No RAS.

 

[elsullo]

rule #1.. I hate unions.. all unions every time..


unions ruined America..

screw unions

Sheesh! This is just the opening position of ONE local branch of ONE Union, and does not represent ALL unions or even all locals of that ONE union! And I will bet that this local eventually caves in on this issue in exchange for something else that they deserve. Without the organization and protection of a union the worker has no secure benefits and is simply DISPOSABLE, especially if they get hurt on the job. With a union the workers can take a unified stand for reasonable terms, protections, and working conditions. Without unions we Americans would never have achieved the forty-hour workweek or even the five-day work week. Without unions we would not even have the minimum wage! I cannot even count all of the benefits that ALL workers have achieved because union workers led the way!

I was proud to be a member of the Amalgamated Transit Union for eighteen years. As public safety workers we were proud to work with random drug and alcohol tests at any time. We felt that we OWED the public to PROVE that we were sober and drug-free after any accident or at any time randomly, or else lose the job. Any public safety worker, especially one who carries a gun, also should feel this simple obligation. I expect that the Portland Police Association union local will come around on this issue...............................elsullo

 

[dmancornell]

Without the organization and protection of a union the worker has no secure benefits and is simply DISPOSABLE, especially if they get hurt on the job.

Maybe if union members had actual desirable skills sought by employers they'd be able to obtain employment contracts with health benefits. Instead the union bottomfeeders use violence and intimidation to protect their disposable jobs and screw everyone else in the process.

Everything unions do would be illegal if done by someone else, unions get away with it because they bribe politicians to pass special laws protecting union thuggery.

 

[elsullo]

Maybe if union members had actual desirable skills sought by employers they'd be able to obtain employment contracts with health benefits. Instead the union bottomfeeders use violence and intimidation to protect their disposable jobs and screw everyone else in the process.

Everything unions do would be illegal if done by someone else, unions get away with it because they bribe politicians to pass special laws protecting union thuggery.

Ewww, walking a picket line and waving a sign, such awful "thuggery!" Violence and intimidation? HUH? Where? I suppose you have never heard of "Unionbusters" attacking peaceful picketers? Naw, you'd never admit to that. Excuse me but the Sixties were forty years ago.

I wonder if you could explain how union contracts have "screwed" you or anyone else? All the employment benefits you enjoy were achieved FOR you by unionists. Somehow I doubt that you have ever been in the workforce at all, and certainly know nothing of public safety workers who carry guns................................elsullo

 

[dmancornell]

^

Right, the "unionists" got me a job with benefits, not because I worked hard and paid my own way through school to get a graduate engineering degree.

How have unions screwed the country? Union contracts raise costs for everyone else in return for shoddy products/services. Proof: public schools, Detroit cars, US healthcare, need I go on? The proof is all around.

Denying others the right to work in freely negotiated contracts, forcing customers to accept horrible products and services with no recourse, that is thuggery and intimidation. Extorting taxpayer money through bailouts to prop up underfunded benefits is outright criminal. You can claim to be "peaceful picketers" all you want but everything unions stand for and do are legal only due to political corruption.

 

[Stumps]

I guess the "if you don't have anything to hide, you won't mind me poking around your car" mindset that cops use on civilians doesn't apply to them.

Not quite the same thing. Police are subject to search by IA at anytime. Basically this is a typical union issue. The department wants something (drug testing) so the union want something in return. If you ask the police officers on that department 99% would have not problem with random testing. But unions often do not care about the membership wants or is willing to do. The union sees its job as grabbing whatever they can for the membership of a specific local as well as union members in other agencies. The unions play games manipulating the system.

Union 1, puts pressure on agency A to sign a contract with the employer. The contract is not to good but it is better that the one offered to agency B. Agency B is bigger and uses A contract as a comp, getting more money for their membership. Next time around agency A uses agency B's contract as a comp to get more than they got last time. One thing stays constant in all of this, union dues go up every year, the union makes more money every year. Having been in a union I got tired of seeing things like this and do not miss being in a union.

 

[riverrat373]

rule #1.. I hate unions.. all unions every time..


unions ruined America..

screw unions

If it were not for unions 12 year old kids would still be working in factories and you would be working a mandatory 12 to 16 hour day, possibly under very dangerous conditions. Read your history!:huh:

 

[Karma]

If it were not for unions 12 year kids would still be working in factories and you would be working a mandatory 12 to 16 hour day, possibly under very dangerous conditions. Read your history!:huh:

Unions were a necessity in the beginning no doubt. What they have evolved into is something entirely different.

 

[riverrat373]

Unions were a necessity in the beginning no doubt. What they have evolved into is something entirely different.

Only 12.3 percent of all workers in the United States belong to unions. That is the latest statistic from the Dept of Labor. Big business has pretty much destroyed the unions in this country! I will agree that some unions have asked for too much, but that is pretty much in the past, especially since the recession.

 

[keystir]

rule #2 - I love Unions!! Most Unions, all the time.

Unions built America.

God Bless Union Labor.


I can't even believe this is coming up now. It is amazing to me that if your local Albertson's meat butcher (also Union) cuts his finger he immediately gets a drug test regardless of whether or not there is any "suspicion" of how it happens but the same is not true of some police officers. I hold our Law Enforcement Officers to a higher standard than most all professions and would have expected a much more stringent drug use/testing policy to have been put in place many years ago.

 

[riverrat373]

By the way, I do think that LEO's should have submit to random drug tests.

 

[TANSTAAFL]

Once upon a time, before many of our labor laws we have today, unions were the only method we had to fight unfair wages and working conditions. That was a different world back then and a lot has changed in 100 years. We're now a global economy with trade barriers falling and new channel being created every day. Thank you unions for leading us into a better working world.

However, your time has come to realise you are simply outdated bureaucracies and do not fit today's modern American business model. Laughable topic, Unions vs Big Business--they are big business! Unions exist to ensure continuity of their own existence, the rest is marketing.

Personally, I would not proudly stake a claim on minimum wage. Every time it is modified it strikes a serious economic blow to the poor and uneducated workforce. Not to mention it is easily one of the most anti-black laws we have; it's right there next to Davis-Bacon and certain drug laws (harsh crack-specific punishments). If you'd like to start a parallel thread on the minimum wage, I'd be happy to oblige.

 

[Kimber Custom]

Once upon a time, before many of our labor laws we have today, unions were the only method we had to fight unfair wages and working conditions. That was a different world back then and a lot has changed in 100 years. We're now a global economy with trade barriers falling and new channel being created every day. Thank you unions for leading us into a better working world.

However, your time has come to realise you are simply outdated bureaucracies and do not fit today's modern American business model. Laughable topic, Unions vs Big Business--they are big business! Unions exist to ensure continuity of their own existence, the rest is marketing.

+1 The teachers union right now is a key factor in our failing education system IMO.

I don't believe in random drug testing in the PD. They should be taking a pee test and a breathalizer at the start of EVERY shift.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Only 12.3 percent of all workers in the United States belong to unions. That is the latest statistic from the Dept of Labor. Big business has pretty much destroyed the unions in this country! I will agree that some unions have asked for too much, but that is pretty much in the past, especially since the recession.

Now check the percentage of public employees that are union,...
And when you're done there, check the percentage of union workers in blue collar occupations for major corporations.

It's a whole different world out there.

 

[Artilleryman]

i find it outrageous that the local law enforcement personnel are not already subjected to random drug testing. I'd be interested to hear any valid reasons why their union opposes it, but the 'invasion of privacy' argument doesn't cut it. The Military is subjected to random testing, as are many factory workers, construction workers, etc. Due to the high level of responsibility inherent in law enforcement work this should be a no brainer. As another poster stated above, one of the LE's most frequently used tactics is the good 'ol "why wouldn't you submit to a search unless you have something to hide" line. Oversight is important- gotta watch the watchers.

 

[trainsktg]

My Union has been drug testing at least since the mid-90s when I joined after getting out of the military...and all I do is run pipe and pull wire.

Keith