3 ms·

In a case where the union member, prior to termination, goes around the building telling everyone that the manager is a drunk and a criminal, making up stories

by yebyen 13y ago

In a case where the union member, prior to termination, goes around the building telling everyone that the manager is a drunk and a criminal, making up stories and telling everyone that they're all going to be fired soon, in what might be called a fit of paranoid delusion, do you think the union should then go to bat for that employee? I think the union should absolutely have the right to pick and choose which cases to defend, especially in cases of clear and blatant violation of established rules and protocols. The fact that most cops might get away with this kind of behavior does not make it any less egregious or untenable. If someone is a patent holder, does their lawyer have a duty to represent them in suit after suit when it becomes clear they (plaintiff) don't have a leg to stand on, and they are just trolling for settlements? Say, just because he pays the bills? No, absolutely not, and if it's done in a sustained and repeated kind of way that's recognized as abusive and the pattern is established, this kind of behavior should be grounds for disbarment. It's a waste of procedural time. Maybe you're technically right in this case for some reason, because it's a public sector union, the stewards have a duty and the officer requested a defense, but that doesn't make it right.

Xylakant 13y ago
> I think the union should absolutely have the right to pick and choose which cases to defend I don't believe so since that opens up the whole issue of who is to judge whether the "clear and blatant violations" actually occurred and if there's any extenuating circumstances. This discussion will be had in the hearing where the union takes the side of the defending party. Basically it's the same principle as fair trial: Everyone has a right to have a fair trial and bring an attorney that has the duty to defend him, no matter the charges or how clear the case seems.
- yebyen 13y ago
  Unions are member-supported organizations with finite resources. (Really, national and international unions have basically infinite resources, but the business owners have finite resources to allocate in order to deal with them.) The right to an attorney are with respect to criminal proceedings. A defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel in any civil proceeding, including a deportation hearing. A fair trial is something that should be available to everyone, but if the lawyers are bogged down defending cases that their own members don't support, then either those unions or those business owners are doomed. I understand this to be a deliberate consequence of union formation, the threat of force is truly a compelling bargaining chip. Many employment agreements are "at-will" and employers can terminate their employees without cause. In the case where such a firing is really "without cause," I agree that a union should support their member by representing the aggrieved party and making sure they get their unemployment benefits, but if the law says the employer has the right to terminate the employee for any reason or no reason, then this policeman can justly be fired with a laundry list of complaints -- that dwarfs the complaints for every other officer in the precinct -- and a last straw, is this constitutional violation, bullying a person off of public property for taking some pictures of public officials "doing their job." If I were the union steward, I would meet with the officer well in advance of the hearing, before it had even been scheduled. I would have to open with "OK, convince me."
enraged_camel 13y ago
>>do you think the union should then go to bat for that employee? I think the union should absolutely have the right to pick and choose which cases to defend, especially in cases of clear and blatant violation of established rules and protocols. Supreme Court decided long ago that unions are legally obligated to defend all of their members regardless of what they do. It is commonly referred to as the "duty of fair representation." It originated in Steele v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad, but there has been more than sixty years of jurisprudence extending and clarifying that right since then. Essentially, what it comes down to is that if you are a member of a union, and you do something dumb, the union has to defend you.

by yebyen 13y ago

Xylakant 13y ago

> I think the union should absolutely have the right to pick and choose which cases to defend I don't believe so since that opens up the whole issue of who is to judge whether the "clear and blatant violations" actually occurred and if there's any extenuating circumstances. This discussion will be had in the hearing where the union takes the side of the defending party. Basically it's the same principle as fair trial: Everyone has a right to have a fair trial and bring an attorney that has the duty to defend him, no matter the charges or how clear the case seems.

yebyen 13y ago
Unions are member-supported organizations with finite resources. (Really, national and international unions have basically infinite resources, but the business owners have finite resources to allocate in order to deal with them.) The right to an attorney are with respect to criminal proceedings. A defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel in any civil proceeding, including a deportation hearing. A fair trial is something that should be available to everyone, but if the lawyers are bogged down defending cases that their own members don't support, then either those unions or those business owners are doomed. I understand this to be a deliberate consequence of union formation, the threat of force is truly a compelling bargaining chip. Many employment agreements are "at-will" and employers can terminate their employees without cause. In the case where such a firing is really "without cause," I agree that a union should support their member by representing the aggrieved party and making sure they get their unemployment benefits, but if the law says the employer has the right to terminate the employee for any reason or no reason, then this policeman can justly be fired with a laundry list of complaints -- that dwarfs the complaints for every other officer in the precinct -- and a last straw, is this constitutional violation, bullying a person off of public property for taking some pictures of public officials "doing their job." If I were the union steward, I would meet with the officer well in advance of the hearing, before it had even been scheduled. I would have to open with "OK, convince me."

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>do you think the union should then go to bat for that employee? I think the union should absolutely have the right to pick and choose which cases to defend, especially in cases of clear and blatant violation of established rules and protocols. Supreme Court decided long ago that unions are legally obligated to defend all of their members regardless of what they do. It is commonly referred to as the "duty of fair representation." It originated in Steele v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad, but there has been more than sixty years of jurisprudence extending and clarifying that right since then. Essentially, what it comes down to is that if you are a member of a union, and you do something dumb, the union has to defend you.