Police
Union Activism or Protection Racket?
How far should police unions go to protect collective
bargaining?
By Val Van Brocklin
The situation.
There was quite the brouhaha in
Wisconsin during the summer of 2011. Sparked by the
Governor, the state legislature passed a bill that stripped
unions of most of their collective bargaining rights.
The Governor claimed the measure was
needed to help fix the state’s budget -- this after the
unions had agreed to wage cuts and increased worker
contributions to insurance and pension plans. The unions
decried it was union busting and pledged to fight the bill
in the courts, the streets, and by recall election.
A divided state Supreme Court voted
4:3 to uphold the bill. Interestingly for our discussion,
police officers and fire fighters were exempted. That’s the
basis of the remaining public employees’ ongoing challenge
of the bill in federal court – that it discriminates amongst
public employees.
The
response from police.
Police and firefighters joined the
impacted employees in fighting the bill. They were possibly
fueled by a concern that they were next -- as evidenced by a
bill introduced state Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer that would have
eliminated their collective bargaining rights on pension and
health care benefits.
One battle tactic employed by the
unions was letters sent to business owners. Here’s an
excerpt from one such letter that garnered a lot of
attention:
Dear
[Business Owner]:
The
undersigned groups would like your company to publicly
oppose Governor
Walker’s efforts to
virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public
employees in
Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider
this request,
we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you
do not
respond to this request by that date, we will assume that
you stand with
Governor Walker and
against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire
fighters, and
other dedicated public employees who serve our communities
In the event
that you cannot support this effort to save collective
bargaining,
please be advised
that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the
goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we
will do
everything in our power to publicly celebrate your
partnership in the fight to
preserve the right
of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table.
Wisconsin’s public employee unions serve to protect and
promote equality and
fairness in the
workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share
that ideal.
In the event you would like to discuss
this matter further, please contact the executive Director
of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Jim
Palmer, at 608.273.3840.
Thank you in advance for your
consideration. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
James L. Palmer, Executive Director,
Wisconsin Professional Police Association
Mahlon Mitchell, President,
Professional Fire Fighters
Jim Conway, President, International
Association of Fire Fighters Local 311
John Matthews, Executive Director,
Madison Teachers, Inc.
Keith Patt, Executive Director, Green
Bay Education Association
Bob Richardson, President, Dane County
Deputy Sheriffs Association
Dan Frei, President, Madison
Professional Police Officers Association
Are there restrictions on officers’
political activism?
Local laws vary from state to state but the federal Hatch
Act restricts the political activity of people employed by
state, county or municipal executive agencies who work in
connection with programs financed in whole or in part by
federal funds.
I
don’t know what federal funding the letter signers’ agencies
receive or the signers’ connection to any such funding. Even
if we assume they are covered by the Hatch Act, that doesn’t
end our inquiry into whether the letters violated the Act’s
restrictions because not all political activity is
prohibited.
The
U.S. Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) states on its
official complaint form [http://www.osc.gov/documents/forms/osc13.pdf]
for reporting violations of the Act that covered state and
local employees
“[A]re prohibited from
using their official
authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with
or affecting the result of an election or nomination for
office.”
My practice of law is limited to my
years as a state and federal prosecutor. But I’d be willing
to argue that a proposed bill is not an “election” for
purposes of the Hatch Act. Reading the above quoted language
in the context of the entire Act, it seems that “election”
refers to candidates, not proposed bills such as the one
limiting collective bargaining.
So I find it interesting that a
General Counsel for the National Fraternal Order of Police [http://www.fop.net/programs/research/hatchact.pdf]
interprets the Hatch Act as prohibiting an officer from:
“[U]s[ing] any official authority or influence for political
purposes, including using the officer’s official title or
authority to coerce individuals to participate in political
activity.”
While there may still be room to argue
the letters did not violate this prohibition, it’s a tougher
argument to make. That said, the OSC appears to only apply
this restriction to federal employees. Referring again to
its official complaint form, it states, in relevant part,
that only
“Federal
employees are generally prohibited from:
Soliciting or discouraging the participation in political
activity of any person who has business before their
agency.”
While we could argue about whether the
business owners who received the letters have “business
before the police department,” this, too, would be a tougher
argument. But, the letter signers weren’t federal employees
so the FOP’s position stumps me.
Still, there may be a bigger issue
here for police unions and departments than a discussion of
the Hatch Act.
Labor activism or protection racket?
A friend and colleague, Patricia
Robinson, first brought the unions’ letters to my attention.
Pat was close to the action. She lives and works in
Wisconsin as the Executive Dean of Public Safety at the Fox
Valley Technical College in Appleton. She previously worked
as a patrol officer, then took her street experience to the
Academy as a full-time training officer and then was Deputy
Director of the Wisconsin Training and Standards Bureau. She
also presently serves on the IACP Ethics Committee.
Pat expressed concern that the letters
“crossed the line” and would damage the reputation of the
police unions and departments they represented long after
the current fight was over --regardless of which side
prevailed. But, having expressed that view to fellow members
of the Madison Professional Police Officers Association, she
was the getting a lot of flak.
I initially responded that I thought
the letter could be a PR problem but I didn’t see how it was
an ethical one. Pat replied that the letter could lead to
speculation that police and fire fighters might not respond
as promptly to calls from businesses that choose not to take
a position on the bill or actively supported it.
Pat wasn’t alone in her thoughts. You
can check out the negative public comments to online
articles about the letters:
·
Union threatens boycott of any business that doesn’t show support,
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118963234.html?page=1
·
Unions threaten business,
http://www.620wtmj.com/blogs/charliesykes/117764004.html
·
Police and Firefighter unions demand businesses publicly oppose Wisconsin
governor,
http://radioviceonline.com/police-and-firefighter-unions-demand-businesses-publicly-oppose-wisconsin-governor/
·
Support Us or Else: Wisconsin Unions Bully Local Businesses
With Ultimatum,
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/support-us-or-else-wisc-unions-bully-local-businesses-with-ultimatum/
Yes, there were also people who supported the letters but
the following public comment characterizations of the
letters abounded:
·
Extortion
·
Protection racket
·
Goon tactics
·
Sedition
·
Nazism
Some negative comments even came from persons who identified
themselves as union members but still thought the letters
went too far.
Irrespective of where one personally stands on the wisdom of the
letters, I don’t think law enforcement can afford to dismiss
a sizable negative public perception. People’s perceptions
are their reality. These people
live in the communities you patrol. They sit on the juries
in cases in which you testify.
Are police officers different from other public employees
when it comes to such activism?
I’ve previously written about the
First Amendment rights of police officers when it comes to
expressing themselves on the internet and how courts
consider the special needs of departments in maintaining
order, discipline and public trust when balancing police
officers’ rights as compared to other public employees.
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/technology-and-communications/facebook-free-speech-firing-wo
While the Hatch Act makes no such distinction,
officers and departments may wish to.
Irrespective of our personal view of
the merits of the letter sent to business owners in
Wisconsin, law enforcement might want to consider the
implications of such a tactic for the public trust of the
business community – normally public safety proponents and
supporters – and citizens. Given law enforcement’s
tremendous power and need for public trust, perhaps officers
and departments are in a different position than other
public employees when it comes to political activism.
What do
you think
Described
by Calibre Press as "the indisputable master of enter-train-ment,
Val Van Brocklin is an international law enforcement
speaker, trainer and author. She combines her dynamic
presentation style with years of experience as a state and
federal prosecutor, where her trial work received national
media attention on ABC's Primetime Live, the
Discovery Channel's Justice Files, in USA
Today, The National Enquirer and Redbook.
In addition to her personal appearances, Val appears on
television, radio, and the internet. She’s a regular
contributor to
www.officer.com
and
www.lawofficer.com
and has been published in
Police Chief, The
RCMP’s Gazette,
Integrity Talk, and other magazines and books. When she's not
working, Val can be found flying her airplane with a
shotgun, a fly rod, her retriever and high aspirations.
Feel free to visit her web site at
www.valvanbrocklin.com.