Jim Naseum Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Joe Blow was put on paid administrative leave.... Isn't that "vacation?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Sargent Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I would go fishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted July 31, 2015 Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2015 Joe Blow was put on paid administrative leave.... Isn't that "vacation?" It depends on the company, political subdivision, or union contract. I represent police officers who have been involved in shootings, and they are always placed on administrative leave for at least three days, and as long as 6 weeks. Without exception, they desire to return to work before they are allowed to. While in administrative leave they have to be available to respond to department orders and directives such as seeing a department psychologist, giving statements, etc. In some situations you can have an employee that is going to no doubt be terminated. The administrative leave with pay is pretty close to a vacation, being paid to sit at home, but they are still entitled to due process under a system that provides administrative leave to begin with. Most states are "at will" and unless you have civil service protection, collective bargining, or other policy in place at your job, they just fire you. They do not have to give a reason. If they want to keep their unemployment insurance rates down they will try and document "just cause" for termination. I think most of the cases I am aware of where there was a lot of controversy about how long a person was away from their job, yet still being paid, was over very lengthy investigations that just drug out forever. You then see the phrase used by reporters "Joe Blow continues to be out on paid administrative leave." Where it can really drag out is if they are entitled to be on paid leave pending a criminal charge. A criminal charge can drag out for years. Some agencies provide leave wothot pay if there is a criminal charge, others provide leave with pay, and some others make it discretionary with the department head. Travis 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted July 31, 2015 Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2015 I would go fishing. I'm not going to touch that with a 10'pole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I would go fishing. I'm not going to touch that with a 10'pole. you'd rather hunt? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 usually, paid administrative leave, is provided to people who are suspected of wrongdoing or crimes. something feels backwards about this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted July 31, 2015 Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2015 usually, paid administrative leave, is provided to people who are suspected of wrongdoing or crimes. something feels backwards about this. Sometimes, but not always. It depends on the civil service system, collective bargining agreement, or the HR policies of a particular organization. As I mentioned before, some systems do allow for an employee to be on paid leave pending a criminal charge. Travis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willland Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 usually, paid administrative leave, is provided to people who are suspected of wrongdoing or crimes. something feels backwards about this. True but would you rather the "suspected" be terminated or given leave without pay only to be found innocent of any wrongdoing many months down the road. In the mean time, that said person would possibly be filing bankruptcy because of the lack of sustainable income. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Chad Posted July 31, 2015 Administrators Share Posted July 31, 2015 I could sure use some "Administrative leave" IF YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joessportster Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Hell I would be happy to just be paid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 i don't like the idea they get vacations, even when called admin leave. its a vacation with pay. often tax money. I never hear of private employees getting admin leave, always public workers on my nickel. what would I prefer? "Joe, you are reassigned to cleaning the floors and bathrooms each day during your shift." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) you'd rather hunt? I'd be lion if I said that Edited August 1, 2015 by LarryC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 you'd rather hunt? I'd be lion if I said that Ba da bing!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) what would I prefer? "Joe, you are reassigned to cleaning the floors and bathrooms each day during your shift." DWIAttorney made some valid observations in his first post. Willand followed up with the right question to you. So, now, let's take a look at your reply above. Let's suppose you work in a union. First, are unions bad? Well, that depends on whose perspective is considered. Unions are certainly good (presumably) for their members. Why? Because bargained-for agreements are made on their behalf with employers. These agreements alter the "at-will" employment we have when there are no unions. For example, Texas is an "at-will" state in most respects. That means you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. On occasion, for example, I have had people call me to see what their rights were because they were falsely accused of stealing from their employer and fired. They are outraged that a false accusation of being a thief can be taken by an employer as true and used to punish you by terminating you. All that, and it doesn't matter what you have to say or prove. They don't have to listen. And believe me, they won't. When they decide you're gone, you're gone. Well... that's the way it rolls in "at-will" employment. Unions, on the other hand, set up due process schemes. An employee can only be punished or terminated after having the right to defend himself or herself of any accusations of misfeasance or neglect. It seems fair. Heck, why not? But then, you have to look at it from an employer's perspective. If the employee was good and earning them money in the first place, there probably isn't any need to be a part of a union. Unions are only there to protect the guilty. Right? Because if you think about it... "guilt" in this scenario means either they were dishonest or neglectful. In the vast majority of cases, an employer is not going to kill the geese that lay golden eggs, so the guilty, in these cases, really are very likely to be guilty. They are unwanted by the person who has to write their checks. That's a pretty tough situation to have to keep using the services of someone who gives crappy service but has... "rights." Yep. The right to make you pay him for mediocre to poor service. Now that you see the tug-of-war, you have to wonder which side is right. If you take the view that workers ought to have some sort of due process, then, you can also see that that system could be skirted by simply making up false allegations. Can't you see it? "Chief scientist assigned to cleaning toilets until investigation completed." Yeah... I wonder how long that investigation is going to take. It's effectively a punishment by using a flawed process to skirt the intent of due process. The way to fix that is to pay them not to work. That's a kind-of ballsy alternative, but anything less is simply a mechanism for abuse by an unscrupulous employer or manager. A policy like that is not going to encourage false allegations to get back at enemies in various cliques in the workplace. A policy like that costs the employer pretty good money. Therefore, if a manager invokes "administrative leave" on someone, he better have a really good, legitimate reason for it. As you can see, this makes perfect sense. Each position has its good points and bad points. As Yogi Berra said, "When you come to the fork in the road, take it." Edited July 31, 2015 by Jeff Matthews 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted August 1, 2015 Author Share Posted August 1, 2015 so, when a cop is involved in a shooting that has questions, it's better for him to be "on vacation" than to be in the office filing papers, or answering the phone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Let me add to what DWIL said. My area is not with such police department issues, though. Still. I expect that the department and town, county, state, is facing a multi-million dollar law suit -- eventually paid for by the tax payers. Even it seems to be an egregious situation, they still need the officer to testify and give his (her) side of the story in depositions and trial. Hopefully, the officer will be able to reconcile what happened, and what the officer did, with a reasonable and legal policy of the department. If the officer is fired, he (she) might well become uncooperative or leave town. The municipality certainly wants the officer as part of "the defense team." Further, if the officer is fired, a jury could start thinking that the municipality is in agreement with the plaintiff. But then the municipality pays, and pays big. Therefore, administrative leave is inexpensive compare to the alternatives. Now, my comments may seem to be sole money issues. But, when things are presented in court, we want the truth to come out. Juries really have an eagle eye for the truth. Further, in my view, the police, the municipalities, the insurers, even plaintiffs, even attorneys, will accept a finding by a jury if they believe all the facts have been presented fairly. Hopefully, the parties who have not gotten a favorable verdict will say, "I don't agree, but I can see that reasonable people think the other way, based on the evidence." The administrative leave facilitates that presentation of all the evidence. WMcD Edited August 1, 2015 by William F. Gil McDermott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 so, when a cop is involved in a shooting that has questions, it's better for him to be "on vacation" than to be in the office filing papers, or answering the phone? Apparently, so. That's the bargain. Some cops will view being assigned to filing or phones to be a serious downgrade. Re-read my post above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted August 1, 2015 Author Share Posted August 1, 2015 OK, so on any acusation of wrong doing, the union cops have negotiated the benefit of the doubt as a vacation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 OK, so on any acusation of wrong doing, the union cops have negotiated the benefit of the doubt as a vacation? No. The unions don't have cops. Plus, it takes two to tango. This is a contract. You can just as well say the employer negotiated the benefit of the doubt as vacation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivervalleymgb Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Nearly all police departments are "unionized". The FOP acts as a union. In my lifetime of experience (which includes enforcing laws) the "honest cop" is a rarity. I learned this early and often as a youngster, and when I was with the State, it was reinforced every time I was in court listening to LEO's testify. A lot of cops will get infuriated when someone says they are not honest, but they always turn a blind eye to other cops misdeeds, even if the are honest in court testimony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.