Breathalyzer "not admissible in court" -- say what???

[Kevin16587]

Kevin - there are rules for checkpoints - don't follow them and your arrests all get tossed. I realize you're not the supervising officer - and there are damn few arrests for intox at checkpoints - most are lack of license, expired reg with no license for impound, etc etc etc.

As for the refusal - have you ever encountered someone properly invoke their rights? Because if you continue a stop with zero objective facts concerning intoxication, and relying on a person to cooperate with you to develop those facts, and they don't - well - that can get you fired in this very sad legal environment.

I've actually done the above:

when sober - refuse to cooperate, invoke my rights, refuse a punitive PAS and FST, and absolutely refuse to cooperate with the development of facts. If arrested, I would have blown 0.00.

You're doing your job- I'm doing mine. Obviously with 10-15 officers standing around, I'm not preventing them from finding a drunk in line.

I must have written something that made you think I wasn't a supervisor. I moved onto another specialty position in 2006, so DUI stuff is no longer my deal, but I'm very aware of the laws concerning checkpoints. I have personally only participated in a couple. I'm also very aware that everything needs to be complied with. I've had a few people clam up and invoke their rights. We even have a few constitutionalists around who believe they don't need a drivers license and they make their own license plates. The sober drivers that refuse to cooperate aren't doing anything wrong but they certainly aren't improving their situation either. Officers that continue to push without any justification aren't doing any good either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kevin16587]

Every time I am pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence, I just fall over on the officers feet and play dead....

Oh, I have never been pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence, so I don't know if it works....

For the win!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

I file an ASRS report before I drive. @SixPapaCharlie showed me how!

 

[ircphoenix]

I was just stopped three weeks ago at a checkpoint.

The conversation went thusly:

Me: "Howdy!" *hand over my license which I had in hand*
CHP: *laughs* "Howdy? Where are you from?
Me: "Here! Born and raised."
CHP: "And you say howdy?"
Me: "Hi is boring."
CHP: "I guess that's true. Where ya headed?"
Me: "Home over off of *insert cross streets here*."
CHP: "Okay. Had anything to drink tonight?"
Me: "Nope!"
CHP: "Excellent. Have a good night."

Worst 15 seconds of my life. Stupid freedom hating police.

Speaking of which, I like working DUI/driver's license checkpoints. It's been shown that saturation patrols are more effective than checkpoints, and working a car with a partner sounds more appealing to me than standing in the middle of the road... but it is what it is.

 

[Kevin16587]

I disagree - old fashioned is:

a) not drinking and driving - or
b) exercising your rights and making you do your job properly. . . .

No commentary on b - most officers are decent folks who are doing a job they are trained to do - just making an observation.

Because the 'standard' response of "I've had two beers" is an admission to the consumption of alcohol prior to driving which generates all sorts of reasonable suspicion for you to continue the stop.

Most cops I know already have reached the conclusion they're pulling over an intoxicated person from what they have observed before the stop . . . . so the questions and answers are part of the kubuki dance. Which is why I don't play. . . .

Ok, so don't play. But don't complain about getting harassed by law enforcement. In my opinion, you are at least partially bringing that upon yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kevin16587]

In parts of California they used sobriety checkpoints to catch undocumented folks.

Checkpoints are also used to enforce driver's license violations. In California undocumented folks are eligible to obtain a driver's license.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kevin16587]

NO


"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."



Same morons with "the children" type logic often are ok with sending kids who arnt even old enough to legally drink or own a pistol in many states overseas.. to get shot and killed and to shoot and kill other kids to falsely "protect" their "freedom".

Yet... when someone at home is actively attacking their real freedom, attacking America (any attack on the constitution is a true attack on what America really is, and a road block is a clear 4A violation), if the government invokes "save one life" "the children" or any other marketing slogans, those dohdohs are all like "well ok, let me bend over a little further for you...I mean if it could save one life and all"



FAIL

Using that same mentality why not just drive whatever speed you want to, or make stop signs optional. Hell, just drive on the wrong side of the road because you won't give up any liberty in the name of safety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ircphoenix]

I like the gripe that checkpoints are unconstitutional... and that anything that upholds them is wrong.

Okay... so the Constitution lays out who is responsible for what. But if part of the Constitutionally established government does something certain people disagree with, then that's unconstitutional and wrong.

Because a random dude interpreting the Constitution is wayyyyy more legit than a judicial scholar.

I disagreed with pretty much every opinion Scalia ever wrote or signed on to... I'd still trust him over a basement Constitutional expert.

 

[Palmpilot]

I think many people overlook that the fourth amendment uses the word "unreasonable" in describing the searches that are prohibited. That creates a lot of room for differences of opinion.

 

[Kevin16587]

I was just stopped three weeks ago at a checkpoint.

The conversation went thusly:

Me: "Howdy!" *hand over my license which I had in hand*
CHP: *laughs* "Howdy? Where are you from?
Me: "Here! Born and raised."
CHP: "And you say howdy?"
Me: "Hi is boring."
CHP: "I guess that's true. Where ya headed?"
Me: "Home over off of *insert cross streets here*."
CHP: "Okay. Had anything to drink tonight?"
Me: "Nope!"
CHP: "Excellent. Have a good night."

Worst 15 seconds of my life. Stupid freedom hating police.

Speaking of which, I like working DUI/driver's license checkpoints. It's been shown that saturation patrols are more effective than checkpoints, and working a car with a partner sounds more appealing to me than standing in the middle of the road... but it is what it is.

Checkpoints are boring.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Kevin16587]

And the dumb dumbs just keep regurgitating the same marketing line "I likes the check points cuz they be saving lives", funny becuse the majority of the money the police make off the citizens at these things arnt even for DUIs.

How much money do the police make off the citizens at a check point? What percent of all that money comes from DUIs vs other things? What are the other things?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ircphoenix]

How much money do the police make off the citizens at a check point? What percent of all that money comes from DUIs vs other things? What are the other things?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't know about you but two more "other things" and I get a toaster!

 

[Kevin16587]

I don't know about you but two more "other things" and I get a toaster!

Shhhh...don't give away all the secrets. If I fill my quota this month I get an extra day of vacation, courtesy of the tax payer. I'll probably just work overtime on that day off so I can get a head start on April's quota.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RJM62]

I think many people overlook that the fourth amendment uses the word "unreasonable" in describing the searches that are prohibited. That creates a lot of room for differences of opinion.

Exactly. The Sitz decision specifically used the word "brief" several times as one of the factors affecting reasonableness. In places like New York City and the surrounding areas, there's no such thing as a "brief" delay caused by a roadblock. The traffic backups they create can stretch for miles and last for hours. That's why they're not used very often, especially during election years. People ***** to their elected officials about them, and that's bad for business.

The officers themselves, in my experience, aren't the problem. Without exception they've been courteous and professional and did their best to make the experience quick and painless. The problem is the placement in locations where any obstruction to traffic is going to **** up traffic flow for hours. Being delayed for three minutes is reasonable (although I still maintain unconstitutional, regardless of what fascists like Rehnquist and Scalia might have thought). Being delayed for an hour and a half because of a suspicion that some unidentified driver might have been drinking isn't.

I remember one time when I was stopped at a roadblock in the Middle of Nowhere on the night before a holiday, and I had fresh-baked bread in a bag on the passenger seat. The yeast made the car smell like a brewery. The officer inquired about it, I showed him the bread, and that was that. We laughed about it, and I went on my way. But it was only quick and easy because it was in the Middle of Nowhere. Had it been in a more populated area, the delay wouldn't have been so brief.

On a practical level, I used to get my old CB radio out of mothballs and fire it up before long trips. The truckers know where the roadblocks are and freely share that information. Nowadays I just use the TomTom app. It detects traffic jams in advance and suggests alternatives, which is what I care about more than the reasons behind the delays in any case. It also detects roadblocks, sort of. When multiple cartoon-ish police cars suddenly appear on the map at the same location, it's usually a roadblock. It could also be an accident. I really don't care which one it is so I re-route either way. I just want to avoid the delays.

Rich

 

[comanchepilot]

Ok, so don't play. But don't complain about getting harassed by law enforcement. In my opinion, you are at least partially bringing that upon yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People who invoke their rights have a reason. Its not done on a lark.

Mine is that I don't believe that being stopped, randomly or otherwise, without any suspicion of a crime being committed is remotely within the ambit of reasonable. The courts disagree, which is why I stop, I comply with requests related to documents and things the court says I am required to do - and draw the line where I am not. I don't pretend I don't need a drivers license or vehicle reg or any of that. Conduct is important to me - not made up crazy tin foil hat stuff. My rights are not tin foil hat concerns. They are real.

Thus, being treated with disrespect by any law enforcement officer for invoking them the way its supposed to be done, and standing on them through the stop or detention, is not grounds for being treated with disrespect, unless those officers find the opposition to what they are doing disrespectful. In that case, I suggest that perhaps they should have another profession. Since upholding the law means upholding all of it - even the parts that make their job difficult.

In case you hadn't noticed- I've never been disrespectful or rude, polite and matter of fact. It's a professional interaction. I"m not his friend - and he's not mine.

 

[comanchepilot]

The sober drivers that refuse to cooperate aren't doing anything wrong but they certainly aren't improving their situation either. Officers that continue to push without any justification aren't doing any good either.

Perhaps you need to get out more - said with all respect. But what happens on the road at 1030pm is a far cry from the clean facts the appellate court justices see. . . .

I actually know why some officers are against bodycams . .. but, at the end of the day . .. those body cams seem to malfunction only at times that would help defendants and complainants. . .

 

[ircphoenix]

I actually know why some officers are against bodycams . .. but, at the end of the day . .. those body cams seem to malfunction only at times that would help defendants and complainants. . .

Body cams end up justifying the officer's actions in the overwhelming majority of incidents.

The reason many officers and agencies are against them is because they don't want an officer worrying about the camera during high stress, dynamic, rapidly evolving situations. They'd rather have their officers focused on officer safety during those times. There's also the matter of how to store the terabytes of data, how to handle video disclosures (is it public info, or evidence?), the privacy issues that suddenly the ACLU is worried about despite demanding cameras in the first place (now that they realize body cams don't vilify the police) and the negative perception when officers are equipped with cameras but don't turn them on for whatever reason.

I think they're good... but I understand why large agencies don't want to deal with them.

 

[paflyer]

The sober drivers that refuse to cooperate aren't doing anything wrong but they certainly aren't improving their situation either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What do you mean by that? So by standing up for your rights a driver is now open to further scrutiny and "punishment" (i.e., "I smell the odor of marijuana.")?

 

[comanchepilot]

Body cams end up justifying the officer's actions in the overwhelming majority of incidents.

The reason many officers and agencies are against them is because they don't want an officer worrying about the camera during high stress, dynamic, rapidly evolving situations. They'd rather have their officers focused on officer safety during those times. There's also the matter of how to store the terabytes of data, how to handle video disclosures (is it public info, or evidence?), the privacy issues that suddenly the ACLU is worried about despite demanding cameras in the first place (now that they realize body cams don't vilify the police) and the negative perception when officers are equipped with cameras but don't turn them on for whatever reason.

I think they're good... but I understand why large agencies don't want to deal with them.

I agree that bodycams are good.

I also agree that they show the true state of affairs that transpired during the officer's interaction. However, there have been several notable cases where the body cam 'malfunctioned' or the data was 'erased accidentially' in situations where the data was subpoenaed to establish officer misconduct or disrespect in violation of department policy.

Thus, there is a clear suspicion that officers are destroying or causing damage to the unit to prevent discipline and disclosure of their conduct outside policy. It happens too often to be random.

Now- what everyone says who is against disclosure of bodycam footage - is about privacy. But, the officer has zero reasonable expectation of privacy while on patrol. Now, private functions, bathroom, eating, etc, sure - those are not public functions - but the public owns the data to everything else. Not the department. The politicians need to man up and tell the LEO's that they own the data, not the department, and it needs to be stored for 6 months on a rolling basis unless subpoenaed before then.

 

[comanchepilot]

What do you mean by that? So by standing up for your rights a driver is now open to further scrutiny and "punishment" (i.e., "I smell the odor of marijuana.")?

thats exactly what he is saying . . . .

but he did then comment that officers who do that are not helping the situation either. . .

 

[ircphoenix]

I agree that bodycams are good.

I also agree that they show the true state of affairs that transpired during the officer's interaction. However, there have been several notable cases where the body cam 'malfunctioned' or the data was 'erased accidentially' in situations where the data was subpoenaed to establish officer misconduct or disrespect in violation of department policy.

Thus, there is a clear suspicion that officers are destroying or causing damage to the unit to prevent discipline and disclosure of their conduct outside policy. It happens too often to be random.

Now- what everyone says who is against disclosure of bodycam footage - is about privacy. But, the officer has zero reasonable expectation of privacy while on patrol. Now, private functions, bathroom, eating, etc, sure - those are not public functions - but the public owns the data to everything else. Not the department. The politicians need to man up and tell the LEO's that they own the data, not the department, and it needs to be stored for 6 months on a rolling basis unless subpoenaed before then.

The technology is both new and usually proprietary. So you have MANY instances where the footage is deleted because it is either corrupted by the RIDICULOUS proprietary software that the companies that make the cameras force the agencies to use, or by stupidity. Never assume conspiracy where incompetence will suffice. I personally hate one company in particular that makes a certain device that can be defeated by thick clothing... which may or may not work if the battery wiggles... and has a monopoly on those particular devices and whose process for downloading data is dumb... and makes an inferior body camera that is bulky and awkward with yet another stupid process for downloading the data... but I digress.

There's also issues with body cameras being used as fishing expeditions by supervisors who don't like specific employees. Doesn't justify it, but cops, no matter the rank, are people too. And some can be petty and vindictive and get away with **** poor behavior just like any other supervisor at any other job.

As far as privacy goes... I don't think there are many people who say that the OFFICER is the one with the expectation of privacy. It's well established that cops don't have any outside of the PBOR. But the privacy concerns that I've heard expressed is the privacy of individuals that the cameras record when police respond to their calls for service.

Also, the video should not be considered public data. It doesn't belong to the public. I am a FIRM believer that any and all video that is recorded is evidentiary in nature, not subject to public disclosure, unless other evidence would be disclosed during the same or similar circumstances. The general public has absolutely ZERO business watching camera footage of someone's personal family issue.

I think most agencies are forming policies to hold the data for a year, which exceeds your requirement. But even then there are many cases during criminal proceedings and appeals where the data would need to be held for much longer. Not necessarily an issue for an agency with a few officers. But when you look at an agency like LAPD that has 10,000 sworn officers... that's a lot of footage, even if 3,000 of them are patrol officers, and record for 1 hour of their 12 hour shift... that's 3,000x1 hour @ roughly 3 gigs per hour for a 1080p video. 9 terabytes of data PER DAY. 3 petabytes a year. There are some logistical problems there that have yet to be addressed effectively.

 

[comanchepilot]

@ircphoenix - I NEVER assume conspiracy when incompetence will do.

however, as any police officer will tell you, there is no such thing as coincidence.

In situations where the body camera footage will exonerate or paint the officer or department in a good light, its almost always available.

In many many situations where the footage will provide someone exculpatory infomration or display misconduct, its 'unavailable,' 'inadvertently' destroyed or damaged, or claimed 'not recorded.' All of that is possible - but its a strange coincidence. And as I mentioned previously . . .there are no coincidences.

I did not say that the data needs to be immediately public - what I said was that the taxpayers own the footage, not the department. Anything recorded in public or on duty, not obviously private, is publicly reachable in an appropriate situation. Just because a police officer may be disciplined is not grounds for redacting or hiding footage. It also does not create a privacy expectation.

I agree that footage does not need to be made routinely available to the public, because there is all sorts of government security footage not available to the public - airports, ports, bridges etc etc etc. But the department should not be controlling it. . . . .

 

[ircphoenix]

In situations where the body camera footage will exonerate or paint the officer or department in a good light, its almost always available.

In many many situations where the footage will provide someone exculpatory infomration or display misconduct, its 'unavailable,' 'inadvertently' destroyed or damaged, or claimed 'not recorded.' All of that is possible - but its a strange coincidence. And as I mentioned previously . . .there are no coincidences.

Source please. It couldn't be that erased data gets reported while positive data that is accidentally erased is shrugged off.

I did not say that the data needs to be immediately public - what I said was that the taxpayers own the footage, not the department. Anything recorded in public or on duty, not obviously private, is publicly reachable in an appropriate situation.

Again, I believe camera footage is evidentiary. If any other evidence would be disseminated publicly in the same or similar circumstances, I'm good with it. I'm not good with releasing camera footage just because.

Just because a police officer may be disciplined is not grounds for redacting or hiding footage.

I specifically said I wasn't justifying it. I was using that as an example for why police officers may not like the idea of implementing body cams.

I agree that footage does not need to be made routinely available to the public, because there is all sorts of government security footage not available to the public - airports, ports, bridges etc etc etc. But the department should not be controlling it. . . . .

Who do you suppose should control it?

 

[denverpilot]

...the RIDICULOUS proprietary software that the companies that make the cameras force the agencies to use,

That line right there is horsepucky. No one can be forced to purchase or spec proprietary software.

If a municipality doesn't have their crap together enough to write a bid in such a way that they own the code to whatever is produced, and set monetary penalties for software that doesn't work correctly, they haven't been doing software very long.

They also aren't good stewards of the millions of dollars such a system takes to build and operate. And we haven't even discussed that part.

Cameras aren't cheaper than excessive force lawsuits. There's your real moral dilemma. One local agency has paid out over $3M on a single officer and he's still not gone. I've always wondered what blackmail information he has to be able to survive every one of the suits. Must be juicy.

Still an order of magnitude to pay for him than cameras.

 

[ejensen]

Checkpoints are also used to enforce driver's license violations. In California undocumented folks are eligible to obtain a driver's license.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My in-laws live in the Santa Maria/Lompoc area. lots if truck crops.

 

[ircphoenix]

That line right there is horsepucky. No one can be forced to purchase or spec proprietary software.

If a municipality doesn't have their crap together enough to write a bid in such a way that they own the code to whatever is produced, and set monetary penalties for software that doesn't work correctly, they haven't been doing software very long.

They also aren't good stewards of the millions of dollars such a system takes to build and operate. And we haven't even discussed that part.

Cameras aren't cheaper than excessive force lawsuits. There's your real moral dilemma. One local agency has paid out over $3M on a single officer and he's still not gone. I've always wondered what blackmail information he has to be able to survive every one of the suits. Must be juicy.

Still an order of magnitude to pay for him than cameras.

HHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Really? You're assuming ANY government entity writes open source demands into their specs? We have fighter aircraft that cannot be upgraded by anyone other than the entity that created them, because they have proprietary code, plugs, switches etc. An F-22 is stuck with a 20 year old CPU because it was manufactured in such a way as to prevent anyone else from plugging anything else into it without a billion dollar contract and an overhaul of the entire avionics system.

Those of us that know ANYTHING about operational requirements are NEVER allowed to submit tech specs for equipment. If we were, people's cousins, friends, nephews, and acquaintances wouldn't be able to wrangle sole source contracts out of us all the time.

The real problem with the issue you cited is that civil service protections and FEAR of lawsuits is what motivates agencies to keep bad apples. From the risk management side (I hate 'risk management') they view it as it's easier to keep an employee and move them to somewhere where they can't do any harm than it is to incur legal fees in firing an employee that will probably get reinstated and owed back pay with interest. They're the same geniuses that insist on paying out settlements for every single complaint instead of fighting them... which result in more frivolous claims from people that know how to game the system.

Once you're inside, you see the mechanisms at work... and it truly has nothing to do with evil as much as it has to do with indolence.

 

[paflyer]

. An F-22 is stuck with a 20 year old CPU because it was manufactured in such a way as to prevent anyone else from plugging anything else into it without a billion dollar contract and an overhaul of the entire avionics system.

The Eclipse jet folks must have come out of the LockMart development team

The real problem with the issue you cited is that civil service protections and FEAR of lawsuits is what motivates agencies to keep bad apples.

End public unions. Make "servants" personally responsible for their actions.

 

[ircphoenix]

End public unions. Make "servants" personally responsible for their actions.

I personally benefit from union representation, so I can't agree with you without being a hypocrite... but I do think some of the civil service protections need to go away. It shouldn't be as difficult as it is for a public employee to get terminated for doing a crappy job.

 

[paflyer]

I personally benefit from union representation, so I can't agree with you without being a hypocrite... but I do think some of the civil service protections need to go away. It shouldn't be as difficult as it is for a public employee to get terminated for doing a crappy job.

I've been in the private sector my entire career and never felt I needed to be "represented" to get the best comp possible.

 

[ircphoenix]

I've been in the private sector my entire career and never felt I needed to be "represented" to get the best comp possible.

Your field of work must be pretty nice. =)

 

[Matthew]

Speaking of pay: The KC PD chief announced his retirement last week. His salary was in the neighborhood of $186k. Don't know how that matches up with comparable sized cities. But he had accumulated $500k of unused vacation, sick pay, and comp time that the city now needs to pay off. Bad timing, the PD had just requested an extra $1.7M for PD pay raises.

 

[paflyer]

Your field of work must be pretty nice. =)

No complaints, but no job protection either! Live by the sword, die by the sword...

 

[Palmpilot]

Interesting discussion.

...Once you're inside, you see the mechanisms at work... and it truly has nothing to do with evil as much as it has to do with indolence.

Sloth is one of the "seven deadly sins."

 

[Palmpilot]

I've been in the private sector my entire career and never felt I needed to be "represented" to get the best comp possible.

Blue collar, or white collar?

 

[paflyer]

Speaking of pay: The KC PD chief announced his retirement last week. His salary was in the neighborhood of $186k. Don't know how that matches up with comparable sized cities. But he had accumulated $500k of unused vacation, sick pay, and comp time that the city now needs to pay off. Bad timing, the PD had just requested an extra $1.7M for PD pay raises.

Not a bad take for someone in the job less than 6 years and at the ripe old age of 55. This is why so many municipalities are completely under water. Time for the pols to get some balls and remove these ridiculous benies paid for on the backs of the taxpayers.

 

[paflyer]

Blue collar, or white collar?

Define white/blue.

 

[Matthew]

Not a bad take for someone in the job less than 6 years and at the ripe old age of 55. This is why so many municipalities are completely under water. Time for the pols to get some balls and remove these ridiculous benies paid for on the backs of the taxpayers.

Here's the breakdown (from the KC Star newspaper):

>>>
As of March 10, Forté had accumulated:

▪ 2,526.9 hours of compensatory time;

▪ 1,545 hours of vacation time, plus 40 hours accrued so far in 2017;

▪ 5,442.10 hours of sick time.

His compensatory time owed him as of March 10 is $230,467.86. Vacation and sick leave owed Forté as of March 10 is $268,649.33.

Forté’s annual salary is $189,708.
<<<

As for politicians growing a pair: the KCPD is run by a board of about 5 commissioners. All members but one are appointed by the Governor of MO, and the city Mayor takes the last seat on that board with his single vote. That board determines the pay/compensation for the Chief and the city is on the hook for it.

He's been Chief for about 6 years and a cop for 30. I don't know how he was able to accumulate all those hours. The local news says regular cops can't do that, but he's on a different contract.

 

[denverpilot]

HHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Really? You're assuming ANY government entity writes open source demands into their specs? We have fighter aircraft that cannot be upgraded by anyone other than the entity that created them, because they have proprietary code, plugs, switches etc. An F-22 is stuck with a 20 year old CPU because it was manufactured in such a way as to prevent anyone else from plugging anything else into it without a billion dollar contract and an overhaul of the entire avionics system.

Those of us that know ANYTHING about operational requirements are NEVER allowed to submit tech specs for equipment. If we were, people's cousins, friends, nephews, and acquaintances wouldn't be able to wrangle sole source contracts out of us all the time.

The real problem with the issue you cited is that civil service protections and FEAR of lawsuits is what motivates agencies to keep bad apples. From the risk management side (I hate 'risk management') they view it as it's easier to keep an employee and move them to somewhere where they can't do any harm than it is to incur legal fees in firing an employee that will probably get reinstated and owed back pay with interest. They're the same geniuses that insist on paying out settlements for every single complaint instead of fighting them... which result in more frivolous claims from people that know how to game the system.

Once you're inside, you see the mechanisms at work... and it truly has nothing to do with evil as much as it has to do with indolence.

It's not particularly funny. But keep telling those stories of how you're an "insider" and can't fix it. Pretty useful for "outsiders" to argue to tear the thing down if it's that bad. Always happens eventually in human history.

 

[Palmpilot]

Define white/blue.

Why reinvent the wheel? From merriam-webster.com:

White Collar:

of, relating to, or constituting the class of salaried employees whose duties do not call for the wearing of work clothes or protective clothing — compare blue-collar

Blue Collar:

1 : of, relating to, or constituting the class of wage earners whose duties call for the wearing of work clothes or protective clothing — compare white-collar

2 : having characteristics associated with blue-collar workers: such asa : having, showing, or appealing to unpretentious or unsophisticated tastes a new blue–collar serial … woven around a minor-league baseball team — Steven Flaxb : dependable and hard-working rather than showy or spectacular a blue–collar athlete​

Blue collar employees tend to be more likely to be unionized because they have less bargaining power as individuals than white collar employees do, especially when the latter are in professions such as law, engineering, medicine, etc.

 

[paflyer]

Why reinvent the wheel? From merriam-webster.com:

White Collar:

of, relating to, or constituting the class of salaried employees whose duties do not call for the wearing of work clothes or protective clothing — compare blue-collar

Blue Collar:

1 : of, relating to, or constituting the class of wage earners whose duties call for the wearing of work clothes or protective clothing — compare white-collar

2 : having characteristics associated with blue-collar workers: such asa : having, showing, or appealing to unpretentious or unsophisticated tastes a new blue–collar serial … woven around a minor-league baseball team — Steven Flaxb : dependable and hard-working rather than showy or spectacular a blue–collar athlete​

Blue collar employees tend to be more likely to be unionized because they have less bargaining power as individuals than white collar employees do, especially when the latter are in professions such as law, engineering, medicine, etc.

Other definitions are that blue are labor and white are management. So are pro pilots blue or white? Blue implies some kind of rote manual labor that is easily replaced. I'm an engineer, and to some management types that position is easily replaceable.