|
|
What would you think of a law enforcement labor union that negotiates contracts which include premium sharing on health coverage and/or high deductibles for its members? What would you think of a law enforcement labor union that negotiates contracts which do away with defined benefit pension plans? What would you think of a law enforcement labor union that negotiates contracts which include a duty disability pension premium but contain no duty disability provisions? You'd probably think that no such organization would have the nerve to call itself a union. You'd be wrong. A well-known law enforcement labor organization has negotiated agreements that embody each of the above-mentioned flaws. It will not be identified here, but your first guess at its name will likely be correct, because the truth about contracts that so profoundly affect officers and their families has a way of getting around. "As all of our members know, the union in question is certainly not MAP or any other police labor organization that shares our service philosophy," declared MAP Executive Director Fred Timpner. "Two questions are raised: What kind of representation is this for police officers? Why don't the organization's members demand that there will be no more of this? "This is very poor representation, of course. And some members of that union already have done more than demand that it perform better - several groups have left it and come to MAP. "MAP has successfully fought for members on these same important issues and we always will. You'll never hear us talk about our members having to bear some of the burden of high-cost health care. That's the kind of stuff you expect from employers, not your union." |
|