Bureaucracy at its "finest".

[Baytor]

What do you mean by this? I don't understand the inference.

He's saying that if a Police office is considered always on duty, then we shouldn't get overtime pay.

 

[michaeledward]

What do you mean by this? I don't understand the inference.

Baytor is correct.

Perform a 'Google' search on 'Police Overtime Costs' to further understand the impact on the community and state.

The supposition was put forth that being a civil servants should consider their vocation a 24-hour-a-day responsibility. If this premise is to be accepted, I would assume that those choosing this vocation would similarly accept the premise that their remuneration should not be subject to the rules of 'over-time'. How can you work 'Over-Time' in a 24-hour-a-day field of work?

Further this leads back to the original premise. That 'Workers' Compensation' program should cover the individual when he is not working because it is a 24-hour-a-day job, or if you prefer, subject to a 'Good Samaritin' clause.

Either, he is working, or he is not. If you want the Workers' Compensation for injuries sustained because it is '24-hour-a-day vocation', then let's remove that overtime compensation.

I think I would be in favor of expanded Workers' Compensation liability in lieu of overtime compensation.

I do not think that the taxpayers should be subject to Law Enforcement Officers 'Having their Cake' and 'Eating it too'.

 

[Ping898]

He's saying that if a Police office is considered always on duty, then we shouldn't get overtime pay.

There is a difference between working overtime and always being on duty. In other jobs you can be on call and have to come back to work and that's just considered part of the job with no extra pay, but if you have to work say 4 days in a row, that's like overtime and should be paid as such.
When you work overtime you are at your job every second, for a police officer, they can leave work for the day, go home, and be spending time with their family and suddenly have to do like this guy did and try and rescue someone. He shouldn't get overtime for it because up until that second he was helping out he wasn't specifically working, but he should be covered by WC cause helping to serve and protect is part of his job. He was working at that moment, he was on duty and should be treated as such.

 

[michaeledward]

There is a difference between working overtime and always being on duty. In other jobs you can be on call and have to come back to work and that's just considered part of the job with no extra pay, but if you have to work say 4 days in a row, that's like overtime and should be paid as such.
When you work overtime you are at your job every second, for a police officer, they can leave work for the day, go home, and be spending time with their family and suddenly have to do like this guy did and try and rescue someone. He shouldn't get overtime for it because up until that second he was helping out he wasn't specifically working, but he should be covered by WC cause helping to serve and protect is part of his job. He was working at that moment, he was on duty and should be treated as such.

I understand your argument. I do not, however, subscribe to it.

It can not be both, either his is working or he is not.

If he is working whenever the need arises, then he should have access to Workers' Compensation but not access to overtime, as the requirement of 'overtime' is equal to the 'need' to serve and protect as part of his job.

If he is not working, then the overtime compensation plans negotiated by police unions are in force, but the workers' compensation should not be.

The 'Heads I win, tails you lose' argument should be rejected.

 

[Tgace]

Of course you dont subscribe to it. Her point is valid though. ( ) Off duty im not patrolling the neighborhood, conducting traffic stops, directing traffic, taking reports, answering radio calls etc. Off duty im only acting when the need is dire. Unless you would like us to be able to stop you on the road in our personal vehicles (maybe I can get a radar unit in my olds).

If my employer wanted to work out a salary agreement where I was "always on duty" and wouldnt have to sign in and out everyday fine. I believe part of the issue is probably labor law bureaucrats. They like to have a working/not working situation.

 

[Tgace]

What about volunteer firemen (since everybody likes firemen) who get hurt when they respond to an emergency while "off duty" i.e. they are driving along outside their district and come across an emergency.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.overtimepay.com/police.htm

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal law that requires employers to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation (under specific circumstances) to their employees. Since the FLSA became applicable to state and local government employers in 1986 following a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, many public employers have attempted various ways to avoid paying overtime compensation (i.e., time and one-half pay) to fire fighters, rescue service, emergency medical service (EMS) and law enforcement personnel as the law requires. If an employer’s overtime pay practices are in violation of the FLSA, employees may file a lawsuit against the employer and obtain back pay (which may be doubled to include what is known as "liquidated damages"), reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. Various circumstances in which public employers are required to pay overtime (after a specific threshold is met)—and in which many public employers try to avoid paying overtime—are described below:


......
EXCLUDING OFFICERS FROM THE OVERTIME PAY REQUIREMENT – Are Police Officers Entitled to Overtime? Answer: Some Are and Some Are Not.



The FLSA generally requires that public employers pay time and one-half overtime to law enforcement personnel when they work more than an average of 43 hours a week. However, the FLSA also exempts certain classes of employees from this overtime pay requirement. A public employer can determine that officers shall not be paid overtime if:

• officers are paid on a salaried (rather than per hour) basis; and
• the officers perform primarily supervisory duties during their work time.

The courts have established factual and legal standards that are applied to determine whether these two conditions are met (and therefore, whether officers are improperly being denied overtime pay).

 

[michaeledward]

Of course you dont subscribe to it. Her point is valid though. ( ) Off duty im not patrolling the neighborhood, conducting traffic stops, directing traffic, taking reports, answering radio calls etc. Off duty im only acting when the need is dire. Unless you would like us to be able to stop you on the road in our personal vehicles (maybe I can get a radar unit in my olds).

If my employer wanted to work out a salary agreement where I was "always on duty" and wouldnt have to sign in and out everyday fine. I believe part of the issue is probably labor law bureaucrats. They like to have a working/not working situation.

And who gets to decide when the "need is dire"?
Are "traffic stops" dire or not? If they are not dire, why are they performed at all? Is "answering radio calls" a dire activity? If not, why do it at all?

The argument you are making seems to be: "the judgement as to whether my actions are covered by my negotiated contract, or not, is something to be decided on in a moment by moment situation."

Are there any other occupations where this is acceptable?

Perhaps, I should be able to decide on a moment by moment basis, if I should be subject to societal rules. On what items am I given authority and judgement? Traffic Rules? Narcotic Ingestion? Weapons Usage?

To me, it smells of 'We, Law Enforcement Officers Know What's Best For You'.

Who watches the watchers?

 

[Tgace]

Ummm...stopping a car without a taillight isnt "dire" (although it could lead to a dire situation) . I dont go lights and sirens to a broken window call. Its pretty simple to figure out. People dont expect me to write parking tags when im at the mall with the kids. They would expect me to act if a guy started stabbing his girlfriend in the parking lot....

Setting up a dwi checkpoint while off duty would be pretty silly dont ya think? When we are in the same restaurant and a robber starts shooting and Im off duty with my weapon on me...thats dire.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

If I may interject, I believe the issue is better framed in terms of liability. Worker's Comp. doesn't apply to actions done while off the job simply because, at that time, the officer wasn't acting as a police officer, he was acting as a citizen. A damn brave and damn moral citizen, but a citizen nonetheless.

Try and address this question. If the police department is to cover the officer for liability for injuries incurred by his good actions, what about injuries incurred during his bad actions? Specifically, if the police department were required to pay Workers Comp for his attempting to save a child from a burning building and thereby incurring injuries (since, after all, he is a police officer), should the police department also be held liable for, say, his wife's injuries while the police officer, in a drunken rage, beats her up? Or say, he injures someone during a drug deal? I don't think Worker's Comp should be applied to off-duty actions, simply because the Department would then be liable for all kinds of things, both good and bad, that it has no control over.

You have a good point about him being in uniform though, and perhaps some type of representation clause might be acceptable, but that would require a lot of though in application. So yeah, my 2 cents.

 

[Tgace]

And who gets to decide when the "need is dire"?
Are "traffic stops" dire or not? If they are not dire, why are they performed at all? Is "answering radio calls" a dire activity? If not, why do it at all?

The argument you are making seems to be: "the judgement as to whether my actions are covered by my negotiated contract, or not, is something to be decided on in a moment by moment situation."

Are there any other occupations where this is acceptable?

Perhaps, I should be able to decide on a moment by moment basis, if I should be subject to societal rules. On what items am I given authority and judgement? Traffic Rules? Narcotic Ingestion? Weapons Usage?

To me, it smells of 'We, Law Enforcement Officers Know What's Best For You'.

Who watches the watchers?

Uhhh..I was talking about doing those tasks while "off duty" wasnt I. Are you saying I should be carrying my summons book on me while Im going to the store to buy milk?

Im going out to the garage to install the lightbar on my minivan.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Im going out to the garage to install the lightbar on my minivan.

Finally, a police vehicle I can actually outrun. :lol:

 

[Tgace]

If I may interject, I believe the issue is better framed in terms of liability. Worker's Comp. doesn't apply to actions done while off the job simply because, at that time, the officer wasn't acting as a police officer, he was acting as a citizen. A damn brave and damn moral citizen, but a citizen nonetheless.

Try and address this question. If the police department is to cover the officer for liability for injuries incurred by his good actions, what about injuries incurred during his bad actions? Specifically, if the police department were required to pay Workers Comp for his attempting to save a child from a burning building and thereby incurring injuries (since, after all, he is a police officer), should the police department also be held liable for, say, his wife's injuries while the police officer, in a drunken rage, beats her up? Or say, he injures someone during a drug deal? I don't think Worker's Comp should be applied to off-duty actions, simply because the Department would then be liable for all kinds of things, both good and bad, that it has no control over.

You have a good point about him being in uniform though, and perhaps some type of representation clause might be acceptable, but that would require a lot of though in application. So yeah, my 2 cents.

Good points. As devils advocate though, does that mean I should be able to sit back and watch a guy beat somebody to death and do nothing because Im "off duty"? As was mentioned before, some cops have faced job action for failure to perform while off duty.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Well in that case I'd agree that there's a hell of a double-standard going on, and in my opinion, the department should regard an off-duty cop as a citizen in all situations, despite how heartless it may seem.

Now, in the case of the off-duty cop who fails to respond, I'd say treat him with the same standards as a normal citizen doing the same thing, and if the courts or statutes say a citizen is liable for that, then so should the cop be held liable.

You gotta understand, I'm in law school right now, so I'm thinking in terms of nothing but "liability" and "standards" and "reasonableness" and...oh, 'tis scary indeed.

 

[Tgace]

Trouble is, we LEO's (in many, but not all states) have full police powers while off duty. If you have that power can you truly be treated as an "average citizen" while off-duty and a "situation" arises?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

You have full police powers, but do you have full police duties? Are you required to enforce those powers while off-duty, or are you simply allowed full police powers at your choice to enforce them while off duty?

 

[Tgace]

Yeah I see your arguement, but "with power comes responsibility". Thats why people get all upset with "off-duty" cops who fail to act in emergency situations. And if I do "choose" to use them, am I not acting "under color" of authority and no longer "joe citizen"? If so am I covered?

 

[michaeledward]

Ummm...stopping a car without a taillight isnt "dire" (although it could lead to a dire situation) . I dont go lights and sirens to a broken window call. Its pretty simple to figure out. People dont expect me to write parking tags when im at the mall with the kids. They would expect me to act if a guy started stabbing his girlfriend in the parking lot....

Setting up a dwi checkpoint while off duty would be pretty silly dont ya think? When we are in the same restaurant and a robber starts shooting and Im off duty with my weapon on me...thats dire.

Well, then, if "its pretty simple to figure out", it shouldn't be hard to codify. Once "its" is written out, it could be presented to each of the stakeholders for discussion and action.

'Til then, however, 'The Rules is The Rules'. It's pretty simple to figure out, don't you think?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I was asking you a factual question. You said that, even off-duty, a cop maintains full police powers. I'm assuming this is by some police oath or law or something. Just yes or no, does the same law or rule, or another law or rule, give them full police duties? That would seem, in my view, to clear up a whoooole lot of this issue.

 

[Tgace]

I was asking you a factual question. You said that, even off-duty, a cop maintains full police powers. I'm assuming this is by some police oath or law or something. Just yes or no, does the same law or rule, or another law or rule, give them full police duties? That would seem, in my view, to clear up a whoooole lot of this issue.

NYS Criminal Procedure Law Sec. 2.20-3

A peace officer, whether or not acting pursuant to his special duties, who lawfully exercises any of the powers conferred upon him pursuant to this section, shall be deemed to be acting within the scope of his public employment for purposes of defense and indemnification rights and benefits that he may be otherwise entitled to under the provisions of section fifty-k of the general municipal law, section seventeen or eighteen of the public officers law, or any other applicable section of law.


Even if it dosent spell out duties, the simple fact that an LEO possesses these powers sets him/her to a different standard of action. Once a person uses these powers he /she should assume some sort of responsibility and some sort of protection.