It turns out, according to a June 23 report in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, that more than half of Minnesota cops who get fired, then appeal their terminations, don't get their jobs back. Same for unionized teachers, nurses and firefighters.
That's not good enough, says Star Tribune columnist D.J. Tice ("Arbitration win rate for fired cops, if you stop to think, is high," July 14).
Tice concludes that either 1) police chiefs are too casual about terminating cops or 2) arbitrators are too casual about second-guessing chiefs' decisions.
He's wrong about both police chiefs and arbitrators.
With his recurring argument that unions prevent police chiefs and cities from firing rogue cops, Tice refuses to let the facts get in the way of his story.
First, it's important to remember that police unions don't always challenge disciplinary decisions, including terminations. Collective bargaining spells out the disciplinary process and is mutually agreed upon by the employer and the union. These agreements are designed to reduce the potential for disagreements. And they work, for the most part.
Most police chiefs know and understand the purpose of collective bargaining. After all, most police chiefs started out as rank and file officers. And, fortunately, most police officers meet and exceed the high standards they are held to and serve with distinction.
Arbitration in a disciplinary matter is a tool of last resort, when neither side can reach an agreement despite good-faith efforts.