Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot
Weird and sad that you imply the standard for keeping a police chief is that he has not broken the law. This is the kind of thinking that leads governments to function so poorly compared to businesses. Any decent business would just fire his sorry ass for being a lousy leader, as described in numerous reports that you seem to ignore.
If he's your brother, cousin, or BFF--that's cool and you're a good friend. But other than that, this is your toughest defense since Silber & Co
|
I don't know him from Adam. But when I hear that a union is unhappy, and then they generate an investigation based on allegations that appear to be within a chief's discretion, I tend to have skepticism of the allegations. People like you think you know everything about the situation just because you read it in the paper. I hate to break it to you but news reporting has biases, and they come out in articles like this one about the chief (and the article about the restaurant owner in Franklin). And it isn't sad, you or I do not know all of the facts, you or I don't know if the allegations are true or made-up. I know the standard for sexual harassment and workplace and they are basically the same for public and private sectors. Such standards are and should be high to protect the employee. Otherwise, someone can make an allegation and destroy someone's life. You are talking about something completely different when you suggest a lower standard for employment. I don't necessarily disagree with you. The standard should be lower for poor performance. However, in the private sector it is easier to terminate someone than in the public sector.