The Police Officer At Unknown Police Department

I agree with the line of reasoning you are arguing here. Typically a business will limit what a person can say about that company, especially with the prevalence of social media. I think that while it is limiting your freedom of speech, you are correct in that an employer has a right to expect that of their employees. Many employers will not allow a person to use the workplace to promote their political or religious views. For example, you couldn't hand out fliers to your fellow employees inviting them to attend a political rally for a specific candidate or cause. You could do that on your own free time, but not in the workplace. That limits your freedoms as well. Why do you think an employer wouldn't allow that?

When it comes to police officer disciplinary actions, the lines becomes thin and more difficult to read between. It is not such a black and white situation and when it comes to properly disciplining a police officer it can become difficult to do so especially when that officer has either been on the force a long time so there is an established relationship, or the inappropriate act they committed happened just once and they claim it will never happen again. These types of things make it much harder to decide what the right discipline may be for that officer.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), also known as the Wagner Act, was enacted in Congress in 1935 and became one of the most important legacies of the New Deal. Prior to the passage of the NLRA, employers had been free to spy on, interrogate, discipline, discharge, and blacklist union members. Reversing years of federal opposition, the statute guaranteed the right of employees to organize labor unions, to engage in collective bargaining, and to take part in strikes. The act also created a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to arbitrate deadlocked labor-management disputes, guarantee democratic union elections, and penalize unfair labor practices by employers. The law applied to all employees involved in the interstate

After reaching some dead ends while investigating some warrants, Harrison and I responded to a theft at a liquor store on the North side of town. Again, we investigated by asking questions and reviewing surveillance footage, but we took two statements this time. We took a statement from a worker at the store and another from a witness who saw the men described by the worker. Both of the witnesses believed that the group of aboriginal men that were originally in the store were in league with the other one that stole the bottle of rum. Harrison explained to me that he had no reason to believe that they were working together and the witnesses’ prejudice was the only commonality (This was implied, he did not actually say it). Forms of prejudice or discrimination are a part of dealing with public or investigating. In the school yard nearby, Harrison asked a group about the one man who stole the bottle but did not get any useful information. So, Harrison wrote up a report outlining what he did and that concluded it. During the time he wrote up his report, Harrison explained to me that it probably cost the public more in taxes for him to show up and ask a few questions than doing nothing about it. I knew policing is a public service, but sometimes the cost outweighs the means; relying on the principles of, “justice”.

One hundred and seventeen police officers died in 2014, and one was a police officer from Placer County Sheriff. His name was Mike Davis and gunned down on October 24th, 2014 with another officer from Sacramento County. Since 1791, 20538 police officers have died in the line of duty. Also, videos have ruined their reputation, like a San Francisco homeless man who resisted arrest, but the bystanders did not see him kick the officer. Finally, the reason why there is police is to stop people from killing other people.. To conclude, police officers deserve credit and honor than they have been receiving right now because they risk their lives to make our world safer.

29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 (2015). The NLRA enables workers to engage in concerted action free from employer coercion, retaliation, and to bargain collectively with their employer. Id. See also Richard B. Freeman, What Can We Learn from the NLRA to Create Labor Law for the Twenty-First Century? 26 ABA J. LAB. & EMP. L. 327, 327 (2010). Freeman notes that “[t]he NLRA intended to replace the costly organizational fights that historically marred U.S. labor relations with a ‘laboratory conditions’ electoral process . . . .” Id. It also was meant to bolster the economy, facilitate labor peace, and create more jobs. Id.

All organizations are in business to make money, but there are rules that the employer and the employee must follow as well. Any influence that management and labor have over the organization should be equal. The “Landrum-Griffin Act also knows as the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.” Was passed in 1959 through U.S. Congress. This is the result of certain improper activities that was going on between labors, management, employers and certain union officials. Many of the officials in higher positions misused numerous labor funds as well as being involve in violent activities. This act regulated union affairs internally and also controlled the use of union funds.

NLRA was considered to be the law that affected the relationship among the federal government and private enterprise; this measure considerably increased the government’s powers to arbitrate in labor relations. Prior to this law, employers had the emancipation to chastise, spy on, question for no reason and fire union members. Work stoppages commenced in the mid 1930’s (Gould, 1986), which included striking by factory and industrial occupational workers. By the time the strikes came to a halt, America had a more conservative Congress. This Congress led to balance the power between employers and unions. While the Wagner Act addressed only unfair labor practices by employers, it was added to the enactment of

It was established that “a state cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142 (1983). Two inquiries guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded public employee speech. The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the employee spoke as a citizen, the second requires determining whether the government’s interest overweighs employee’s interest. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). The First Amendment only protects a government employee’s speech made not pursuant to the employee's official duties upon matters of public concern. Id. In the present case, Mr. Jackson and Middleton High School had stipulated that Mr. Jackson’s speech on relationship between U.S and Cuba included a matter of public concern. Accordingly, Mr. Jackson has to prove that his statement was made as a citizen instead of a teacher. Since Mr. Jackson voluntarily gave the speech outside of Middleton High School to non-captive audiences, Mr. Jackson spoke as citizen and his speech should be protected by the First Amendment.

With the WAGE Act, instead of or in addition to filing a complaint with the NLRB, employees or unions would be allowed to file a private right of action in courts and be entitled to any remedies available under the NLRA and if successful also receive reasonable attorneys’ fees. One of the criticisms with a failed predecessor of the WAGE Act, the Labor Law Reform Act in 1978, was that it would create increased filings of complaints, therefore allowing employees to harass employers costing time, money, and energy. With employees and unions being able to file suit for violations of the NLRA this same argument could be leveled here, that employees and unions will be extremely litigious and the number of cases filed against employers will increase thereby increasing costs, time spent on litigation, and flood the court systems with endless litigation that could make the courts run less efficiently. Therefore, it is likely that this argument against the WAGE Act will surface once debate on the bill picks up and knowledge of the act becomes more

Everyone is born free in this world and those are only the situations in which they are born, that make one slave or the ruler. In spite of social status and the economic standing of a being everyone wants and should be allowed to express their views, feelings and ideas. It is in nature of humans to experience the wonders of the world and to have the urge to observe and think about the wonders and express the ideas in a certain ways. Another thing that is also certain about the nature of the people that different people look at the same thing in different ways. American constitution is the one that respects the people and about the views and ideas of the people and their right to live and express their ideas freely. The constitution that was made by our fathers not only discusses the issues that are pertaining on collective level, but also, about the common issues and concerns of the people and one of them is freedom of speech. It is also the right of every free person in this world to have freedom of speech and to have his own personal standing. Constitution of United States also considers the right of the people to play their part and have their own view about everything that is happening around them and gives them the right to express them. This paper is also focused on the issue of freedom of speech, but, is targeted to how this right is being guaranteed and exercised at workplaces.

The first Amendment right which guarantees free speech marks our country boundless. However, people use their freedom of speech to against and disrespect police officer in many ways.

Most Americans pride themselves on the fact that they live in a modern, Westernized, capitalist democracy. However, there is a profound irony in this assumption given the extent to which employers can easily reign in the freedom of speech of their employees in the workplace. While all of us have been aware at some point that our freedom of speech may have been constrained as an employee when we are forced to greet customers in a certain manner, the extent to which civil liberties are stripped from employees once they enter an agreement with their employer may be surprising to some, troubling to all. "In America you can say pretty much whatever you want, wherever you want to say it. Unless, that is, you're at work. Simply put, there is no First Amendment right to 'free speech' in the workplace" (Duglow 2012).

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) started in July 1935 to protect the rights of employees, rather, they be union or nor-union employees (Pozgar, 2012). The employees are protected under the Act or may employ in bubble-like, rigorous goings-on in situations other than the customary union organizations and cooperative bargaining. The National Labor Relations Board regulates the employers from interfering with the rights of the employees to implement or organize and join with a groups that offers assists with collective bargaining purposes like organization union or joining one (Pozgar, 2012). The employer may not restrain, coerce or stop employees

The National Labor Relations Act was enacted by congress in 1935 in order to define and defend the rights of the employment relationship. The act allows employees of a company the right to form a union and have the union organization represent them through collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is the process of negotiation between both parties; Union representatives and a corporation, with the purpose of reaching an agreement for the best interests of employees and the corporation. In the negotiation process the attempt is to establish primary factors of importance which are advantages the union fights for and ultimately provide for its stakeholders that would otherwise not have