[NYPD] we have.....become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act according

[Lee-Lee]

79. This is the kind of thing that happens when a department loses confidence in its leadership

Its nothing new to NYC. Labor actions happen in all kinds of departments.

In fact, its the exact same thing as a work slowdown by any other type of union, just a type of labor action. I know many here are hypocrites when it comes to workers rights and don't support unions for cops, but the reality is a labor action by cops is just as legitimate as one by any other group of workers. A true supporter of workers doesn't only support them for jobs they like.

I watched a neighboring agency in NC go through something similar. They had an officer disciplined for using a taser in a situation where it was 100% warranted, but it was the son of a prominent local activist who raised a stink (the son had been beating his wife, making such a scene the neighbors called 911). So the chief suspended him without pay for 3 months and has the domestic violence charges dropped. A couple of weeks later an officer was involved in a traffic accident during an emergency response and was fired- even though the dash cam showed the officer was correct and in compliance with traffic laws, and the driver of the other car did not yield to the lights and siren and in fact had headphones in. But the officer was fired anyway, because the press looked bad (child in the back seat of the other car was injured) and the chief wanted to be seen as "doing something". His justification was that the call (burglary in progress) didn't warrant an emergency response- even though response type was left to officer discretion unless directed otherwise and that agency almost always ran code for burglary in progress.

Keep in mind there was no union in this case, collective bargaining is forbidden by law in NC for all government employees.

So the officers quit running code to calls, unless it was an officer in distress. Because you could get disciplined or fired for an accident when it wasn't your fault, but couldn't get fired for taking a few minutes longer to respond in the name of safety. Why risk it if obviously the boss didn't want you to do so? Officers didn't go in to a domestic or anything else in a private residence without at least 2-3 others present- they stayed outside and said it was "too dangerous" because you could get fired for going in and ending it early using appropriate force, but couldn't get fired for playing it safe. They didn't arrest for anything unless it was a very serious crime, because making an arrest meant you might have to use force and that could get you fired, but giving a warning, not seeing the offence, writing a summons for something lessor that was just a ticket- well those were all lower risk actions. Any discrepancies with vehicles that would have been tolerated were written up as safety issues, etc.

It was essentially a "work-to-rule" of "rule-book slowdown" labor action done without a union.

Needless to say crime went up, citizens were unhappy, but the chief was stuck. His reputation was well known so he couldn't even manage to hire enough officers to replace the ones that left, so firing more was not an option. Crime was rising, citizens were unhappy with the responses and answers they got. That chief "retired" shortly thereafter.