|
Post by baddawg on Sept 10, 2007 18:25:23 GMT -5
I GUESS IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT WE GET THIS SORE SUBJECT STARTED AGAIN. WE ARE GONNA HAFTA GIVE IT ONE MORE SHOT AND SEE. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED , LETS SEE WHO RESPONDS. BE SAFE.
|
|
|
Post by marvinhill on Sept 11, 2007 21:39:33 GMT -5
I'll respond. It should be a level playing field for employees of the DOC. If you work with inmates, you should be taken care of. One day, somebody's gonna get hurt (or worse) that is one of the few not covered ~ and the state will change ownership then. Somebody will own the DOC.
|
|
|
Post by calculus on Sept 12, 2007 3:27:12 GMT -5
Being covered under "Special Risk" retirement doesn't limit the state's liability if someone gets "hurt (or worse)." What does limit the state's liability is the state law that limits liability to $100,000 without legislative action. The other thing that limits the state's liability is all the paperwork you sign when you go to work for the DOC which explains the risks of your job and what could happen.
That said, if you want to convince people that you deserve special risk retirement, stop trying to focus on the "hazardous" nature of your job and how you are just as vulnerable to inmate attack as the officers and focus on a more realistic aspect, such as the enviormental stress of working within a correctional institution and the inmate supervision aspect of your job. On the otherhand, perhaps if (some not all) the teachers, librarians, and nurses, developed more of a "security" mindset and start writing inmates up for violations (again some, not all), you could better justify your arguement towards special risk retirement.
Cal.
|
|
|
Post by valleygirl on Sept 12, 2007 4:41:36 GMT -5
Cal,
Some of us in the Programs section have a security mindset. We correct inmates when security is standing there watching (i.e. having inmates pull up their friggin pants, correct inmates when they are talking in the lobby, etc...) when security should have gotten to the inmate first because they saw it first.
You struck a nerve with me.
I have written many D.R.s for violations just to have the D.R. disappear. Most of the D.R.s were after progressive discipline (verbal counseling and C.C.s), not a knee jerk reaction like some.
I wrote a D.R. once that the D.R. team found the inmate not guilty when the inmate gave a plea of no contest. They found the inmate not guildy because there is something funny going on down in my building. The inmate was wrong and he knew how to plea. YOU NEVER RULE FOR THE INMATE WHEN HE PLEAS NO CONTEST. Security was running D.R.s at the time.
The last D.R. I wrote a Lt. (what the Lt. was doing in the DR is beyond comprehension) called me and told me that the inmate really though what he was telling me was the truth. I had to tell the Lt. that the inmate was lying and to lock the SOB up. I cleaned up what I really told the Lt. He finally did it, but it is really insulting when I spend the time to write the D.R., have my supervisor scrutinize the D.R. then have someone from security question? Then the inmate only gets time served for the D.R. Seven days for lying to staff. This is when Security was running D.R.s.
There is a true security threat to non-security staff when Security will not back up all staff.
PLEASE CAL! I thought we were all Brown! Why should I write D.R.s just to be disrespected like that?
|
|
|
Post by calculus on Sept 12, 2007 7:28:01 GMT -5
One would wonder why you take offense at what I said, if you are obviously not one of the "some, not all" people I was describing.
I am sorry you had a bad experience with the DR team, but look at it from security's side, how many times do you think a security staff member has written up an inmate only to have a teacher, or an Armark worker, or librarian take the blame for an inmate's rule violation, or even worse, stand up for the inmate against the officer.
Yes, we are all "Brown" and if you act "Brown" I will stand behind you 100% in your effort, if however you have a streak of "blue" in you, you are on your own.
Cal.
|
|
|
Post by jwmullet on Sept 12, 2007 19:19:42 GMT -5
Cal, what every one should remember is that when a staff member writes a D.R. they are through with it. They cannot take the result from the "TEAM" personally. It may not be the right decision or it may not seem right to the person who wrote the report. That's life and every one should understand the reasons why the Team does what they do. Remember, there is always the next time.
|
|
|
Post by marvinhill on Sept 12, 2007 22:24:42 GMT -5
Cal, I do believe I would rather have YOU stand in front of me, not behind me with that big attitude. I'll watch my own back. How do you "act brown"? Would that be respecting someone who is capable of doing their assigned job correctly? Wearing brown, being a nurse, teacher, whatever, we all work around inmates. Flowery speech there you gave, big guy...you should run for office.
|
|
|
Post by calculus on Sept 14, 2007 4:37:20 GMT -5
JW, I know what you are saying, and I seldom follow up on my DR's after they are investigated, however, when an inmate beats a DR, based on a witness statement of a non-security staff member who wasn't even present during the incident (which happens frequently at the institution I am currently working at). It tends to leave a bad taste in your mouth, especially when the inmate comes back to the dorm and continues the bad behavior that got them the DR in the first place.
Marvin, I am curious since you are apparently a security officer, what are you saying, that you will be standing behind me, watching out for only you? I believe there is a name for a person like that, I think it rhymes with "showered." As I recall, there are no "conditions" to the oath that you are governed by, you know the one that says you will "go in harm’s way in fulfillment of these missions. (one of those missions is 'protection of my fellow officers').
I guess that is the biggest difference between you and me, when it comes to work, I could care less about your attitude, your political positions, or whether I liked you or not. I would not think twice about putting myself between you and an inmate if the need arose. I would ALWAYS be watching your back, as well as the backs of the other officers around me.
|
|
|
Post by jwmullet on Sept 14, 2007 5:35:06 GMT -5
Cal, it's not just at CFRC, its every where that Germany has been. That seems to be a mind set that he forced on people he "lead". He by no means is the only weak sister out there. Just press on and when the idiot inmate keeps up his BS keep popping the paper work and those people will get the message along with the inmate.
|
|
|
Post by marvinhill on Sept 14, 2007 11:20:52 GMT -5
Cal ~ I don't plan to get into a 4th grade pissing contest with you. I'm not a coward as you suggested, I just prefer to trust who I work with. My point was simply, (and I may have misunderstood YOUR statement referring to standing behind someone IF they are "acting brown") to say that I took an oath to protect my coworkers...all of them..regardless of what color they "act". So, this whole little drama session is a moot point since it seems we agree on that issue.
JW, you are right. It's everywhere. Good advice to follow about popping the paperwork.
Back on topic, the high risk issue is a valid one (in my opinion) that should be taken into consideration.
Never argue with a fool. Someone watching may not be able to tell the difference. ~Author Unknown
|
|
|
Post by Indian Outlaw on Sept 14, 2007 13:13:59 GMT -5
i wondered if this topic would reappear. i hoped it would. sadly though, state workers and their families well being are obviously nowhere near a top priority of our esteemed elected officials. marti coley sponsored the bill, which is far more than i expected of her. then good ol al lawson swashed it. THANKS FOR NOTHING SHALLOW AL! i wonder what kind of raise he got this year. what really burns me is that he is one of the big dawgs in tally that told me personally how much we deserved this benefit, and he would work hard to make it happen. he took it off his committees agenda twice, then cut back the positions so much that the original folks that where "supposedly" targeted to receive high risk were completely cut out. let me stop, right now...before my blood really starts boiling.
|
|
|
Post by johnnylaw on Sept 18, 2007 20:59:15 GMT -5
i gotta say calculus nailed this one on the head.
|
|
|
Post by panasonic on Sept 22, 2007 11:06:10 GMT -5
I work around inmates everyday, I feel that anyone within the Agency deserve High Risk pay, as long as there doing their jobs, even thoses that are not in Security. I will back anyone that does their job, however If I find something going on between an inmate, Security Staff, OR in any other Department I will do everything within my power to get your job!!!!!!! I have been with the Department for over (21) years, I have seen alot going on within the Department. I 'am here to do a job.
|
|
|
Post by marvinhill on Sept 22, 2007 15:32:30 GMT -5
Well said, Panasonic...
|
|
|
Post by malachi on Sept 25, 2007 9:29:11 GMT -5
The focus needs to be changed here. All of us will die or have health problems at an earlier age than normal because of the nature of our work.
I wrote an article in a newspaper a few years back. Here is an excerpt.
"Life expectancy in the USA is now at a high of 77.6 years. Solid research has shown the life expectancy, after retirement, of an officer is much shorter than that of the general population. A 40-year longitudinal study concluded the life expectancy of a retired male officer in the United States was 66 years, significantly less than the 77.6 average.
Law enforcement has serious hazards, risks, and high levels of stress not associated with other careers, particularly in the private-sector. The suicide rate, divorce rate, and a host of other health related issues is much higher for officers than the current national averages. The reasons for these problems are many, complex and varied. Additionally, research has identified 53 stressors associated with police work. Officers suffer more often from heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes than the general public. They have an above average risk for heart attacks, obesity, arthritis, ulcers, and cancer while also prone to bouts of depression and suicide."
So have another donut and sit on your ass.
|
|