Suspended with pay

**Eastside** · February-07-10, 11:13 AM

I never understood the whole "suspended with pay" thing. What the hell? A cop gets suspended for wrong doings and is paid during his time away.

What kind of punishment is that? So now this guy gets all this free time while being paid by my tax dollars. Something has to change here.

"Another Detroit police officer has been suspended on accusations that he bilked the city of $15,000 in overtime pay, the Free Press has learned.

Police spokesman John Roach confirmed that a 23-year veteran of the department's 10th precinct is suspended with pay after an internal investigation determined the officer regularly signed in at courthouses on his off days when he had no court business, then put in for overtime pay."

**Hermod** · February-07-10, 11:24 AM

I believe that their union contract, like most union contracts, specifies "suspension with pay" unless and until convicted, then it can become "suspension without pay" or "termination".

**pffft** · February-07-10, 12:09 PM

Think about it this way, if you were accused of something on your job that you didn't do, would you like to be sent home and told you're not getting a paycheck until you're cleared?

It's just presumption of innocence, until they prove that he did it [[if he did).

**Hermod** · February-07-10, 12:39 PM

It also speeds up any action on the matter. If the guy is on the clock, the bureaucracy is motivated not to drag it out. If he was suspended without pay, they could drag their feet on it forever [[particularly if they have a weak case).

Retroit · February-07-10, 01:16 PM

If he is found guilty, does he get to keep his pay?

That would be wrong, and would allow him to continue to scam the system that he is accused of scamming.

**Hermod** · February-07-10, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

If he is found guilty, does he get to keep his pay?

That would be wrong, and would allow him to continue to scam the system that he is accused of scamming.

Yes, he does, because he is entitled to his job and pay until a determination of guilt is made. Placing him on leave with pay keeps him from added scamming/criminal conduct and prevents him from trying to interfere with the investigation [[he is on the outside looking in).

Retroit · February-07-10, 01:34 PM

It would be better to suspend him without pay until he is found not guilty, then reimburse his pay. It's not right that a person gets to keep getting paid after committing a crime. And I hope he is ordered to pay back all the money he stole. This is yet another reason that people hate unions.

LodgeDodger · February-07-10, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

It would be better to suspend him without pay until he is found not guilty, then reimburse his pay. It's not right that a person gets to keep getting paid after committing a crime. And I hope he is ordered to pay back all the money he stole. This is yet another reason that people hate unions.

You're not getting the point. Folks who live on this side of the international metropolis are innocent until proven guilty. Until the guy gets his day in court, he is still considered innocent.

Got it?

**eno** · February-07-10, 01:39 PM

Good answer LodgeDodger. I was just going to post the same.

Retroit · February-07-10, 02:25 PM

Then the law should be changed.

Bearinabox · February-07-10, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

Then the law should be changed.

Okay, Retroit, I am hereby accusing you of first-degree murder. Until these allegations are proven, I think you should be executed by lethal injection. If you're later discovered to be innocent, we will do our best to reanimate you. Ain't justice grand?

**menckensghost** · February-07-10, 02:32 PM

Yes, change the law. No more of this innocent until proven guilty business. Our laws should more closely resemble Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia or Saddam's Iraq.

**Eastside** · February-07-10, 02:37 PM

Thanks for the input all.

So, why not keep an individual working [[with pay) until he/she goes to court? I understand the logic as explained in the comments above, but intellectually it doesn't make sense to me. It almost appears to be a reward for doing bad.

Bearinabox · February-07-10, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Eastside

Thanks for the input all.

So, why not keep an individual working [[with pay) until he/she goes to court? I understand the logic as explained in the comments above, but intellectually it doesn't make sense to me. It almost appears to be a reward for doing bad.

Maybe because they don't want a guy on the job who might be defrauding the department?

I'm sure whatever disciplinary action he will face if found guilty will far outweigh the benefit of having a little bit of paid time off.

**Whitehouse** · February-07-10, 05:05 PM

It's not a form of punnishment. You're only found guilty if you've had your day in court. While you're suspended you cannot tamper with evidence. And evidence can also be gathered while you're not at work.

So take a deep breath of fresh air cause this item is dead in the water.

Lock it, wit pay.

**pffft** · February-07-10, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

It would be better to suspend him without pay until he is found not guilty, then reimburse his pay. It's not right that a person gets to keep getting paid after committing a crime. And I hope he is ordered to pay back all the money he stole. This is yet another reason that people hate unions.

Don't worry, there are plenty of folks like you looking out for business' interests vs. the little guy.

**Meddle** · February-07-10, 05:49 PM

I also agree that if you're suspended, you should not be paid. The pay can go into Escrow, and if you're cleared, you'll get it. We're talking about a public servant who is accused of defrauding the City and the taxpayers.

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies in court, not in employee/employer relations.

**pffft** · February-07-10, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies in court, not in employee/employer relations.

I'm sure Harry Bennett agreed with you on this.

**Meddle** · February-07-10, 06:01 PM

Who?

.........

Bearinabox · February-07-10, 06:07 PM

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harry+bennett

**MikeM** · February-07-10, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by pffft

I'm sure Harry Bennett agreed with you on this.

Regardless, it still only applies in criminal court.

**MikeM** · February-07-10, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

It would be better to suspend him without pay until he is found not guilty, then reimburse his pay. It's not right that a person gets to keep getting paid after committing a crime. And I hope he is ordered to pay back all the money he stole. This is yet another reason that people hate unions.

So if it takes a year or more to clear the case the guy should go bankrupt, lose his house, and starve?

**pffft** · February-07-10, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by MikeM

Regardless, it still only applies in criminal court.

In a non-union shop.

**menckensghost** · February-07-10, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by MikeM

Regardless, it still only applies in criminal court.

In our current economic hardship, especially with the demise of the auto industry, it is popular to blame the unions, but at the turn of the 20th century employment conditions were tantamount to wage slavery. While unions may seem superfluous and obsolete now, had it not been for the efforts of organized labor most of us would be working for minimum wage in horrendous conditions. By and large, unions have shaped labor law in this nation for the better.

This copper might be as bent as a crazy straw, but I'd still rather live in a nation where we ask questions first and destroy peoples lives later. If he is guilty HE should pay, but if he is not . . .