I’m of the opinion they should continue to be paid until they are actually convicted. I do not think paying someone while simply accused is “tolerating” rather letting due process occur.
Job security after an arrest seems to be a perk for police, and nobody else. When bus drivers, janitors, or schoolmarms get arrested, they’re usually fired if the arrest makes the news.
I agree with you that it should be the same standard, but I feel that standard should be the one being used by the police. Many of these places prematurely fire people that then are trying to get their back jobs back after they’re acquitted and I never feel that that is fair that they’re out of a job for being accused of something they didn’t do.
I do want to be clear that I am not siding with the police here. It is very likely that he is guilty and should be in prison. But I just don’t like the president of the punishment starting before the trial has even begun.
If Congress passes a law saying people can’t be fired for being arrested or charged, only for conviction of a crime, I’ll hoist a diet root beer on the rocks in celebration. I’m a fan of “innocent until proven guilty.”
When only police have such an advantage, defending that is “siding with the police.”
I understand your point, but it is currently at the discretion of the employer. I’d rather my efforts go toward ensuring everyone has this protection and using the police as an example instead of trying to remove it from a group and then try to reinstate it for everyone.
Additionally, I just assumed that this was a result of negotiations with a police union, with there really being no other option available.
I’m of the opinion they should continue to be paid until they are actually convicted. I do not think paying someone while simply accused is “tolerating” rather letting due process occur.
Job security after an arrest seems to be a perk for police, and nobody else. When bus drivers, janitors, or schoolmarms get arrested, they’re usually fired if the arrest makes the news.
Same standard for all of us, is all I ask.
I agree with you that it should be the same standard, but I feel that standard should be the one being used by the police. Many of these places prematurely fire people that then are trying to get their back jobs back after they’re acquitted and I never feel that that is fair that they’re out of a job for being accused of something they didn’t do.
I do want to be clear that I am not siding with the police here. It is very likely that he is guilty and should be in prison. But I just don’t like the president of the punishment starting before the trial has even begun.
If Congress passes a law saying people can’t be fired for being arrested or charged, only for conviction of a crime, I’ll hoist a diet root beer on the rocks in celebration. I’m a fan of “innocent until proven guilty.”
When only police have such an advantage, defending that is “siding with the police.”
I understand your point, but it is currently at the discretion of the employer. I’d rather my efforts go toward ensuring everyone has this protection and using the police as an example instead of trying to remove it from a group and then try to reinstate it for everyone.
Additionally, I just assumed that this was a result of negotiations with a police union, with there really being no other option available.