Slowdown Talk

At last count, something like one hundred news organizations picked up the AP Wire story about the Chicago Police Department "rebelling" against J-Fed. There's also a growing movement among some commentators to advocate rash action. We'd like to remind people of the following:

• ARTICLE 5 NO STRIKE
  Section 5.1 — No Strike Commitment.
  Neither the Lodge nor any officer will call, institute, authorize, participate in, sanction, encourage, or ratify any strike, work stoppage, or other concerted refusal to perform duties by any officer or officer group, or the concerted interference with, in whole or in part, the full, faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment with the Employer. Neither the Lodge nor any officer shall refuse to cross any picket line, by whomever established.

And this:

• Section 5.4 — Discipline of Strikers.
  Any officer who violates the provisions of Section 5.1 of this Article shall be subject to immediate discharge. Any action taken by the Employer against any officer who participates in action prohibited by Section 5.1 above shall not be considered as a violation of this Agreement and shall not be subject to the provisions of the grievance procedure; except that the issue whether an officer in fact participated in a prohibited action shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure.

Commenting on an anonymous blog is one thing. Talk at roll call, in front of god knows who, in this political climate is something to be wary of and might open up a can of worms. If you go through the archives, you will not find one instance of SCC advocating a strike, slowdown, stoppage or similar job action. Guess why?

Now, there isn't anything in the contract that we've ever seen that would prohibit advocating the "proper performance of the duties" of a Chicago Police Officer. The "proper performance of duties" might include the following:

• Enforcement of any and all parking restrictions in the vicinity of churches, synagogues, or other such houses of worship. Pros - We are doing our job enforcing the duly enacted ordinances of the City Council. So-called "parking courtesy" is a political move that allows storefront churches to exist without providing adequate parking for their congregation. Cons - Commanders aren't going to be happy with all the phone calls and non-suiting of tickets they'll have to do. There's a good chance of retaliation.
  
• Enforcement of any and all moving violations against media trucks, cars, and such. Pros - Again, we're doing the job, enforcing the law. Delivery trucks aren't special just because it's 3-in-the-morning. The media gets annoyed, but they aren't doing us any favors lately, so who gives a fuck? Cons - No free papers, but that's a no-no under strict interpretation of the Rules and Regs anyway - a fifty-cent paper to avoid a $100 moving violation? Sounds like a J-Fed referral to a Federal Grand Jury is a step away.
• The next holiday (13 October), everyone check the Money Box. No one take the 12 hours, just take the money. Pros - It's legal, it's contractually protected, it's a simple way of costing Shortshanks a bunch of money upfront instead of in a few years when we retire. Cons - none that we can see. Christmas is coming anyway and the kids need new sleds.
• This is a big one and would take a concerted effort on a few levels. Every job, and we mean every single job, gets a response. Not just the gun calls, robbery calls and in-progress stuff that no one was slowing down on in the first place, but the dope calls, the noise disturbances, the cigarette sellers, every single damn call. O.W. Wilson believed that if a citizen cared enough to call, then they deserved a response. It was the basis for motorizing the entire Department. No supervisor coding old jobs, no Tact teams stacking the jobs and going off to do their own surveillance, no one claiming they'll get to it. Everyone goes. Within three hours, the Department would grind to a halt. Pros - this would highlight the manpower shortage in ways normal counting can conceal. Of course, political spots (read Captain) would probably be ordered to code jobs from behind the desks and OEMC would be ordered to quash jobs, but can you imagine if the media ever did some followup? They won't because we wrote them all tickets in second bullet point above. Cons - Anyone? And don't say "we'd have to answer all those jobs." We're supposed to do that anyway, but the blanket codes only exacerbate the "do more with less" attitude that is burning everyone out.
  

Each and every one of these is a way to make a statement. Each and every one also DOES NOT run afoul of Section 5 of the Contract the way some of the other wilder proposals do. Whatever is happening at this moment in time is getting the attention of downtown, City Hall and the national media. More eyeballs on Shortshanks is a good thing.