Paper Example on Communication, Hiring, Planning, Pension and Benefits

Facts

The case study mainly aimed at the Peace officers bill of rights, the laws are set in place to protect the firefighters, Peace chiefs and deputy sheriffs. The laws are put in place to give a platform which cases concerning Peace officers, and other agencies are heard, and the decision passed. Several states have implemented Peace officers bill of rights in their states, Colorado state in 1986 implemented a professional standard. The standard address the internal affairs investigation. Arizona Association of Chiefs of Peace published a Model Policy regarding the rights and responsibilities of law enforcement officers in internal investigations (Walker, 2008). The policies implemented by the various states mainly address the activities and conduct of Peace officers and security personnel's. When federal officers are accused of misconduct the laws set are used to guide on the decision making concerning the conduct. The article also points out content philosophy in an American setup that employers concentrate on the competition between employees (Reinhart, 2013). Their main concern in an organization set up is the success of the organization without giving concentration on the morale of employees. The committee responsible for the development of Peace officers bill of rights identified principles that would help in paying attention to the employees' rights. The principles include; decisional law would be enforceable in that the subcommittee in the development of the POBR would provide optional commentary information to help in decision making. Another principle was that the information would be collected concerning the various cases without any biasness or favor (Keenan & Walker, 2004). The various models that are adopted and implemented in the different states are aimed at championing for employee rights and protecting them against oppression.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Decision

When a public safety officer is under investigation from which the interrogation could lead to punitive action, there are conditions which should be followed during interrogation. The Colorado standard is mainly applicable to all peace officers which include all peace officers whether working full time or part-time. The officers excluded from this policy are those that are employed in the private sector. Informal interviews can only be conducted when an officer has not been accused of any misconduct and the officer in charge is only concerned with obtaining information. Once an officer has been accused of misconduct, the commission will require that the officer provide a written report to the commission (Schmidt, 1990). The report explains the activities which the accused officer was involved in, the vents which may lead to such accusations include when an innocent person is killed or injured during the pursuit of a law offender. Unlike other work opportunities which employees are covered by the right to work and require that during the interview a lawyer should be present, federal officers do not enjoy that privilege since their interrogation is considered a disciplinary action. When an officer is found guilty of an offense, there are penalties that the individual should be exposed to. The penalties include transfer to unpopular post, being exposed to long shifts and unannounced transfer to other locations. The provision requires that every officer of the agency should respond to any misconduct done by any officer of the agency. When an employee fails to report misconduct, it may result in sanctions or termination of the contract. Otherwise, if an employee provides the information concerning misconduct in a written format, he/she will not be subjected to any disciplinary action (Pobre, 2013).

The POBR provides legislation that protects officers against mistreatment, examples of such activities include handling of officers without dignity during interviews, being held during formal interviews for longer than fifty minutes. The Arizona model, for example, is against the use of mockery and ridicule during the conduct of the interviews. When such activities are done the court can then assume that the decisions were made with a political motive. The case study also provides guidelines on who is legible to vie for any position in the federal agency. The stipulations provided helps the federal officers on the guidelines they should follow if they want a promotion or seek leave of absence from their jobs (Noe et al. 2006). The case study also provides solutions on the use of the polygraph test on employees; the polygraph test should only be used on an employee if they are willing. The results of the polygraph test should only be used for the intended reasons and should be disclosed with the consent of the employee.

Alternative Solution

The policies overs employees with arbitration to file cases against their employers. In the field of federal officers, the POBR and related laws enable them to file cases against their employers especially concerning cases which damage their reputation. Moreover, the traditional punishments which included transfers and being given longer shifts can be reported in the court of law in the ground that the officer is denied family time. Issues of confidentiality and privacy play a center stage especially in cases concerning federal officers. The image of an officer who has been accused of misconduct such as sexual harassment should not be disclosed to the media until the individual has been formally judged and found guilty. Pre-exposure of individual damage their public images and the information privacy and confidentiality act protects against such instances.

The POBR can be adjusted in a way that the employees of a law enforcement agency not only report to the law enforcement agency but also the judicial system. By doing so, the whistleblowers in the agency can be protected and be secured from harm (More et al. 2012).

Conclusion

In every agency employees should be given a priority regarding how they are treated and handled in-case of misconduct. Federal officers have been the main victims of circumstances in employer mistreatment because of lack of laws which protect them. The establishment of POBR has served in the interest of the officer and has enabled them to be offered with opportunities like other employees. The case study outlines the judicial proceedings which are allowed for the officers in case of mistreatment during investigations of their misconduct. In every organization information is essential, employers should ensure that employee information is held confidentially and exposure of information is only done to the authorized personnel. The article stipulates the various policies that have been implemented by different states concerning boosting employee morale. By implementing the POBR whistleblowers are protected, the department heads and other employees can report colleagues in case of any misconduct. The POBR covers interrogative rights, punitive actions, privacy rights, and enforcement.

References

Keenan, K. M., & Walker, S. (2004). An Impediment to Peace Accountability-An Analysis of Statutory Law Enforcement Officers' Bills of Rights. BU Pub. Int. LJ, 14, 185.

Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. (2006). Human Resources Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage, Tenth Global Edition. McGraw-Hill Education.

More, H. W., Vito, G. F., & Walsh, W. F. (2012). Organizational behavior and management in law enforcement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pobre, C. P. (2013). Trends in Security Thought. RESEARCH & SPECIAL STUDIES DIVISION EDITORIAL TEAM.

Reinhart, R. (2013). PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT A MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN.

Spector, L. (2016). Ethical Decision-making in Law Enforcement Academy Recruits: A Quantitative Study Examining the Relationships Between Self-reported Moral Disengagement Scores, Self-efficacy and Five Variables. Northeastern University.

Schmidt, W. W. (1990). Peace Officers Bill of Rights Guarantees: Responding to Union Demands with. Regulation, 356, 90.

Walker, S. (2008). The neglect of Peace unions: exploring one of the most important areas of American policing. Peace Practice and Research: An International Journal, 9(2), 95-112.