Google suggests that this is the supreme court case that set that precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_v._Board_of_Educatio...
My Dad was a mail carrier for a time in the US. According to his union newsletter, he did not all the full free speech rights outside of work as an average citizen. He was not allowed to talk about work conditions outside of work. He also did not have the right to strike.
I could have the details wrong, this was in a newsletter I read in the 1980s. Oddly, I remember exactly were I was sitting when I read this.
Can't speak to what your union told your dad. There are some limitations about speech related to work, but that sounds like a more extreme version than I'm aware of being upheld. Can speak to laws about striking even less.
This web pages links to a PDF with a handy flow chart from the ACLU outlining when Federal employee might have restricted speech https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-...
The prevalence of public sector unions itself is actually a good example of the trend I'm talking about though!
One thing to keep in mind about police officers and similarly situated government employees is that maintaining credibility as a court witness is a fundamental requirement of the position. A police officer who's credibility can be easily attacked on the stand has substantially diminished capacity to perform their duties. Part-and-parcel of being any kind of law enforcement officer is testifying to collected evidence on the witness stand.
While the government technically can't retaliate directly for not testifying against yourself in an administrative hearing, failure to be fully forthcoming in such an investigation demonstrates a lack of candor which in turn could be used to impeach you as a witness. If the government has evidence of lack of candor and sufficient motivation to get rid of you, you better start searching for a new job.
Doesn't this have more to do with the prevalence of unions in the public sector?