I doubt there is any sort of line.

Consider that someone accused of a crime gets to be represented in court, no matter how bad the accusation is (in the U.S.). The reasoning behind this is (1) they might not be guilty of the crime, and until the court decides they are, they should be treated as if they are not; (2) they need someone to ensure they are treated fairly.

I think similar reasoning can be applied here. Thus it would not be unreasonable that a union always defends a member who is accused/disciplined/fired.

My mother is (and has been for many years) an officer of the union at her workplace.

I know of many cases where employees were accused of either committing crimes or extreme violations of the "workplace rules" and the Union would not represent them before the company. These instances are the exceptions, of course, and the Union does represent the employee the overwhelming majority of the time -- and are, more often than not, successful in at least saving the employee's job.

This is not a Police Union, of course, so things may very well be different. It is my understanding that the officers in a Police Union are almost always current or former police officers and I would guess that they would represent an officer accused of wrongdoing in all but perhaps the most extreme cases (and, in those cases, it's probably mostly due to P.R.).

In my opinion, an officer accused of wrongdoing is entitled to due process just like anyone else. It does upset me, however, that Police Unions will often do anything they can to save an officer's job regardless of what s/he has done and/or the seriousness of the violation. I realize that that is what they are supposed to do but it ends up reflecting badly on the police department when Officer Smith was found to have done ${whatever} and escapes with little or no consequences.

Quote: Do they have to defend someone who is outside of the union's stated rules/expectations for a member?

-

I guess they would say that the person is 'accused' of being outside of their rules - and until they have satisfied themselves of that, then they need to support them.

I think every criminal, no matter how blatantly obvious their crimes, deserves a fair trial, including competent representation at their trial. I think the Officers' Guild's obligations to their members works along similar lines.

Keep in mind, the alternative is that the Guild gets to choose (to a degree) which members to defend and which to hang out to dry. Such a situation leads to a whole host of perverse incentives. The Guild could effectively abandon whistleblowers; the Guild could collude or otherwise be influenced by the Police Department; interpersonal conflicts between officers and Guild leadership/administrators could influence their decisions; etc.

The Guild is a constructed entity whose sole purpose is to serve its members, by providing an organizational counterweight against the Police Department. Several of its obligations to its members ought to be treated as non-voluntary properties of its existence, in the same way that fiduciary duty is a non-voluntary obligation of a corporation to its shareholders, in order to lessen one potential avenue for corruption.

I'm more talking about a system where a (frequent) repeat offender is no longer defensible as a candidate for being reinstated in this sort of job. I'm not talking about a trial in a criminal sense, I more mean the union pushing back to get someone rehired, when that person seems to continue to disregard the rules applied to their occupation.

For instance if you have approximately 120 allegations against him and 21 cases of sustained misconduct Should you get a 121st (or 142nd/22nd however you count) chance? I wouldn't say this is so much the guild exercising a choice, to defend or not, as them giving up on a 'habitual line stepper'. A whistle blower usually only gets 1 chance to blow the whistle (rather than 20-30) so I'd imagine that's a totally different situation for a number of reasons.

Idealistic sidenote: Being that the Guild is for Police Officers, who's main purpose is to protect the public and stop crime (Ok yes the supreme court said that police are not there to 'protect and serve' but to 'enforce') shouldn't the fact that one of their members seems to be continually in trouble with the public at large concern them rather than be something they blindly have to dispute? /idealism

How are they supposed to determine if an illegal action is committed? Isn't that the job of the court system?

The same way the guy did the firing did it?

You don't need to be convicted to be fired; you should not need to be convicted to have your union cut you loose.

I don't see why even the worst accused shouldn't be entitled to a defense. Why should anyone pay dues to an organization that would refuse to represent them? For it to be any other way, the union would have to hold its own hearing, and how would that work? Management would have to bring their complaint to the union for judgement? It's the prerogative of the employer to preside over disciplinary hearings and render judgement. The role of the union is to provide council to the accused member, not to judge him.