Supervisors in the same lodge as regular line staff.

Just so everyone knows. We have had supervisors in the lodge since day one of forming the lodge. Way before any type of CBA was even thought about. So far, we have not had any direct issues with any of them being at the meetings. Also, when we did the CBA, we only included Officers suggestions and supervisors were not allowed at those separate meetings. I understand that some people may not feel comfortable bringing up certain topics if a supervisor is present. There have only been a handful of meetings where any of them attended . My suggestion is, if anyone has something to say at a meeting and they don’t feel comfortable saying it. Email or text me and I will be your voice.

I have already been doing this for years. And we as I know of, have not had any issues.. 

Too much conflict of interest, alot of the reasons that officers need FOP are because of supervisors. They are the eyes and ears of the admin, and they sometimes see and hear what they want.

I don't mean any disrespect here at all, but finding a middle ground isn't easy. I would like to see them have fop, but many of them can't even follow the CBA and use intimidation towards Frontline Officers and treat them with disrespect. If they had fop, it would be more headbutting on what OP or AR or what part of the CBA isn't being followed.

A quick example is that the mandate list isn't at the Gatehouse for the past week and half now, and when asked, supervisors become upset. Then, when you do ot for two or 3 days in a row, they attempt to mandate you the next day and claim you have no choice or be written up. When told this isn't part of the CBA they get angry and mess with you.

We're two different sides and only a few Sergeants and a Lieutenant actually care.

No disrespect to them but I do not think this is a good idea.

Supervisors and and regular officers often have different roles and responsibilities. Placing supervisors in the same lodge as officers can create conflicts of interest, as supervisors may need to make decisions that are in the best interest of the department, even if it conflicts with the union's goals. This separation helps maintain a balance between managerial responsibilities and the collective bargaining power of officers. I believe supervisors need to be removed expeditiously.

- J. Mitch

Officers should have their own union. I believe supervisors in the same union as their subordinates can create a conflict of interest. Supervisor have distinct responsibilities and interests that could be better be represented by a separate union.

Supervisors are responsible for managing and evaluating the performance of employees. If supervisors are part of our lodge, it could become challenging for them to fulfill their managerial duties impartially, as they may have to negotiate terms and conditions with in the same lodge. We voted FOP to advocate and protect our interests and rights. The union's focus on employees welfare may clash with the supervisors' responsibility to deliver results, potentially leading to tensions. I believe, including supervisors in the same union can create conflicting goals within the organization. This is my opinion.

My opinion is they should stay it will be beneficial to both sides. You also should remember that one of the supervisors also was part of the crew that created this great contract that you all are receiving.

I do not believe we should keep the supervisors in our lodge. I think it only creates the opportunity for issues and nothing to be gained for the line staff to allow them to remain. This is just my opinion but it seems to be shared by all the staff I have spoken with about this.