BREAKING NEWS

HB4780 Amends the Peace Officer and Probation Officer Firearm Training Act.

Welcome

MAP is an organization composed of sworn police officers and other police-related employees who maintain full or part time employment with any state, county, or municipal agency. We have joined together to form a more professional voice in law enforcement.

What is MAP?

class= Only full time sworn police officers or police-related employees who

are active or retired may hold office. Membership is open to individuals

as well as associations who may affiliate with us for collective bargaining

or legal defense. Associations or units wishing to utilize our collective bargaining programs should sign collective bargaining interest cards. There are two ways to establish a chapter for bargaining, depending on whether your group is new or has a current labor organization representing you. Call us for details.



Latest News

Support your MAP union. No one else will save your job and benefits!

Special Board Meeting







“The Board Election Policy, Candidate Petition forms, and Statement of Candidacy forms for the Illinois Police Officers’ Pension Investment Fund are now available for review and completion.



Please click on the link below to review the following documents:







2020-07-10 IPOPIF BOARD ELECTION POLICY

ACTIVE OFFICER Candidate Petition

ACTIVE OFFICER Statement of Candidacy



(Available in PDF fillable format. Please download this form to access the interactive fields)



BENEFICIARY Candidate Petition

BENEFICIARY Statement of Candidacy



(Available in PDF fillable format. Please download this form to access the interactive fields)



MUNICIPAL Candidate Petition

MUNICIPAL Statement of Candidacy







NOTE: The Board Election Policy will be revised at the August 14th board meeting, and may be revised at future board meetings, if needed. The revised version(s) will be uploaded and available for review once adopted by the Board of Trustees.”







MEMORANDUM

TO: Chapter Leadership and Representatives

FROM: Keith R. George, President

DATE: June 2, 2020

SUBJECT: MAP Has Your Back!





Dear Brothers and Sisters:

These are particularly difficult times for us. Adding to the financial and human catastrophe caused by COVID-19, we now have riots. Criminal opportunists have seized this time to riot, loot, beat, burn, and devastate communities. Complicating matters, these criminals have used peaceful citizens, with some legitimate gripes, as camouflage.



Our members are giving our communities a fighting chance at recovery. I write to thank you for your strength, professionalism, and bravery. We have received numerous reports of our members’ dedicated service to their communities. You are to be commended.



As a retired cop, I know the frustration you are feeling. Please resist the impulse to lash out or vent frustration via social media. Doing so can cause misunderstandings and cause workplace consequences. Attempts at humor can do the same. As such, MAP encourages you to exercise discretion when expressing yourself, especially on social media. In addition, I encourage each member to review your own department’s polices, rules, or regulations governing employees on and off-duty use of social media. Please exercise discretion when using social media. The potential risk from anti-police groups and social anarchists far outweighs the benefit of posting online. During these trying times, know this: MAP has your back. We are dedicated to ensuring you receive the timely and expert assistance you need during these times. Our robust emergency response system continues to operate. If you are involved in a critical incident, call 630-905-0663. Our attorneys and representatives are prepared to respond quickly.



MAP will continue to be vigilant for you, as you continue to serve your communities.



Stay healthy and safe!











From: Keith R. George, MAP President



Re: MAP Response to Coronavirus COVID-19

As you know the Metropolitan Alliance of Police (“MAP”) represents employees of your agency. MAP joins the IACP in its cautionary stance regarding the ongoing Coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. Like the IACP, CDC, government, and multibillion- dollar corporations, MAP prioritizes the health of its members and the public they serve.



As essential workers, the vast majority of our members do not have a realistic option of working from home. As such, the Employer is duty-bound to provide our members with the best opportunity to prevent and protect against this disease, and be treated should they become exposed, or worse, infected.



Toward that end, all employees must be immediately issued all CDC recommended personal protective equipment (“PPE”). In addition, the Employer must ensure all employees are properly and recently trained regarding: the general nature of COVID- 19, proper use of PPE, minimizing exposure in the law enforcement context, COVID- 19 prevention, exposure reporting procedures, and department policies relevant to this pandemic.



If your department, like many, has already taken these steps, MAP thanks you. If all of the above steps have not been taken, they must be taken without further delay.



We are sure labor-management issues will arise during this ongoing pandemic. MAP stands ready to represent its members and work with management to provide as safe a workplace as possible. Our members need to remain healthy in order to continue to be ready to respond to emergencies and assist the communities they serve.



MAP, like its members, stand ready to respond to emergencies. As such, our Union representatives and attorneys will continue to respond to critical incidents, including officer involved shootings.



Directives:

Exposure can be split into two categories:

(1) on-duty exposure, and (2) off-duty exposure. With respect to on-duty exposure and quarantine, the Public Employee Disability Act (“PEDA”) potentially applies to corrections and police members, and workers’ compensation most likely applies to all members.



Accordingly, employees should receive the same benefits just like any other on-duty injury resulting in an employee being precluded from working. Following PEDA (if applicable), and if necessary, the employee would also be eligible for temporary total disability workers’ compensation benefits (“TTD”) and WC medical coverage (no deductibles).



As to off-duty concerns, should an Employer order an employee to stay home because of travel or off-duty (potential) exposure. The employee should be placed on paid administrative leave.



Because the employee is ready, willing, and able to work, the employee should not be forced to use sick time. A quarantined or isolated employee should not be treated worse than an employee placed on paid administrative leave for suspected off-duty misconduct.



In the event the employee becomes symptomatic, this would trigger the use of “sick time.”





Do your meetings turn into screaming matches or worse yet, a room full of incredibly bored people saying nothing?







Americans are Getting It: Unions Mean More Power and Pay Americans are Getting It: Unions Mean More Power and Pay

Major Blow to Unions As Billionaires Win Big

The Roberts Court Protects the Powerful for a New Gilded Age



Supreme Court deals sharp defeat to public employee unions, banning mandatory fees

Republicans Take Aim at Federal Unions

was published just days after the Office of Personnel Management raised similar concerns about unionized civil servants.



In a survey, a panel of the House Oversight Committee found that more than 12,500 employees took advantage of legally sanctioned time off, known as "official time," for labor-related activities such as worker disputes, whistleblowing and collective bargaining.



The Department of Veterans Affairs was among the worst offenders, the House panel said. There, 472 employees spent 100 percent of their working hours on labor-management-related business in fiscal 2017, according to the GOP report. Those employees included a VA nurse anesthetist and dentist who each made more than $190,000 a year.



"Some collective bargaining agreements allow certain labor union employees to spend 100 percent of their time on official time," Republican staff wrote. "These employees are subsidized by American taxpayer dollars, but do not have to do their regularly assigned work."



That conclusion echoed the findings of an OPM biennial report on official time, which OPM Director Jeff Pon labeled as "Taxpayer Funded Union Time within the Federal Government." Pon estimated that the taxpayer cost of employees using official time was up nearly 7.6 percent, to $174.8 million, in fiscal 2016 from two years earlier.



Democrats and unions challenged those conclusions , calling them part of a broader assault against career civil servants led by President Donald Trump, who has accused the "deep state" of thwarting his policy agenda.



In a statement submitted to the House Oversight Government Operations Subcommittee, the American Federation of Government Employees disputed that official time was "union time," saying the time was not used to recruit union members, hold union meetings, campaign or hold elections for union office, or collect dues. Rather, AFGE said, "it is time spent representing workers who are the victims of illegal discrimination, illegal harassment, or other prohibited personnel practices."



"Misleading reports on official time are just the latest barrage in a series of attacks aimed at reducing protections for federal employees in the workplace," said AFGE National President J. David Cox Sr. in a written statement. "Federal workers assure delivery of services over politics, and the unions that represent workers help preserve civilian protections over partisanship."



"The Trump administration is launching a multi-front attack on our independent civil service," said Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). "These actions will harm middle-class workers who dedicate their lives to public service, impair our ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest, and degrade the services that our government delivers to the American people."



Pon has called for revising civil service laws, including changes to official time and a $143.5 billion rollback of pension benefits. An OPM spokeswoman denied rumors of civil service layoffs, saying "there are no high-level" discussions about a reduction in the federal workforce.



But change already is happening at the agency level. In March, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos unilaterally imposed a new contract on the agency's nearly 4,000 unionized employees, prompting AFGE to file a complaint to the Federal Labor Relations Authority.



DeVos and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue also have limited employee telework, turning back an Obama-era expansion of such benefits, which were billed as a way to attract and retain employees.



Meanwhile, worker complaints to the FLRA are piling up. The agency has been without a presidentially appointed general counsel since November, a vacancy that has prevented cases from being prosecuted even as rank-and-file investigators continue to refer worker complaints to the FLRA.



President Barack Obama experienced a similar backlog in 2010 after the labor authority went without a top lawyer for 17 months, resulting in more than 340 deferred cases.



Statement from AFGE website: WASHINGTON - President Trump is attempting to silence the voice of veterans, law enforcement officers, and other frontline federal workers through a series of executive orders intended to strip federal employees of their decades-old right to representation at the worksite, the American Federation of Government Employees said today.



"This is more than union busting - it's democracy busting," AFGE National President J. David Cox Sr. said. "These executive orders are a direct assault on the legal rights and protections that Congress has specifically guaranteed to the 2 million public-sector employees across the country who work for the federal government."



"Our government is built on a system of checks and balances to prevent any one person from having too much influence. President Trump's executive orders will undo all of that. This administration seems hellbent on replacing a civil service that works for all taxpayers with a political service that serves at its whim."



"Federal employees swear an oath to serve this country. The American people rightly expect that federal employees go to work every day and do the jobs they were hired to do - whether it's ensuring our food is safe to eat, caring for veterans who were injured while serving their country, preventing illegal weapons and drugs from crossing our borders, or helping communities recover from hurricanes and other disasters."



"President Trump's executive orders do nothing to help federal workers do their jobs better. In fact, they do the opposite by depriving workers of their rights to address and resolve workplace issues such as sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation against whistleblowers, improving workplace health and safety, enforcing reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities, and so much more."



"These executive orders strip agencies of their right to bargain terms and conditions of employment and replace it with a politically charged scheme to fire employees without due process," Cox said.



AFGE representatives have used official time in myriad ways that benefit taxpayers, including to:



* Blow the whistle on management's attempt to cover up an outbreak of Legionnaires disease that killed and sickened veterans in Pittsburgh;

* Address an incident in which a noose was placed on the chair of an African-American worker at the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia;

* Mitigate the impact of Army downsizing on employees and their families;

* Expedite the processing of benefits to veterans and their survivors; and

* Successfully negotiate equipping federal correctional officers with pepper spray to keep them safe on the job.



"All federal employees, whether they belong to a union or not, are guaranteed the right to fair representation. Employees who volunteer to serve as union representatives use official time to carry out those representational activities ," Cox said.



"It's a policy that has saved taxpayers in the long run because it helps resolve isolated conflicts that arise in the workplace before they become costly, agency-wide problems. And contrary to some reports, official time is never used to conduct union-specific business, solicit members, hold internal union meetings, elect union officers, or engage in partisan political activities."



"By preventing problem solving, these executive orders will create inefficiencies and hinder the ability of dedicated federal employees to effectively deliver services to the American public."



READ MORE







Cynthia Brown is the founder and former publisher of American Police Beat and has been serving the law enforcement profession for over 40 years starting out with a stint with the first community police program in the country in the mid-70's in Boston.



Cynthia is the author of Brave Hearts: Stories of Pride, Pain and Courage. Sold over 20,000 copies and used in over 50 police academies as curriculum material. Email Cynthia at cynthia@cynthiabrown.net for more information.







Ron DeLord is recognized as a leading public safety union contract negotiator; an expert on police and fire unions in United States; and an author and lecturer on public safety union leadership, power, organization, media and political action.



Ron is the co-author of Law Enforcement, Police Unions, and the Future: Educating Police Management and Unions About the Challenges Ahead. For more information go to my web site. www.rondelord.com







READ MORE



Cynthia Brown is the founder and former publisher of American Police Beat and has been serving the law enforcement profession for over 40 years starting out with a stint with the first community police program in the country in the mid-70's in Boston.



Cynthia is the author of Brave Hearts: Stories of Pride, Pain and Courage. Sold over 20,000 copies and used in over 50 police academies as curriculum material.



Ron DeLord is recognized as a leading public safety union contract negotiator; an expert on police and fire unions in United States; and an author and lecturer on public safety union leadership, power, organization, media and political action.



Ron is the co-author of Law Enforcement, Police Unions, and the Future: Educating Police Management and Unions About the Challenges Ahead.















The Condensed Guide to Running Meetings By Amy Gallo Harvard Business Review We love to hate meetings. And with good reason - they clog up our days, making it hard to get work done in the gaps, and so many feel like a waste of time. There's plenty of advice out there on how to stop spending so much time in meetings or make better use of the time, but does it hold up in reality? Can you really make meetings more effective and regain control of your calendar? The answer is yes. Click here Interest in joining unions is at a four-decade high; people want more say in what happens at workOnly 10.7 percent of American workers belong to a union today, approximately half as many as in 1983. That's a level not seen since the 1930s, just before passage of the labor law that was supposed to protect workers' right to organize.Yet American workers have not given up on unions. When we conducted a nationally representative survey of the workforce with the National Opinion Research Corporation, we found interest in joining unions to be at a four-decade high.The results obtained from nearly 4,000 respondents show that 48 percent - nearly half of nonunionized workers - would join a union if given the opportunity to do so.Unions must either demand a place at the table or be part of the meal From the StoryIt is no accident that the present focus of the right’s anti-labor agenda—in Janus, in Friedrichs, and most notoriously in Governor Scott Walker’s 2011 attack on municipal unions in Wisconsin—is on public-sector unions. The jobs are harder to outsource, and thus the unions are harder to break.Public-sector unions make convenient targets for whipped-up envy, cast as parasites “living off the rest of us,” a role once filled by “welfare cheats.” That most of their members are women and many are women of color probably makes the transference easier.Widening income inequality has kept steady pace with declining union membership. In addition to better wages and benefits than their US counterparts enjoy, workers in union-friendly Europe now have a greater statistical likelihood of seeing their children live more prosperous lives than they do.Click here to read the story on the Harper's website. There are also links to other stories about the plight of labor unions in today's world. The complete article is also pasted below.By Laura ClawsonThis is not just an attack on a few specific unions. It’s an attack on unions as institutions. The anti-worker right, bankrolled by conservative billionaires, has finally gotten the victory it’s been looking for through years and repeated well-funded Supreme Court challenges to a 40-year-old precedent. Janus v. AFSCME once again challenged the requirement that people represented by public sector unions who choose not to join the union still have to pay a fair share fee to cover the direct costs for representing them. That is, they’re paying the costs of collective bargaining and other things from which they personally benefit, not for any union political activity. But Republicans and their wealthy donors saw an attack on even that fair share fee as a way to weaken unions. And now, on the third try in recent years, with Neil Gorsuch on the court, the right got its win.Viciously anti-worker Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion he’s been waiting to write since he joined the Supreme Court. The claim is that being required to pay a fee for representation that materially benefits a person is a violation of that person’s free speech when done by public sector unions, because in those cases the government is involved. The decision came along exactly the five to four split you expect: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Gorsuch joined Alito, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer dissented.Let’s be clear that this is not just an attack on a few specific unions. It’s an attack on worker power and on unions as institutions that anchor a great deal of the progressive movement. The case may bear the name of Mark Janus, a single worker, but it’s the culmination of big spending and legal firepower coming from the big-money corporate right. This is one more historically bad Supreme Court decision to mourn in this term filled with them.By Jedediah PurdyProfessor of Law Duke UniversityFaith in courts runs deep in the American liberal imagination. Remembering Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade and the recent marriage-equality decisions, we keep hoping that wise and fair-minded judges will protect the vulnerable and lead the country toward justice.Recent decisions upholding President Trump’s travel ban and Texas’ racially skewed voting districts are body blows to this optimism. They are unhappy reminders that, for much of American history, the Supreme Court has been a deeply conservative institution, preserving racial hierarchy and the prerogatives of employers.When it comes to economic inequality, today’s Supreme Court is not only failing to help, it is also aggressively making itself part of the problem in a time when inequality and insecurity are damaging the country and endangering our democracy.Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has consistently issued bold, partisan decisions that have been terrible for working people. Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, decided on Wednesday, was one of them.Just hours after that decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement. With this “swing” vote gone, Chief Justice Roberts will now likely take even more control over the direction of issues related to economic inequality — a direction that is earning him a legacy as chief justice of bosses, not workers.In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled that public-sector unions may not charge nonmembers “agency fees” for contract negotiation and other services that affect all employees in the same workplace, members and nonmembers alike. In his opinion for the court, Justice Samuel Alito compared the fees to Orwellian ideological browbeating. Invoking the great First Amendment tradition invalidating loyalty oaths and mandatory pledges of allegiance, he warned, “Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning.”It’s the kind of knotty technical issue — one type of fee for nonmembers of one variety of union — that makes law boring. Unlike the Masterpiece Cakeshop case the court decided in June, Janus isn’t an obvious morality tale: Even many liberals often have mixed feelings about the public-sector unions that represent bureaucrats, subway employees, police officers and teachers.But Janus is big. As Justice Elena Kagan explained in her dissent, allowing employees to opt out of union fees while getting the benefits of representation risks starving the union of resources, leading to ineffectiveness and collapse. Moreover, knifing unions at a time of intense controversy over state austerity budgets and widespread teachers strikes suggests, as Justice Kagan wrote, that the court “wanted to pick the winning side” in these fights by “weaponizing the First Amendment, in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy.”By David G. SavageJun 27, 2018 | 7:40 AMLA TimesThe Supreme Court dealt labor unions a sharp defeat Wednesday, ruling that teachers, police officers and other public employees cannot be forced to pay dues or fees to support their unions.By a 5 to 4 vote, the justices overturned a 41-year-old precedent and ruled that the 1st Amendment protects these employees from being required to support a private group whose views may differ from theirs.The decision, in Janus vs. AFSCME, strikes down laws in California, New York and 20 other mostly Democratic-leaning states that authorize unions to negotiate contracts that require all employees to pay a so-called fair share fee to cover the cost of collective bargaining.In 1977, when public sector unions were getting established, the high court said teachers and other public employees may not be forced to pay full union dues if some of the money went for political contributions. But the justices upheld the lesser fair share fees on the theory that all of the employees benefited from a union contract and its grievance procedures.But today's more conservative court disagreed and said employees have a right not to give any support to a union. These payments were described as a form of "compelled speech" which violates the 1st Amendment."We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern," wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the majority.Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch agreed. All four liberal justices dissented.The anti-union National Right to Work Foundation, which funded the challenge, predicted the ruling would free more than 5 million public employees from supporting their unions.For the unions, which traditionally support Democrats, the ruling will mean an immediate loss of some funding and a gradual erosion in their membership. Union officials fear that an unknown number of employees will quit paying dues if doing so is entirely optional.The ruling is likely to have a political impact in many states where these unions have been strong supporters of the Democratic Party.The ruling split the court along ideological and partisan lines. The five justices who formed the majority were all Republican appointees. The four dissenters were appointed by Democratic presidents.The outcome comes as no surprise to the unions or their lawyers. Three years ago, the justices had before them an identical free-speech challenge to union fees brought by Rebecca Friedrichs, a California teacher. The five conservative justices appeared set to strike down the union fees, but Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in February 2016. A month later, the court announced it was divided 4-4 and could not issue a ruling.President Trump's victory allowed him to replace Scalia with Gorsuch who, as expected, cast the fifth vote for the conservatives.The current case was launched by Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner shortly after he took office. He sued to stop the forced collection of union fees, but a federal judge in Chicago said he had no standing to sue since he did not have to pay the fees. So Mark Janus, a state employee from Springfield, stepped forward as a plaintiff. He said he did want to pay $45 a month to support the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.As expected, he lost in the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago because such union fees were legal under the court's previous precedent, now overturned.Cynthia Brown is the founder and former publisher of American Police Beat and has been serving the law enforcement profession for over 40 years starting out with a stint with the first community police program in the country in the mid-70's in Boston.Cynthia is the author of Brave Hearts: Stories of Pride, Pain and Courage. Sold over 20,000 copies and used in over 50 police academies as curriculum material. Email Cynthia at cynthia@cynthiabrown.net for more information.by Lorraine Woellert PoliticoHouse Republicans accused unionized federal workers last Thursday of abusing a law that allows them to take paid time off to attend labor-management meetings and address workforce issues outside their regular jobs.