Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That wouldn't be a bad step. I personally detest what unions have become(essentially almost as bad as what they originally were meant to counteract).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This isn't the fething 80's anymore, we aren't talking about the mafia. The "worst" thing unions do is union-only shops, and even then it's still your choice to work their or not (do you want to benefit from their labor or not).

Unions should only exist to collectively bargain with employers and provide legal defense for their members. I would also say that unions should only exist on a very local level. No massive state or country wide unions.

Why not? They have to compete with massive multi-nationals to secure the well-being of their members. I mean unless you are suggesting we regulate corporations in a similar way :

It's not the 19th century anymore either. State and Federal labor laws aren't going to magically disappear and kids aren't going to be working 60 hours a week in textile mills if we didn't have labor unions.

Corporations, unions and individuals should all be subject to comprehensive campaign finance regulations that limit political donations to small donations from individual citizens. Corporations and unions should be entitled to first amendment rights that allow them to spend money on media buys to promote their ideas/agendas, not allow them to try to purchase political influence from politicians. The worst part of the McCutcheon decision was that the Roberts court affirmed that contributing large sums of money into politician's campaigns doesn't in and of itself qualify as an attempt to purchase under influence or access to a politician and therefore doesn't meet the quid pro quo corruption standard which cements special interest money being poured into campaigns is a normal aspect of US politics and its going to be extremely difficult for any future SCOTUS court to unring that bell.

I believe everyone has the right to control his/her own labor, the right to agree to a labor contract of his/her choosing and the right to join with their peers and collectively bargain. What I don't support is public sector unions wrecking budgets and corrupting politics. Look at Illinois, the state as $251 billion in unfunded pension obligations to state employees. Illinois collected $36 billion in tax revenue in 2012, it would take 7 years of dedicating every penny of state tax revenue to pensions to close the gap. That money is never going to be there, anyone with an understanding of basic math would recognize that there's no way for Illinois to fund hundreds of billions of dollars in pension obligations but that didn't stop unions from wanting to win those concessions at the negotiating table or the politicians courting union money, endorsements and votes from agreeing to them and it didn't stop either side from kicking the can down the road and believing that all that money could be gotten from the residents of Illinois somehow at some point in the future. Now the state is heading towards a bankruptcy filing that will not benefit the politicians or the unions or the residents of the state and the same fiscal catastrophe is looming for other states across the country.

To bring this back on topic, unions have a very narrow focus, taking care of union members. That's why you don't see a positive reaction to the new descalation training announced in Minnesota and why you don't see a bigger push for more training for cops from their union, because the more rigorous the qualifications get the harder it is for people to pass them and it leads to fewer people becoming cops or remaining on the force and the union wants as many cops as possible on the job and paying dues. Having a smaller, better trained police force would be better for everyone except the union's coffers. So we get minimal training (seriously any gun owning citizen, cop or otherwise, should shoot much more often than the typical annual PD requirements because those requirements are woefully inadequate for developing functional proficiency) and cops like Yanez going out and augmenting that training with private courses run by tacticool egomaniacs that preach to cops that they need to have a plan to kill everyone they meet. They show highlight reels of the statistically rare cop murders at traffic stops to scare cops into believing that they need this tactical training course because the next citizen they pull over might try to murder them and they need to be able to react in a fraction of a second and kill that person first. That's the kind of fear mongering bs that contributed to Yanez being panicky, shooting Castile and costing himself his job and his employer a $10 million civil suit settlement.

By championing bad officers as forcefully as good ones the union reinforces the incredibly insular attitude of police forces. That contributes to people making the intellectually dishonest argument that Castile repeatedly driving on a suspended license makes him a dangerous repeat offender and that his recreational use of marijuana makes him a sociopath with possible homicidal tendencies. Driving on a suspended license repeatedly doesn't make Castile a hardened criminal it simply shows that he needs to get to work to keep his job and income and that having his DL suspended doesn't make viable public transit alternatives suddenly manifest themselves. Driving on a suspended license isn't severe enough to get the state of Minnesota to revoke his license to lawfully carry a concealed handgun, it certainly isn't proof that Castile was a dangerous criminal. These are just the inane justifications people will push rather than criticize a police officer. When police unions and supporters can't even admit that a problem exists there is no hope of getting cooperation to enact proactive solutions.

Indeed. Unions have, essentially, practically made themselves no longer necessary. They won, but they want to continue to justify their existence. So they keep pushing and pushing for more and more concessions far beyond what is healthy for the economic or social well-being of society.

What unions really need to do is enter stand-by mode. Keep collecting nominal dues, but unless there are major issues(which there aren't right now) they should largely be dormant. Only existing to hire legal defense for their members. Unions should only be really active when there is gross injustice. IE: members getting paid well below what their labor is worth, outright abuse of employees, etc... Not lobbying for excessively high minimum wages or shoveling/withholding money to/from politicians

The US may actually have the shittiest labor conditions of any western nation, and that included mid level and professional jobs. I would hate to think what they would be without unions.

From the stories I generally hear about American unions, it very much does feel a case of they're fighting the wrong fight most of the time.

I'm in the UK, though I'm not part of the union (been thinking about it, but broadly speaking, I don't feel I'm kind of earning enough to afford to pay the union fees to protect my job).

It may be the union is one of the 'good ones' but, broadly speaking this is what they're usually involved in, that I'm aware of as a non member at least.

Working out any inflation related payrises, or lack thereof with the payroll department.

Legal/financial advice for members.

Improving the sick absence reporting and recording processes.

Various studies and polls concerning Mental Health awareness of staff.

They've recently had a big success at working out shared Paternity / Maternity leave and procedures, for married couples who work together in the office, as well as I believe other local businesses? I've not needed to know the details, for well, obvious reasons, but lots of people seem happy about it.

Continued work on Pride, BME and 'glass ceiling' issues that remain in the business.

All these seem like 'good' things, both for the business and the staff as a whole. EG shared maternity / paternity leave, for when the mum is the higher earner, she is 'needed' back in the office more than the dad.

Prestor Jon wrote:

It's not the 19th century anymore either. State and Federal labor laws aren't going to magically disappear and kids aren't going to be working 60 hours a week in textile mills if we didn't have labor unions.

The laws won't magically disappear, politicians bought by corporations will repeal them. No gains are safe while your enemy still has power.

 d-usa wrote:
The US may actually have the shittiest labor conditions of any western nation, and that included mid level and professional jobs. I would hate to think what they would be without unions.

Less than 7% of the private sector workforce is unionized and has steadily declined for decades. Unions have had a very minimal impact on the private in our lifetime. Unionization is legal in all 50 states but an increasing portion of the workforce chooses not to organize and we still have made consistent advancement with labor protections.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The US may actually have the shittiest labor conditions of any western nation, and that included mid level and professional jobs. I would hate to think what they would be without unions.

Less than 7% of the private sector workforce is unionized and has steadily declined for decades...

Odd that you would use a smaller subsection of union employees to make that point. What possible reason could you have for excluding public sector employees (35%), which then averages out to 11%?

Rosebuddy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

It's not the 19th century anymore either. State and Federal labor laws aren't going to magically disappear and kids aren't going to be working 60 hours a week in textile mills if we didn't have labor unions.

The laws won't magically disappear, politicians bought by corporations will repeal them. No gains are safe while your enemy still has power.

Unions have never been weaker and corporate politics contributions have never been higher and yet we keep adding more labor laws that benefit employees. Employees will always outnumber employers so as long as we have a democratic system of elections politicians aren't going to attack the workforce whose votes they need to stay in power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The US may actually have the shittiest labor conditions of any western nation, and that included mid level and professional jobs. I would hate to think what they would be without unions.

Less than 7% of the private sector workforce is unionized and has steadily declined for decades...

Odd that you would use a smaller subsection of union employees to make that point. What possible reason could you have for excluding public sector employees (35%), which then averages out to 11%?

I don't think it's odd at all. For the vast majority of the US less than 5% of the total workforce in the state is unionized per the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. There is a small number of states with an above average percentage of the workforce unionized so the situation for most workers is a labor force whose unionization is more in line with the private sector average than the overall percentage.
https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2016/union-membership-in-the-united-states/pdf/union-membership-in-the-united-states.pdf

Public sector employment accounts for approximately 14% of the US workforce and both the rate of private sector and total workforce unionizationunionization has also been in decline for decades.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/mobile/union-membership-rate-10-point-7-percent-in-2016.htm
https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm

Yeah, I'm not disputing those numbers. I'm wondering why you're trying to show that unions are in decline, and instead of saying unions only make up 11% of the workplace, you specifically only mention private sector union employees, which allows you to nearly halve that number down to 7%.

I'm assuming there is a rationale besides intellectual dishonesty here. Why split them like that?

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I'm not disputing those numbers. I'm wondering why you're trying to show that unions are in decline, and instead of saying unions only make up 11% of the workplace, you specifically only mention private sector union employees, which allows you to nearly halve that number down to 7%.

I'm assuming there is a rationale besides intellectual dishonesty here. Why split them like that?

It's been my experience that Public sector unions are almost always split off from private sector unions in discussions of the matter, so it seems very odd to me to see them combined (as you do). That's a simple matter of experience, your may, of course, vary.

As for the reason for doing so consistently it seems there is a very obvious reason: only private sector unions are subject to market forces.

Further, there are genuinely different issues at play with even the propriety of public sector unions at all. I'm partial to the point FDR made on the matter;

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."

Roosevelt didn’t stop there.

"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations," he wrote.

When Walker claimed FDR said "the government is the people," he had Roosevelt’s next line in mind.

"The employer," Roosevelt’s letter added, "is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."

I contest that worker protections are stronger than ever. 'At will' employment states have been growing in number. Average worker compensation compared to average executive compensation has rapidly been dwindling.

 d-usa wrote:
The US may actually have the shittiest labor conditions of any western nation, and that included mid level and professional jobs. I would hate to think what they would be without unions.

Wow this wins the award for "Hyperboliest Evaaaaaaa"

Every other developed western nation is shocked when they find out how gakky working conditions are in the US, and how stunningly little rights and protections workers have.

Edit: we are pretty off topic from cops killing people though...

Yea lets move off that shall we.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Unions have never been weaker and corporate politics contributions have never been higher and yet we keep adding more labor laws that benefit employees. Employees will always outnumber employers so as long as we have a democratic system of elections politicians aren't going to attack the workforce whose votes they need to stay in power.

More and more people are employed in the inherently and intentionally unstable "gig economy" and on that last point all I'll say is that there are already huge swathes of the working population that finds itself without political representation and that currently one of the two political parties is doing all it can to make sure millions are thrown off health insurance and the other is vehemently opposed to embracing universal healthcare despite it being the most broadly popular idea in modern politics. Your view of things was maybe accurate twenty or forty years ago, at best.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Unions have never been weaker and corporate politics contributions have never been higher and yet we keep adding more labor laws that benefit employees. Employees will always outnumber employers so as long as we have a democratic system of elections politicians aren't going to attack the workforce whose votes they need to stay in power.

Your claim relies on the assumption that workers are naturally unified and look after each other. As if the cubicle dweller will see that the kitchen hand is being exploited and vote to make sure he is cared for, and in turn the kitchen hand will rally behind the fruit picker. Obviously that's bunk, people vote for their own immediate interests, or some limited understanding of their own best interests. That reality is why democracy alone didn't produce decent working conditions we now take for granted. That needed individual workplaces and industries undertaking collective action to demand something better.

I mean, I'm by no means a fan of the reality of unions as we see them today, but the idea that democracy alone will keep everyone in decent jobs is just not true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
As for the reason for doing so consistently it seems there is a very obvious reason: only private sector unions are subject to market forces.

Nope. There is a large cross over between public and private sector employment. Police not so much, but everything else from teachers to management can choose between private and public sector work. That's a market.

There's also a big issue with your underlying assumption that wages and conditions are set by market forces alone. That simplistic idea hasn't held with labour market research. Of course demand and supply play a major role, but there's a lot of other factors at play. Because what a person is paid ties very closely to their status, and so value judgements also play a large role in the wages offered. This has led to fascinating markets where despite acute labour shortages pay remained flat, or other situations where high sector unemployment didn't lower employee pay. It also explains why CEO remuneration started exploding from 1970 onwards - it wasn't as though people suddenly demanded more CEOs, or the supply of CEOs dried up - what changed was society's acceptance of outsized pay packets.

It's also an explanation of sticky wages, if you squint hard enough.

This is also part and parcel of why unions exist. If it was as simple as people being underpaid then workers leaving the sector would by itself be enough to shift wages to a reasonable level. But union action, when it works, is largely about demanding respect, demanding an increase in status. Pay increases are tied to that.

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Unions have never been weaker and corporate politics contributions have never been higher and yet we keep adding more labor laws that benefit employees. Employees will always outnumber employers so as long as we have a democratic system of elections politicians aren't going to attack the workforce whose votes they need to stay in power.

Your claim relies on the assumption that workers are naturally unified and look after each other. As if the cubicle dweller will see that the kitchen hand is being exploited and vote to make sure he is cared for, and in turn the kitchen hand will rally behind the fruit picker. Obviously that's bunk, people vote for their own immediate interests, or some limited understanding of their own best interests. That reality is why democracy alone didn't produce decent working conditions we now take for granted. That needed individual workplaces and industries undertaking collective action to demand something better.

I mean, I'm by no means a fan of the reality of unions as we see them today, but the idea that democracy alone will keep everyone in decent jobs is just not true.

I never said everybody was going to have decent jobs. I was disputing Rosebuddy's claim that politicians will vote away labor laws because politicians' votes will be bought by corporations. Corporations can pour money into political campaigns but candidates still need voters to show up and cast votes and the majority of those voters will be members of the workforce and be employed so politicians can't afford to screw over the people that they rely on for votes. There is only so much influence that corporations can buy because corporations can contribute money but not votes.

Did this get posted yet? https://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2017/07/10/the-latest-city-says-buyout-best-way-past-castile-tragedy-n2353061

Yanez got a $50K settlement.

Oh feth me.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I'm not disputing those numbers. I'm wondering why you're trying to show that unions are in decline, and instead of saying unions only make up 11% of the workplace, you specifically only mention private sector union employees, which allows you to nearly halve that number down to 7%.

I'm assuming there is a rationale besides intellectual dishonesty here. Why split them like that?

I just explained it. I specifically called out the private sector because that's where the majority (86%) of us work, its the largest portion of the workforce. The majority of states have less than 10% of the total workforce unionized. The majority of the people working the majority of the jobs don't experience being part of a workforce with a unionization percentage in double digits. The state I live in and the 4 states that border it all have less than 10% unionization so everyone living in the southeast participates in a workforce that is unionized at a rate much more in line with the private sector percentage not the total national percentage. Unless you're a public sector worker in a state with a high unionization rate in that sector, a minority in a minority you participate in a workforce with a unionization rate in line with the national private sector average not the total national average.

 Frazzled wrote:
Did this get posted yet? https://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2017/07/10/the-latest-city-says-buyout-best-way-past-castile-tragedy-n2353061

Yanez got a $50K settlement.

Surely deserving of that handsom bounty, cause thats pretty much what it is at this point

Prestor Jon wrote:

To bring this back on topic, unions have a very narrow focus, taking care of union members. That's why you don't see a positive reaction to the new descalation training announced in Minnesota and why you don't see a bigger push for more training for cops from their union, because the more rigorous the qualifications get the harder it is for people to pass them and it leads to fewer people becoming cops or remaining on the force and the union wants as many cops as possible on the job and paying dues. Having a smaller, better trained police force would be better for everyone except the union's coffers. So we get minimal training (seriously any gun owning citizen, cop or otherwise, should shoot much more often than the typical annual PD requirements because those requirements are woefully inadequate for developing functional proficiency) and cops like Yanez going out and augmenting that training with private courses run by tacticool egomaniacs that preach to cops that they need to have a plan to kill everyone they meet. They show highlight reels of the statistically rare cop murders at traffic stops to scare cops into believing that they need this tactical training course because the next citizen they pull over might try to murder them and they need to be able to react in a fraction of a second and kill that person first. That's the kind of fear mongering bs that contributed to Yanez being panicky, shooting Castile and costing himself his job and his employer a $10 million civil suit settlement.

Typically, these types of training seminars are paid for by the Department and not the Unions. So, it is the "employer" who is fostering the bad training. I just wanted to point that out.

This step by Minnesota is to move Departments away from the "Bulletproof Mind" style of training adn back onto de-escalation as the focus for Departments.

Going to watch a documentary tonight called "Officer Involved" its about the director taking two years out of his life to interview various LEO's who have had to pull the trigger to lethal effect. Looks very interesting.

I think it'll be offtopic to discuss/review it in this post, but I've been thinking of doing a general US Police thread for some time, as it always seems to be interesting discussion.

So I watched the documentary, and found it to be excellent.

There are some great moments in this documentary, like when a officer who killed a man meets the dead guys wife on a random traffic checkpoint, years after the event. Most of the shootings seem to be legit and non controversial, aside from one that caused some riots in Cleveland in 2001. One cop was interviewed about his OIS years ago and towards the end of filming was shot at in his cruiser and had to respond with deadly force, once again. fething insane.

The commentary from the Psychologist and other mental health professionals are probably my favorite parts, overall.


Here's a tidbit, some of which isn't in the doc :




edit: Adam Jensen's insights and commentary feature less in actual doc than they do in this brief snippet.


Its pretty officer centric, is my only criticism. Would love a follow up that focuses on the civilian side a bit more. One that examines the political side of it would be nice too.

When you lose your job for doing your job...usually lawsuit follows.

 Xenomancers wrote:
When you lose your job for doing your job...usually lawsuit follows.

I mean usually when you get fired for doing something *wrong* you don't.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I never said everybody was going to have decent jobs. I was disputing Rosebuddy's claim that politicians will vote away labor laws because politicians' votes will be bought by corporations. Corporations can pour money into political campaigns but candidates still need voters to show up and cast votes and the majority of those voters will be members of the workforce and be employed so politicians can't afford to screw over the people that they rely on for votes. There is only so much influence that corporations can buy because corporations can contribute money but not votes.

Sure, and I get what you're saying, and I agree up to a point.

But what I'm saying is that there is also a hard limit on how much workers will do to actually vote for the benefits of workers. Consider, for instance, if government passed a law that reduced safety requirements in kitchens. Now, kitchen hands might know those laws will result in a lot more injuries and vote appropriately, but most voters will hear two sides argue that issue and be unable to determine for certain if the laws really are going to be more dangerous, and truth is they're unlikely to care enough about such a small issue.

Remember, when railroad strikers won the right to reduced working hours, in what would eventually become the 9-5, Monday to Friday working week, they weren't fighting for universal working rights. They were just trying to get some decent laws in their own workplace.

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I never said everybody was going to have decent jobs. I was disputing Rosebuddy's claim that politicians will vote away labor laws because politicians' votes will be bought by corporations. Corporations can pour money into political campaigns but candidates still need voters to show up and cast votes and the majority of those voters will be members of the workforce and be employed so politicians can't afford to screw over the people that they rely on for votes. There is only so much influence that corporations can buy because corporations can contribute money but not votes.

Sure, and I get what you're saying, and I agree up to a point.

But what I'm saying is that there is also a hard limit on how much workers will do to actually vote for the benefits of workers. Consider, for instance, if government passed a law that reduced safety requirements in kitchens. Now, kitchen hands might know those laws will result in a lot more injuries and vote appropriately, but most voters will hear two sides argue that issue and be unable to determine for certain if the laws really are going to be more dangerous, and truth is they're unlikely to care enough about such a small issue.

Remember, when railroad strikers won the right to reduced working hours, in what would eventually become the 9-5, Monday to Friday working week, they weren't fighting for universal working rights. They were just trying to get some decent laws in their own workplace.

Yes there are limitations but specific pro industry/anti worker legislation in niche industries is also going to be a very limited source of campaign contributions that would incentivize passing the legislation at all. Sure most people aren't going to get outraged and vote a politician out of office because he/she voted in favor of a law that diminished the earning power and worker rights of restaurant dishwashers but likewise there won't be much influence on politicians to pass such laws in the first place. The biggest impetus to change is the inertia of the status quo. Why isn't Federal minimum wage set to grow with inflation? Why does it take so long to get Congress to increase Federal minimum wage? Because with low unemployment, a growing economy and stock market it's difficult to dig down below the surface and address underlying problems when the newsworthy (if outmoded) indicators are good enough.

Corporate interests can't just write checks and get politicians to do whatever they want. Politicians still need to be able to create a narrative that is appealing enough to the electorate to engender support for legislation. Business can flex their monetary muscle and get govt to protect the status quo, to keep wage growth stalled and labor costs down but they can't buy major setbacks to worker rights because the govt has a vested interest in not upsetting the applecart. History shows us that politicians don't have much trouble in maintaining support from an electorate even when they're not improving their situation but that doesn't mean politicians can get away with actively hurting the electorate. Likewise workers will always face major obstacles to making major changes, their need to organize large groups of people together in a common cause that are willing to take substantial risks to make any gains and the combination of the govt's investment in the status quo coupled with the monetary power of business. So we get progress to the point where things are better than they were but are still far from being as good as they could be. That equilibrium isn't going to be changed anytime soon.

Sure most people aren't going to get outraged and vote a politician out of office because he/she voted in favor of a law that diminished the earning power and worker rights of restaurant dishwashers but likewise there won't be much influence on politicians to pass such laws in the first place.

I disagree. Passing the law gets the politician a check from the restaurant owner's association which he can use to fund his campaign/buy advertising to get more votes. And it isn't even noticed by most people as most people don't care about dishwashers. There's even the narrative that they only are dishwashers because they are lazy so deserve the lower wages.

 skyth wrote:

Sure most people aren't going to get outraged and vote a politician out of office because he/she voted in favor of a law that diminished the earning power and worker rights of restaurant dishwashers but likewise there won't be much influence on politicians to pass such laws in the first place.

I disagree. Passing the law gets the politician a check from the restaurant owner's association which he can use to fund his campaign/buy advertising to get more votes. And it isn't even noticed by most people as most people don't care about dishwashers. There's even the narrative that they only are dishwashers because they are lazy so deserve the lower wages.

It's still dependent on the issue being big enough to elicit an amount of money donated to a campaign that outweighs any negative pushback from voters or political opposition. Politicians can't afford to just do anything for a dollar, they are vulnerable to unhappy voters and opposition attacks. Issues that are small enough to fly under the radar are unlikely to generate enough donation money to guarantee legislative support. Is making dishwashing a job that's exempt from minimum wage laws important enough to the restaurant association that their members are willing to spend enough money on enough politicians to guarantee it's passage?

Look at coal jobs, there's no saving the coal industry and there's no massive amount of money from coal companies that was donated to the Trump campaign but he still made a lot of pandering promises about preserving coal jobs. Why? To win the votes of workers in the coal industry because votes are still the metric by which elections are won.

If corporations and rich people could just buy whatever legislation they wanted we'd be living in a very different world but thankfully that's not how it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When you lose your job for doing your job...usually lawsuit follows.

He's not being fired.

The Minnesota police officer acquitted in last year's fatal shooting of black motorist Philando Castile will receive $48,500 as part of a separation agreement with the Minneapolis suburb of St. Anthony.
Jeronimo Yanez, who is leaving the St. Anthony Police Department under the agreement announced Monday, also will be paid for up to 600 hours of unused compensatory time. The details were released to The Associated Press through a public information request.

It's a mutually agreed upon settlement. The criminal trial yielded a not guilty verdict and the civil suit was resolved with a $10 million settlement so there was likely no admission of wrong doing as part of that settlement, I haven't seen or heard of any internal review finding Yanez guilty of misconduct or negligence so there weren't any grounds for firing him. However, when you do something that becomes a massive PR nightmare and costs your employer a $10 million settlement it makes you unwanted by your employer so you there's impetus on both sides to part ways. It's not surprising at all that the town bought out Yanez, if anything it's surprising that it didn't cost more.