From what the article presented, Mr. Stevens seems an ideal candidate. He already works in the field as a Corrections Officer with the Minnesota Department of Corrections and has a degree in Law Enforcement.
Our Union, the Minnesota Public Employees Association (MNPEA) has an active grievance against the Sheriff's Office regarding this policy. The reason being that Sheriff Stanek has suddenly made Tattoos a condition of employment without negotiating it in violation of our contract. Unfortunately, unilateral action without regard to the contract seems to be a hallmark of this administration.
Sheriff Stanek's Personal Information Officer is quoted in the Star Tribune article saying in response to the Tattoo issue:
"Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Lisa Kiava said the priority is the safety of the people in the jail. About 70 percent of the male inmates have used illegal narcotics in the hours before they are arrested and some are drunk while they are being booked. She said another 30 percent are mentally ill.
"We are working with a challenging population," she said"
What the hell kind of response is that? The Sheriff's Office response doesn't even address the issue. Maybe the Sheriff is still stuck in gun control talking points mode.
Many of us long term Detention Deputies and the Licensed Deputies have ink. It's never been an issue. The article even states that the Sheriff's Office is the only Hennepin County Department with such a policy. It's not an issue at the County Workhouse or Juvenile Center. This appears to be Sheriff Stanek's personal issue.
Policies such as this will only make it increasingly difficult to hire good people. The Sheriff's Office must already overcome the fact that the Hennepin County jail has the lowest starting pay of any seven county metro area jail (even though it's the largest and most dangerous), employees must pay a lot of money to park downtown and the current schedule makes it almost impossible to get weekends off until an employee has been there for five years.
Good luck Mr. Stevens, you seem a good candidate and I'm sure you'll find a good job in the field. The loss is on the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office that let a potentially good employee slip away over something as trivial as tattoos.
3 comments:
Seems like the new "Sheriff's Office" image was in need of a cleaning because the previous Sheriffs did not seem to have a problem with staff tattoos in their policies. When Sheriff Stanek got re-elected in 2010 this long standing policy got changed to prevent staff from getting any more visible tattoos or new applicants of having visible tattoos. Maybe the change came from the Sheriff wanting or needing a bigger national profile like when he stands next to the president. He also went from a two star collar device to a four star after getting some more recent national press exposure. I guess it is all about the "image" and not the product.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a County Sheriff's grooming policy is "managerial perogative" avoiding the necessity of bargaining with the certified representative or union. See LELS v. Co. of Hennepin, 449 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. 1990)
Your "attorney" should be able to find the 100s of other cases on this subject as well. You guys are wasting your money fighting this fight. But what the heck...it is your money is it Wade?
Anonymous, that case covered fingernail length and mustaches. It would remain to be seen whether tattoos are "grooming."
As to your remark, "You guys are wasting your money fighting this fight. But what the heck...it is your money is it Wade?"
No one has taken this to court yet. If an affected member wanted to take it there then we will cross that bridge...and no it's not my money, it's the members.
I don't believe a tattoo is grooming, I don't believe it's part of the uniform, I believe it falls under free speech.
Post a Comment