Hey, there! Log in / Register

Guy who was charged with throwing man to the ground outside a Faneuil Hall bar is a Boston firefighter

WFXT reports that Robert Buckley, 43, of Plymouth, arraigned Monday on charges he slammed a 68-year-old man to the ground outside J.J. Donovan's early Sunday, is a Boston firefighter who has been put on administrative leave pending the outcome of his case.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

can live outside of Boston?

up
Voting closed 7

They can move out after 10 years.

up
Voting closed 18

Anyone want to guess if it's paid leave?!? Just kidding, we all know fire & police get that regardless of the type or number of felonies they're charged with. So happy to be a Boston taxpayer...

up
Voting closed 29

When you’re paying 4% on top of the base 5%.

up
Voting closed 15

Huh?

up
Voting closed 20

Base income tax in MA is 5% + Millionaires supplemental tax of 4%. If you think it sucks being a boston taxpayer at 5%, it stings even more at 9%.

up
Voting closed 9

if only they had someone who could advocate for them and look out for their interests, maybe they wouldn't have to pay higher tax that only applies to the portion of their income that they take in excess of a million dollars.

up
Voting closed 20

And will even reach out if they think that person is thinking of leaving the state.

up
Voting closed 6

I would hate to think that our poor beleaguered millionaires weren't getting outsized attention from our government. God knows what they'd do if there weren't people out there to push for their interests at all possible times!

up
Voting closed 9

People are confusing the marginal rate with the net rate you actually pay. Basically nobody is going to pay 9% state tax.
Lees than $1M in income: 5% tax
1.25M in income: 5.8% tax
1.5M in income: 6.33% tax
2.0M in income: 7% tax

Etc.

This is hardly confiscatory

up
Voting closed 23

Keep going, Bob. Anyone making over $4M is paying 8%. $20M is 8.8%. Agreed, almost no one is paying 9%, but don’t pretend like high earners are not getting hit with significantly higher tax bills.

up
Voting closed 8

Giving unpaid leave means assuming he's guilty. Until he's either been to trial or made a plea bargain, he's legally assumed innocent. Occasionally giving paid leave to someone who's guilty is the price we pay for ensuring that someone who'd been falsely arrested isn't put on unpaid leave, which is a much worse mistake to make.

up
Voting closed 34

You aren’t wrong, but at the same time there are plenty of valid reasons to fire an employee that don’t require conviction in a court of law. Let’s say you see your employee spit at a customer, but the customer declines to press charges. That’s still reasonable grounds for firing.

Criminal conviction requires a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Termination of employment is a much lower bar. The fire department could, in theory, conduct its own investigation and make an employment decision completely independently of the court system, as long as employment law and the process laid out in the firefighters’ contract are followed.

up
Voting closed 28

Okay, let's run with your game.

Situation #1: A boss or direct supervisor of an employee is a first hand witness to an offense that justifies firing.

Situation #2: A person is arrested in a country with a legal system where there is a presumption of innocence in a situation on their personal time where nobody from their workplace was a witness.

In situation #1 the employee is fired. End of game.

In situation #2 if we follow the thread of your proposition it means that the BFD would have to "conduct its own investigation" in parallel with the police and district attorney so that they could fire this employee even if the charges ended up on the "not guilty" side.

Yeah, that makes sense and I'm sure that the cost of having those independent investigators working full time for BFD would be a huge savings in comparison to the paid leave that ends up on the books while the legal system does what it is supposed to do.

Remind me not to hire you as my accountant.

up
Voting closed 10

So you walk into the chief’s office and say, “hey, my store is next to the station; firefighter Jones has been coming in about twice a week, raising a ruckus, challenging customers to fights, and spitting on the produce.”

Should the chief’s response be, “I’ll investigate?” Or should it be “Unless he’s charged, tried, and convicted, I’m not going to do anything”

up
Voting closed 7

n

up
Voting closed 6

The comparison was between an offense witnessed by a supervisor and one where there is an active criminal investigation.

You're just moving the goalposts now because your original point was ludicrous.

up
Voting closed 10

no

up
Voting closed 4

That was meant as an either/or question

up
Voting closed 7

There's a big difference between firing an employee for on-the-job versus off-the-job behavior. In an ideal world, as long as your off-the-job misbehavior does not directly and tangibly impact your job (e.g. you're stuck in prison for a long time), it should be protected.

up
Voting closed 14

Off the job activities such as political engagement should be protected. Off-the job behavior that reflects negatively on character or fitness for the job is fair game. If your bookkeeper embezzles from his bowling club, even if he hasn’t embezzled from you, you need to fire him. If your employee presents evidence that he is a violent, unstable sociopath you are obligated to fire him rather than putting your other employees and customers at risk.

up
Voting closed 8

Starbucks employee is accused by customer of spitting at them.

Starbucks fires employee.

Starbucks then watches video (which takes a while even for store employees because video at Starbucks is not handled on site)

Video shows spitting didn't happen.

Starbucks then realizes they should have put the worker on leave pending an investigation.

up
Voting closed 16

does not equal being found innocent.

up
Voting closed 7

So let's apply it to people who aren't making as much money as firefighters. Who's going to cover the paid leave for all the people other than cops and firefighters who are suspended from their jobs while awaiting trial for assault?

Suspended without pay is better than being fired outright, which is what happens to people in a lot of other jobs, if they can't come to work tomorrow because they're in jail because they can't afford cash bail, including for nonviolent crimes, or if their boss thinks it's easier to give the job to someone else.

up
Voting closed 4

Because everything you mention is because of the union representation.

up
Voting closed 10

to cops and firefighters (teachers and school administrators too) who were fired and then reinstated because the City didn't follow labor laws and contracts. Administrative leave is pretty standard for workplace investigations.

up
Voting closed 20