napo supports greater use of body armor and seat belts.n a mandatory policy does not and should not be equated with a zero tolerance method of enforcement of that policy. no one of us is smart enough to conceive of every possible circumstance in which an officer will find herself. there are some circumstances where it's reasonable for an on-duty officer to remove her seat belt or body armor. cases we've seen in our office and which quickly come to mind include the situation where a wounded officer cannot survive the wait for an ambulance and other officers place their wounded comrade in a police car and quickly drive them to the nearest emergency room providing direct pressure on the gunshot wounds the shoal way. the officers privating first aid could not physically do o'so if they were confined by the normal wearing of seat belts. the policy is technically violated but it would clearly be unjust tone force it in such a circumstance. similarly an officer removed his body armor vest and dives into a harbor to save a drowning woman. keeping

obviously napo supports the greater use of body armor than seat belts. however, it is important to note even a mandatory policy does not and should not be equated with a zero tolerance method of enforcement policy. no one of us is smart enough to conceive of every possible circumstance in which an officer will find herself. there are some circumstances where it's reasonable for an on-duty officer to remove their seat belt or body armor. you can have a situation where a wounded officer cannot survive the wait for an ambulance and other offersers place them in a police car and drive them to the nearest emergency room, providing direct pressure on gunshot wounds the whole way. the officer provided first aid could not physically do so if they were confined by wearing seat belts. the policy is technically violated but would clearly not be enforced. similarly removes body armor and dives into a harbor to save a drowning woman. keeping his vest on would impair his ability to swim. technically violated but a higher goal is served there by. finally, failing to we

when the fop and napo agree to the mandatory wearing of seat belts, lives will be saved because people will be required to wear it who normally think it's uncomfortable and their life will be saved because of that. leadership is on both sides, in labor and management. in boston, where i'm from, we used to say, management gets the kind of union they deserve. management gets the kind of union they deserve. so, if you treat people badly, your union gets more militant. and i think the best example here, sitting right at the table is in philadelphia. what's happened with the philadelphia union. it was a very militant union in philadelphia. and not to say it's not still a strong union but now there's communication. i think a lot of this is leadership but it's a little bit idiosyncratic. you need the right personalities. i have seen over and over again, whether it's labor or management, someone will say, and jim pasco can correct me if i'm wrong here, is we have a new union president, so now things are bad. or we have a new chief who doesn't think their role is to talk to the union. so when y