Trade Unions for or Against?

Are you for or against trade unions?

  • For the union!

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • Call in the Pinkertons boys!

    Votes: 8 61.5%

  • Total voters
    13

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
In my opinion, they are both corrupt as hell, but there is an argument to be made that since cops can kill and unions have a say over whether they get prosecuted, that makes them an order of magnitude worse in results given similar levels of corruption.

Oh hell no they don't. Police unions are perhaps the worse of them all. Although there have been a couple of politically motivated prosecutions, there have been far, far more politically motivated non-prosecutions.

I think you're working off a faulty premise, police unions can't protect cops from getting prosecuted. They can protect bad cops from getting fired, rehire cops that were fired for cause, and engage in similar misconduct along that line, but that's procedural stuff that any similar organization can do. They don't have the power to force DA's to drop charges.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
I think you're working off a faulty premise, police unions can't protect cops from getting prosecuted. They can protect bad cops from getting fired, rehire cops that were fired for cause, and engage in similar misconduct along that line, but that's procedural stuff that any similar organization can do. They don't have the power to force DA's to drop charges.
I didn't say they stopped the DA's from prosecuting, but that DA's, wanted to get elected and not wanting the police union mad at them, frequently don't prosecute. This was in response to a person saying that unions were necessary to stop malicious prosecutions of police, by the by.

The reasons why police unions are bad are two fold: first, like any public sector union, they are orders of magnitude worse than any private sector union, as a) the management doesn't negotiate against them, b) part of the negotiations are laws passed in their favor, and c) cops do a job that is very abusable, so any abuses of a police union are going to be far worse for the public than just a bloated salary.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
I didn't say they stopped the DA's from prosecuting, but that DA's, wanted to get elected and not wanting the police union mad at them, frequently don't prosecute.

I can't find any evidence to support that, loads of DAs go after cops and win reelection handily. Kim Gardner, someone cited in several articles as being fiercely opposed by the local union, has gone after a bunch of cops and got 60% of the vote in her reelection.

This was in response to a person saying that unions were necessary to stop malicious prosecutions of police, by the by.

They didn't say "stop", they said "defend from", which I think is reasonable. DAs aren't saints either and engage in malicious conduct all the time (EG, the aformentioned Kim Gardner getting thrown off the McCloskey for misconduct related to it), it's entirely reasonable to pool resources to make sure you have good defense in case something happens.

The reasons why police unions are bad are two fold: first, like any public sector union, they are orders of magnitude worse than any private sector union, as a) the management doesn't negotiate against them, b) part of the negotiations are laws passed in their favor, and c) cops do a job that is very abusable, so any abuses of a police union are going to be far worse for the public than just a bloated salary.

I have a few counterpoints
A) City leaders and other officials negotiate against police unions and other public sector unions all the time.
B) I don't think that's how it works, and private sector unions can lobby for laws they want too.
C) Yes, but that's not related to unions, it's related to power. There's no management union and I think most people will complain a lot more about abusive bosses than abusive coworkers.
C2) The public also has a lot more control over police unions via elected officals. If I don't like what a local private union is doing, I have no way to change that if I'm not a member (and if I am a member, I still probably don't have a shot). If I don't like what the local cops or teachers are doing, I can demand the people they report to take action, and if those people refuse to act, I can work to replace them with someone who will.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
I can't find any evidence to support that, loads of DAs go after cops and win reelection handily. Kim Gardner, someone cited in several articles as being fiercely opposed by the local union, has gone after a bunch of cops and got 60% of the vote in her reelection.
Your anecdotal evidence of someone winning despite this means very little, and is also very recent. Many DA's, especially prior to the Ferguson Riots, back police in attempts to get endorsements. For just one example, Kamala Harris as DA refused to back a bill trying to get a special prosecutor to prosecute police misconduct. For another, there are numerous shootings that were never prosecuted in the Bay area:

I can give more if asked.

They didn't say "stop", they said "defend from", which I think is reasonable. DAs aren't saints either and engage in malicious conduct all the time (EG, the aformentioned Kim Gardner getting thrown off the McCloskey for misconduct related to it), it's entirely reasonable to pool resources to make sure you have good defense in case something happens.
DAs do deal in malicious conduct, but the vast majority of it is targeted at civilians and not cops. And much of the malicious conduct they do is with cops, not against them. Having a group of people band together to stop prosecution of each other is what I'd call a step away from corruption as well. It normalizes that even if the cop does deserve to be prosecuted, no witnesses come forward. The thin blue line quickly becomes the "Stop Snitching" movement. Both are bad.

A) City leaders and other officials negotiate against police unions and other public sector unions all the time.
They don't though, because the incentive structure is all wrong. They negotiate with them. Basically, when a business owner negotiates with a union, the Owner has an incentive to not pay the union too much, or it will cut into his or her profits. When a mayor negotiates with a union, they don't really have much of an incentive to lower the cost because it's not their money they are spending. Instead, what they care about are votes, either by opposing the police union and making a political point, or more often until recently, trying to lure the police union to their side by giving them what they want.

B) I don't think that's how it works, and private sector unions can lobby for laws they want too.
Remember that negotiation I was just talking about? If a mayor does care about taxes, the way around that can be to give them leeway on the job to keep the union happy with them. That's very different than an outsider pleading a case. Second, yes, that's what the management side of the negotiation cares about: keeping the police union votes coming, and thus keeping them happy. And the things the union cares about aren't just salaries, but keeping it's existing members employed, thus lax and protective rules for cops. Up until recently, a police union endorsement was very valuable.

C) Yes, but that's not related to unions, it's related to power. There's no management union and I think most people will complain a lot more about abusive bosses than abusive coworkers.
Yeah, this is an added point about why police unions are worse than other private sector unions (which are all bad).

C2) The public also has a lot more control over police unions via elected officals. If I don't like what a local private union is doing, I have no way to change that if I'm not a member (and if I am a member, I still probably don't have a shot). If I don't like what the local cops or teachers are doing, I can demand the people they report to take action, and if those people refuse to act, I can work to replace them with someone who will.
The problem with a public sector union is that the incentive is always there, while the public has a limited attention span. So eventually, the public will stop caring about what the public sector union is doing, and the public sector will just grow back to being just as bloated as before. Public sector unions are a cancer.

Also, historically we can see that the public has little control over what police unions do, as they keep getting away with shielding awful cops.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Your anecdotal evidence of someone winning despite this means very little, and is also very recent. Many DA's, especially prior to the Ferguson Riots, back police in attempts to get endorsements. For just one example, Kamala Harris as DA refused to back a bill trying to get a special prosecutor to prosecute police misconduct. For another, there are numerous shootings that were never prosecuted in the Bay area:
After decades of quiet, Bay Area prosecutors seek to hold police accountable for killings
I can give more if asked.

That article doesn't support your point, it only says that DAs previously ignored the issue and now they don't, it doesn't say why they did so, aside from a single uncited line in the opening. You need more, and better, evidence.

DAs do deal in malicious conduct, but the vast majority of it is targeted at civilians and not cops. And much of the malicious conduct they do is with cops, not against them. Having a group of people band together to stop prosecution of each other is what I'd call a step away from corruption as well. It normalizes that even if the cop does deserve to be prosecuted, no witnesses come forward. The thin blue line quickly becomes the "Stop Snitching" movement. Both are bad.

I meant pooling resources in terms of "hiring a better attorney" or "have PR", not a conspiracy of silence.

As for DA's being more malcious to the public than to cops, that's true in absolute terms, yes. I'm not sure it's true relative to how often one group or the other is actually prosecuted. Take last year.

I can't find any precise figures, but of the high profile incidents I can recall (Floyd, Taylor, Blake, Brooks), the DA went after all of them but Blake (which is still under investigation). For Floyd, that was entirely justified, but with Taylor and Brooks the police were 100% in the right. That is not an encouraging ratio of legitimate action vs malice.

They don't though, because the incentive structure is all wrong. They negotiate with them. Basically, when a business owner negotiates with a union, the Owner has an incentive to not pay the union too much, or it will cut into his or her profits. When a mayor negotiates with a union, they don't really have much of an incentive to lower the cost because it's not their money they are spending. Instead, what they care about are votes, either by opposing the police union and making a political point, or more often until recently, trying to lure the police union to their side by giving them what they want.

I feel like your complaint here is out of step with your other points, where are about police misconduct, not how they're funded. And wasteful spending is endemic in the public sector, unions or no unions.

Remember that negotiation I was just talking about? If a mayor does care about taxes, the way around that can be to give them leeway on the job to keep the union happy with them. That's very different than an outsider pleading a case. Second, yes, that's what the management side of the negotiation cares about: keeping the police union votes coming, and thus keeping them happy. And the things the union cares about aren't just salaries, but keeping it's existing members employed, thus lax and protective rules for cops. Up until recently, a police union endorsement was very valuable.

I'm not entirely certain that police endorsement is a make or break thing in politics most of the time, and I'm certain that the member's votes are not.

The problem with a public sector union is that the incentive is always there, while the public has a limited attention span. So eventually, the public will stop caring about what the public sector union is doing, and the public sector will just grow back to being just as bloated as before. Public sector unions are a cancer.

Also, historically we can see that the public has little control over what police unions do, as they keep getting away with shielding awful cops.

If the union remains focused on protecting it's members and the public has ADHD and can't actually hold politicians accountable, the problem is not that union is doing it's job, it's that public isn't doing their job. This is just shifting blame away from the responsible party onto a convenient target.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top