Get Rid of Police Unions

[Blackjack200]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394743/its-time-take-police-unions-lucy-morrow-caldwell

I think the title says it all, I don't see how these police unions serve the public interest, and I don't seen any reason to keep them around.

Take away the six figure salaries, the rich pensions, the $50,000 cruisers, the guns, give them funny little hats and remind them who they serve. I'm ready for the lower property tax bill.

 

[touchstone]

Who the heck gave police unions all this power in the first place? It appears most of the LEOBoR laws were passed in the 70s, but I don't understand how it is possible for cop unions to have so much power in 2015 when unions are pretty much universally useless.



They are beyond anybody's control at this point, save the FBI and the other federal agencies. We need to remove the laws protecting cops from financial and criminal responsibility, take away their military weapons and training facilities and vehicles, and gut the unions. Fire every last one of them with a BMI over 30 too, there is no excuse for obese police officers. Your job is to be in shape and if you can't stay in shape, go eat donuts on your own dollar.

 

[waggy]

agreed. when they can cover up murder they have to much power

 

[Blanky]

Unions are bad for us but serving us was never their intent anyway, but rather police. I would sooner see task forces setup that only go after people in the justice system and a strict getting process for their ranks to help avoid a revolving door situation.

As far as guns are concerned US police are very violent by a Western standards, but the ubiquity of firearms in the US also seems to mandate that police are armed. The UK model wouldn't work, but Canada teaches us that armed cops need not kill as often as they do. Despite a fairly high prevalence of guns in Canada (though nowhere near here) their per capita shooting rates by cops are very low.

 

[Blanky]

Btw here are the public's views on cops: http://www.gallup.com/poll/175088/gallup-review-black-white-attitudes-toward-police.aspx 25% of blacks and 12% of whites have no or almost no confidence in police. This is a huge number to me. Wish I had a historical figure to compare it to. I think the penchant the media has these days to post news about police violence is exceptionally healthy for us and a very, very good thing. Police continue to be put by many on a pedestal I don't think they deserve and are as such given excessive leeway they clearly don't deserve.

 

[berzerker60]

I hate current police unions, but I don't think the unions per se are the real problem. The problem is an American public that got terrified of crime (and black people, which a huge amount of the white population equates with crime) in the 70s, and even though crime is way, way, way down and continues to fall, it's old people who vote and set policy. That's why "law and order" continues to be the absolute priority of politicians, why no DA will ever prosecute a police officer, why we keep funding endless wars agains non-threats and giving the leftover military gear to police to combat non-threats.


Once that generation dies off (or catches up with the times and stops being terrified of everything all the time), maybe we can end the drug war, stop pumping endless money into militarizing the police with equipment left over from endless wars, and the police will naturally scale back to a more reasonable size.

 

[Blackjack200]

Once that generation dies off (or catches up with the times and stops being terrified of everything all the time), maybe we can end the drug war, stop pumping endless money into militarizing the police with equipment left over from endless wars, and the police will naturally scale back to a more reasonable size.

These institutions are self sustaining and interested in keeping things the way they are. Nothing will happen "naturally". It will be painful.

 

[cabri]

The union is intended to serve/protect/assist its membership from the employer.

When a union is allowed to have to much power; then they have the ability to control/impact/destroy the employer.

Members come first; not the employer.


Ring a bell (especially for those that support labor unions) :whiste:

 

[cbrunny]

Get rid of Unions.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, I'm shocked that the national review doesn't like unions.

Systemic police violence exists all over the country, regardless of whether or not the police in a particular area are part of a larger union. The policies are the problem. The thing nobody wants to admit is that plenty of people are unwilling to change those policies, the National Review no doubt among them.

 

[cbrunny]

Unions protect bad employees. Get rid of unions & get rid of bad employees. Not exclusive to Police.

 

[Mixolydian]

Unions protect bad employees. Get rid of unions & get rid of bad employees. Not exclusive to Police.

Not necessarily true.

 

[Jimzz]

Unions are only as strong as they are allowed. The problem is the chiefs and others in "management" that are supposed to reel in abuses came through the ranks and are pro-union/beat cops. Let alone DA will rarely charge a cop and if they do they push a weak case or go soft so they lose.

Want to fix the police fix those running it and those that are supposed to review it.

 

[cbrunny]

Not necessarily true.

Of course. But Unions have proven that they don't actually give a shit about ensuring that their members are the best people for the jobs.

 

[Jimzz]

Of course. But Unions have proven that they don't actually give a shit about ensuring that their members are the best people for the jobs.

That's not a unions job, that's managements. That's like saying how could a lawyer represent a slimeball, its THEIR client so they have to represent them; same with unions its their member.

 

[xBiffx]

That's not a unions job, that's managements.

What happens when management's actions are dictated by the union?

 

[PokerGuy]

Police unions are definitely way too powerful, they help protect bad cops and shield them from consequences. That said, I don't think that's the crux of the issue. The real issue is lack of accountability for bad behavior for officers. They need to be held to a higher standard than others in the community because they are given more power / authority. Instead, in most places they are not only not held to a higher standard, they are held to a lower standard.

Of course we also have to be careful to remember that we're currently seeing things based on a heavily biased media narrative. For example, if you believe the media, violent crime is ever more rampant, shootings are on the rise every day. Of course the facts contradict that narrative, but that's what they are pushing.

Is police abuse of power actually higher than historical "norms"? Is it on the rise? Is it just that we have more evidence of it because of the increase in cameras and social media?

If police have to deal with ever more combative and uncivilized people, it would logically follow that they are going to be more likely to escalate rather than resolve.... but is there any evidence of the public being worse when interacting with the police than in the past?

Those are some of the questions/issues that need looked at, we can't just blindly accept the media narrative and then start coming up with "solutions" to the "problem".

 

[fskimospy]

What happens when management's actions are dictated by the union?

Sounds like you need better management.

 

[xBiffx]

Sounds like you need better management.

Or less union.

 

[cbrunny]

That's not a unions job, that's managements. That's like saying how could a lawyer represent a slimeball, its THEIR client so they have to represent them; same with unions its their member.

You... don't really get unions, do you?

 

[fskimospy]

You... don't really get unions, do you?

I think it might be the other way around. That is literally the sole purpose of a union, to look after the interests of its members.

 

[Blackjack200]

Wow, I'm shocked that the national review doesn't like unions.

Systemic police violence exists all over the country, regardless of whether or not the police in a particular area are part of a larger union. The policies are the problem. The thing nobody wants to admit is that plenty of people are unwilling to change those policies, the National Review no doubt among them.

I should have made clear that I don't think that getting rid of police unions will resolve the issues, but I think it's part of the puzzle.

I'm not sure if it was the National Review article or another one I had read that pointed out that public union representatives essentially sit across the table from, and bargain against, the public interest.

I'm not just worried about systemic police violence, I'm worried about the broader "us vs. them" attitude that I perceive.

 

[PokerGuy]

Sounds like you need better management.

True, but when the union has an impact on the who is in management, it makes it a lot harder to get better management in place

 

[cbrunny]

I think it might be the other way around. That is literally the sole purpose of a union, to look after the interests of its members.

Yeah, and in doing so keeping shitty employees employed. If management can't remove these employees and replace them with the best available because the Union won't let them, how is that management's fault? Clearly the Unions are protecting shitty employees.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That's why many companies hire temps, it gives them more than the standard 90 day period to evaluate the person. A temp can be let go without question, an employee that has passed the 90 day period must be given verbal and written information concerning their deficiencies and how to correct them. Most companies must give the person two chances to correct any deficiencies before they fire them in order to avoid issues with the state labor board after firing someone.