Discussion
  • Read More
    Dave Hamilton Nolan
    4/11/16 12:41pm

    Simplest solution, fold police unions into other public sector unions. When the police/fire/sanitation/teachers all collectively bargain with their State/County/City rather than each grabbing their own piece of the pie for themselves, you eliminate this rancid elements dominating the police unions. While we are at it, we could also get the Unicorns their own union, since they are as likely as my solution to come about.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BosoxBobDave
      4/11/16 12:48pm

      You can't spell "unicorn" without "union".

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PetehammerDave
      4/11/16 1:15pm

      Your concept has some strengths (in that members must themselves figure out how to divide the pie, instead of competing for pie slices) but since most state boards which certify unions look to “community of interest,” it likely wouldn’t fly. Firefighters have different needs/interests than a street paver, for instance.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    festivusaziliHamilton Nolan
    4/11/16 12:42pm

    That is what class consciousness means.

    Which is why Marxist ideas of class struggle are fucking stupid as an organizing principle. Because it leads you to embracing “allies” that have polar opposite views on almost every major policy issue.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Hamilton Nolanfestivusazili
      4/11/16 12:53pm

      It is not stupid at all. It is politics. Stupid is imagining that your “organizing principles” should explicitly make your movement weaker and less likely to succeed.

      The question here is not “do you support all the things that police unions do?” It’s “Do you think police unions have something to contribute to the labor movement?” Yes, they do. It’s also easier to try to exert influence over them if you have the bargaining chip of, say, AFL-CIO membership.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      OddsVonDabsHamilton Nolan
      4/11/16 12:56pm

      You’re acting like the labor movement is some pure, unfettered, idealistic enterprise that just started or something. There are a lot of fucked up, hypocritical things about the labor movement. And no they won’t kick out the police unions in a million years.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    GeorgeGeoffersonLivesHamilton Nolan
    4/11/16 12:31pm

    If they are treated like and have the same rules as every other union? Of course. But all this shit with police unions being held harmless from new right-to-mooch laws, city councils and county commissions rolling voer and agreeing to bizarre things like allowing police officers involved in shootings off the hook for drug tests, and things like that gives no one any confidence that they will be treated like every other public sector union.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MBCockGeorgeGeoffersonLives
      4/11/16 12:39pm

      I have family that are ex-NYPD (in the big, bad ‘70s,) and I can tell you from at least his perspective, his view was all other unions were a bunch a freeloaders whereas the police union was a brotherhood. (Although he went on disability and had no problem becoming a teacher, and retired with two pensions.)

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Masshole JamesGeorgeGeoffersonLives
      4/11/16 12:39pm

      Police unions terrify politicians, and the public they’re supposed to protect, so they always get what they want, unlike most other unions. And since they use fear and intimidation to get what they want, they resemble a fascist movement more than they do a workers rights movement.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    IskaralPustHamilton Nolan
    4/11/16 12:34pm

    I think that every time a conservative politician talks about crushing unions, the left should talk about nothing but the police. Clutch them to our progressive bosoms like a human shield.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      EquanimityIskaralPust
      4/11/16 12:41pm

      I’m not sure that’s an effective tactic. As Wisconsin showed, conservatives are perfectly happy to pass laws crushing unions with exceptions for police and firefighters.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      swishswishswishswishIskaralPust
      4/11/16 12:47pm

      I wonder if conservatives necessarily think police should be unionized, I would guess no.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SauceboyHamilton Nolan
    4/11/16 12:36pm

    Disagree.

    While the fact that the police unions support some pretty obscene behavior is a problem, the other problem is that you can’t lump them in with other labor unions, especially public sector unions.

    The fact is that politicians, who are fundamentally the issue when talking about empowering unions, treat police and fire unions very differently than the rest of the union movement. It’s simply not good politics to go against them. And its not clear they share common interests, economically or socially, with other unions.

    Put another way, I’m not sure cops and firemen see themselves as having common cause with garment workers or auto workers. Rather, I think they consider themselves a special exception, and entitled to all the benefits, economically and politically that they happily avail themselves of, and couldn’t give a shit about the plight of organized labor in this country otherwise.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      RacerX450Sauceboy
      4/11/16 12:43pm

      The Pennsylvania State Patrol was literally founded to bust UMW heads, so I think we can agree that cops don’t see themselves as having common cause with actual workers.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      blameitonthecroutons goodbye tourSauceboy
      4/11/16 12:45pm

      It’s the reason why teachers are the main crux of breaking unions: teachers don’t put batons to the heads of protesters and teachers don’t enforce foreclosures and warrants.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ZukkaHamilton Nolan
    4/11/16 1:00pm

    So, here are my thoughts, just going through everything:

    a) With regards to whether we (and by we, I assume you mean the general populace) want the “AFL-CIO to be a major force in electoral politics, thanks to its lobbying, donation, and ability to turn out the vote”, I think that is pretty much inevitable. Peoples thoughts on unions in general almost always fall very much in line with where they identify on the blue-red spectrum. So, I don’t think it’s possible for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations to NOT be political, in the same way that Planned Parenthood, for example, is a political entity. Now, I get that Planned Parenthood itself does not do any political fundraising or overtly attempt to affect the political process, so let’s say that P.P. is one step removed, compared to major unions. But it’s the same principle- people will rally FOR or AGAINST unions based on their own political affiliations, and whether the AFL-CIO does any active political lobbying or not, it is a major driver for some people, in much the same way Planned Parenthood is.

    b) To the question that is the headline here- I think the answer you come up with is the correct one. The one major difference between police unions and, say NJ transit unions or teachers unions, is that the police force by definition has an increased amount of POWER and RESPONSIBILITY, due to their role as agents of the law. I think it is important to keep them in, but it is SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that there be the right amount of oversight- perhaps an external review board (although I know the police unions themselves would not be in favor of this).

    No matter which way you slice it, it’s a huge problem- but not having a unionized police force is definitely not the answer.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ReversionToTheMeanZukka
      4/11/16 1:33pm

      “I get that Planned Parenthood itself does not do any political fundraising or overtly attempt to affect the political process,”

      this is simply not true — PP has a captive PAC that raises and spends lots of money trying to affect the political process.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      NonNeoNonConZukka
      4/11/16 1:55pm

      I disagree that your position on unions is completely dependent on your politics. I’m very liberal and a huge Bernie supporter but I’m against all unions in the public sector. Our demand for teachers, popolice and garbage men is completely inelastic, and unions use this to leverage outragous demands.

      Private sector unions I’m all for. The Union can only demand so much before the employer simply becomes unprofitable. There’s a much fairer balance there.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Cherith CutestoryHamilton Nolan
    4/11/16 1:00pm

    I do think that the progressive movement’s insistence on purity over achievement is going to be its undoing (that isn’t remotely a Hillary v. Bernie thing I was thinking more of all of the immediately jumping on activists or allies who stumble even a bit). And don’t think casting someone out for having disagreeable political views would be a good precedent.

    But I’m not sure the police union even shares those underlying goals. They are ostensibly a labor union. But they have a stake in continuing the wrongs of our capitalist system. I don’t think they should be cast out but I don’t think we should pretend there is any real solidarity there. It’s just about numbers.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BloodEyedCherith Cutestory
      4/11/16 1:10pm

      I have nothing more to add other than that this:

      They are ostensibly a labor union. But they have a stake in continuing the wrongs of our capitalist system.

      Is really the best way to sum up the conundrum and that I agree with you wholly.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ReburnsABurningReturnsCherith Cutestory
      4/11/16 2:48pm

      I don’t know about it’s undoing, but I do think it will always hinder the ability to make actual progress.

      It’s cute to talk about “The enemy of the best is the good” but when you live in a pluralistic society where people who have different values are all given some say in how society is structured, then that saying is awfully trite, and ignores the fact that while I may be certain that I am right about how society is best run there are 319,999,999 other people who probably disagree with me to some extent or another. A normal human being who doesn’t check their brain at the entrance to ideological purity might contemplate that and be willing to compromise if they can get even a little of what they want without giving up too much.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    CorbettoHamilton Nolan
    4/11/16 12:38pm

    But aren’t police unions the very epitome of what you said (last week) unions are supposed to be there for? Namely to tell your boss to go fuck himself?

    (I’m not defending police unions. Hamilton is a hack, that’s all.)

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Sluicer's ghostCorbetto
      4/11/16 12:39pm

      Well, the thing is, you have a point.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ZukkaCorbetto
      4/11/16 1:04pm

      That’s his question though- whether police unions should be a part of that group of “what unions are supposed to be there for”.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    BrianGriffinHamilton Nolan
    4/11/16 12:49pm

    The difference between endorsing a political candidate (ANY political candidate) and protecting criminal behavior is a huge leap.

    Sure, look into kicking out the police unions that shelter corruption and protect racist cops. Don’t allow the bad apples who are breaking the law to continue to receive benefits.

    But removal just because their political endorsement doesn’t sit well with some members of the public? Or perhaps doesn’t resonate with ALL of the associations’ members? Slippery slope, without a doubt.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      RoscoeBrianGriffin
      4/11/16 1:45pm

      I agree, but I think the issue with Trump is that his candidacy seems to represent the absolute worst instincts (for lack of a better word) of police unions, and in an environment in which attitudes about police are so politicized that is seriously problematic.

      For me, the border patrol endorsement of Trump is more worrisome. As background, I’m a white American who’s traveled extensively in the Middle East for school/work. I’ve also lived abroad for several years in Canada and the UK. I am frequently hassled and harassed by US border agents for no other reason than where I’ve traveled. I have been pulled into backrooms and openly antagonized by agents. Once, after some 20 minutes of questioning about why I had been in Jordan six months earlier (while crossing from Canada, no less), an agent actually asked, “Why don’t you just study American history?” This I think really nails the issue; the border patrol are both representatives of America to people visiting our country and those welcoming Americans back, yet there is pervasive and palpable xenophobia and chauvinism in its ranks. Some of that is part of the job; people who believe in protecting America from the outside are more likely to take such a job. (Not to put too fine a point on it, but the border agent with whom I had the most relaxed and respectful conversation was hispanic.) That these people, given the nature of their job and professional responsibilities, would endorse Trump is a problem.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SprocheteHamilton Nolan
    4/11/16 12:33pm

    If other union workers have to be drug tested, so should cops.

    Reply
    <