General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Logical
(22,457 posts)
carla
(553 posts)it is easily mistaken for an armed gang.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)That is not the same thing as supporting the policies that some unions enact.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)life and have always known pba has never been part of us!!!!!!
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Just because you don't like some of the things these unons have done doesn't mean they are different in any essential way. It only means you don't like what they are doing.
I do not support what thy did.
They are union men, and I support their right to unionize and recongize them as union members.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)After all, it's part of the UN Global Compact.
https://www.unglobalcompact.org/aboutthegc/TheTenprinciples/index.html
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)bosses,, crap and double crap. Bad Union.. ppl do not kill other ppl
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. I will always support the rights of workers to collectively bargain.
It's called a principle. People stick by them.
Or not.
As to the rest of your response?
Umm.. care to try again, I think something was lost in transmission.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)To blindly say that you support pba on principle is dangerous as we've seen in the last 20+ years..
I know you are not a bad person, but why would you support the killings?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You know that, right?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)This would make an awesome DU poll.
You want to, or should I?
BTW - my vote is that pollce unions have devolved to the murky depths of a thinly veiled protection racket, i.e.
"either 'respect' us (be a completely docile slave on-demand), or we can't be responsible for your safety anymore"
randys1
(16,286 posts)So I wouldnt support the union either
Support ALL other unions with vengeance, but we need to reorganize police, change things big time.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... with the communities they're supposed to serve and their own damn elected leadership.
_Blue_
(106 posts)If we start picking and choosing which unions we support, before long there won't be anything left. This anti Union bunk popping up on DU of all places is extremely troubling.
RW divide and conquer tactics at their best.
Good luck.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Do you know anything about labor history? Who do you think the 1% call out to quash actual labor union strikers?
BTW, thanks for the concern about DU 
_Blue_
(106 posts)But support their right to unionize.
Do you really think eliminating police unions and filling our police forces with $10/hour employees is going to make things BETTER for people of color?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)That's called an M.O. Unions are about solidarity with other unions. Pigs only show solidarity with the GOP and whoever they send them to beat down. Like conservatives who call themselves Dems, just attaching a word doesn't magically bestow the integrity others fought to have that word represent.
And no one said shit about "eliminating police" "unions" this is about supporting them, so stick that straw man back in field.
_Blue_
(106 posts)Nuff said
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)_Blue_
(106 posts)When labor has the power our country succeeds
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)which evey other union has been.. And I have a lot more why they are not supporters of unions
Boreal
(725 posts)but not public sector. Reason? In the private sector unions you bargain with those you work for. Exactly as it should be. In public sector unions, the public who pays the bills has no voice. Those unions don't bargain with the public. They bargain with politicians they give campaign contributions to. It's a circle jerk of you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. I am not anti union in the least and I've been a union member. As a lifelong liberal I take offense to your conflating the OP with RW divide and conquer - especially in this horrific police state we live in, protected by police unions.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)That's what you just said, right?
Boreal
(725 posts)I support private sector unions
but not public sector. Reason? In the private sector unions you bargain with those you work for. Exactly as it should be. In public sector unions, the public who pays the bills has no voice. Those unions don't bargain with the public. They bargain with politicians they give campaign contributions to. It's a circle jerk of you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. I am not anti union in the least and I've been a union member. As a lifelong liberal I take offense to your conflating the OP with RW divide and conquer - especially in this horrific police state we live in, protected by police unions.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)Thanks!
2banon
(7,321 posts)It's damn time we on the left acknowledge that fact. The meme that we blindly pledge our allegiance and support ALL Unions - right or wrong - goes to the heart of why they no longer have the support to overcome power and greed of Big Business.
Never understood why police force have the strongest unions, since they've ALWAYS been in the service of the 1% and pledge their allegiance to them.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)...work.. I won't last there long.
The NYPDs culture isn't one I would want around my kids, that atmosphere isn't officer friend type folk
The citizens of NY now know what kind of people they're deal with
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)with then ,,It is all about Them.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... of color have issues with them
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Not till they quit being assholes.
helpmetohelpyou
(589 posts)They will protect and fight to keep members jobs that have assaulted , threatened , intimidated and even
in some case unjustifiably killed some one.
I've been in unions and never saw anything like that......so my answer is I don't support police unions
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)
mythology
(9,527 posts)Some unions make shitty decisions, but that doesn't mean that the underlying premise of unions isn't sound.
branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 28, 2014, 03:56 AM - Edit history (1)
I support the long and hard battles of Democrats and liberals before me to secure and protect the rights of labor.
I therefore support the right of police officers to unionize, with all the rights and protects therein, even when I disagree with or oppose the positions they espouse. Like free speech, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.
Most importantly, I realize that to attempt to distinguish police unions from other unions, or eliminate them entirely, will establish legal and political precedents that could be devastating to the labor movement, particularly public employees.
840high
(17,196 posts)
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)The gist of your post is about organizing and collective bargaining and the rights of labor. This situation is not about those rights. It's about a show of ego force to protect themselves from criticism or accountability for their actions, which presumably doesn't mean murdering citizens in the streets.
I doubt anyone would dispute their union rights as you've described them, but that's not what's happened.
branford
(4,462 posts)First, note that the NYPD is comprised of at least 5 or more different unions.
You're complaining about how some of the police unions, particularly the PBA under Lynch, are purportedly using their political strength and free speech rights to "protect themselves from criticism or accountability for their actions." That's exactly what a union, any union, does. A union exists to protect and advocate for its members, and only its members, even the bad ones. When a union appears to be acting differently, it's only because it believes that doing so is in its ultimate interests. These duties and responsibilities are enshrined in law to ensure the loyalty of and responsibility to union members.
Unions resist accountability and criticism all the time. That's hardly surprising and controversial. I should know, I worked for the NLRB (Region 29 - Brooklyn) and spent part of my legal career practicing labor law. You comment is exactly the type we hear from conservatives and Republicans all time, and it's as meaningless from them as it is from you.
The best example is probably the various teachers unions. I happen to have a big soft spot for the teachers, as both my parents were unionized public school teachers in NYC. However, teachers routinely fight tooth and nail against any evaluation systems, protect blatantly incompetent teachers, and even defend convicted pedophile and rapist teachers. They do this because it's their job, they are legally require to, and it's simply the right thing to do. Although the vast majority of teachers are capable and care for their students and want them to succeed, and school districts must prioritize children, the teachers' unions balance management and ensure the best for the teachers themselves. The pr might be spun, but anyone who's intellectually honest knows the result. The taxpayers in most major cities having been paying more for education and getting the same or worse results, yet for some reason it's not discussed on DU because the teachers unions are a core and reliable Democratic constituency (and their money is desparately needed by Democratic candidates). Apparently many here have also developed complete amnesia concerning the vicious battles and inflammatory rhetoric between Mayor Giuliani and the teachers unions (and a lot of other unions) not too long ago. The situation is no different for any other union, particularly public employees in large urban centers with strong union protections and Democratic leadership.
You simply oppose the police unions because they are conservative, oppose liberal elected officials and candidates, and support policing polices you dislike. That changes absolutely nothing about the fundamental nature of their unions. They need not be liberal or support Democrats to be "legitimate."
If you want to change policing policies, there are many valid avenues and ideas to explore, but attacking police unions themselves is foolish, futile and counterproductive for the entire labor movement. It's a divide and conquer strategy that would be appreciated by the likes of Scott Walker, the Koch brothers and the Heritage Foundation.
Again, I thought the PBA-supported back-turning and related comments were puerile, provocative and stupid, and support those you criticize them. However, it changes nothing about my opinions concerning unions, including police unions, if for no other reason that if the police unions fall, the rest of labor would soon follow.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)they want to acknowledge it or not. Your post is definitely informative, but again it's a bit contradictory. They are obviously advocating for their members -- unfortunately that involved strangling someone in the street. There is no 'free speech' as it relates to protecting union members from that.
As far as the GOP, I don't see many Republicans decrying the death of black citizens at the hands of police- quite the opposite, if you want to go that direction.
Like I said, you're right about the machinations of unions, but at some point with the police, that involves the health and welfare of citizens, and this "protest" was nothing about their rights -- it was all arrogance and attitude.
branford
(4,462 posts)with support for the position taken by the unions.
A union does not lose its legitimacy because you, me or anyone else does not like their political positions, no matter how vile, or if the Republicans may support such positions. In fact, you complaint really appears to be that the police unions appear to be, what can be be described as, "winning" their arguments in light of the lack of indictments in Ferguson and NYC.
You object to the union advocating or defending "strangling someone on the street" and believe free speech does not apply. First, I can assure you that it most definitely does. More importantly, the union, quite unsurprisingly, has taken the position that the officer in the Garner matter did not do anything wrong. I already explained why such a position would be taken by the union. You might find that position ridiculous, unsupportable or even evil, but to characterize it as them advocating the strangling of people on the street, apparently without cause or justification, is hyperbolic, inaccurate, transparently partisan, and appears to be little more than confirmation bias of your opinion about police generally. I personally believe that an indictment was warranted in the Garner matter, but the issue is bad enough without the exaggeration or embellishment. When a teachers union strongly defends a teacher accused of sexual assault or worse, even with overwhelming evidence, a sadly not uncommon occurrence, are they "advocating for the sexual assault of children." Of course not.
You do not like the current state of policing, obviously believing that represents a threat to the health and welfare of citizens. To a certain extent, I agree. I also believe that the PBA statements and back-turning were stupid, counterproductive and inflammatory. However, attacking police unionization will not only fail to address the problems, it will hurt all the other unions you claim to support and likely create a new set of problems. For instance, I fail to see how officers who are paid less with fewer benefits and legal protections, who can be arbitrarily fired, would perform better than current officers. Moreover, how would you recruit qualified personnel? The aftereffects of conservatives using the legal and political precedent set by disrupting police unionization to crush other public unions is almost too terrible to contemplate.
The fight to reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system is noble and warranted, and it can be won without dragging down the labor movement and the First Amendment in the process.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)counterproductive and inflammatory."
That's the part about the NYPD that we're discussing, not the legitimacy of police unions or anything else about the legitimacy of unions; therefore, I wasn't attacking unions. I doubt many here, including me, question the legitimacy of unions.
The part that is illegitimate here is the police conflating their right to "free speech" to protest that the Mayor wasn't down and dirty with them in their complicity about the essential murder they committed against a New York citizen. People are seeing through that for the bullying and arrogance that it is.
Your posts are very informative, though, thanks. Your background is impressive about this subject matter.
branford
(4,462 posts)or to effectively do so by demanding they not be provided with the same rights and protections as other public employees. The OP's placing the word "union" in quotes in his first post was his sarcastic way of doing so. The many posts calling for summary dismissal of the officers who turned their backs on the mayor is another one glaring example.
Nevertheless, I'm glad our differences concerning unions, police or otherwise, are far more minor than they first appeared.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)You really stretch it when defending convicted pedophile & rapist teachers considering the background checks they have to pass. School districts are actually the much bigger threat to a child's education the Giuliani example is a reason why but you use phrases like "collective amnesia".
Where does school funding & and bad teacher come from? Leave no child left behind. Federal funding is cut-off so the real world result is schools from an administration response which trickles down to teacher comes to the logical conclusion since funding is tied to SAT scores, they teach the test. Teachers will be the first one to tell you how ineffective it is when it comes to the question "are children learning?"
One of the best teachers ever I had when it came to that question was a 6th grade social studies. Now her methods would draw reasonable concerns, even by those in the profession. You could tell she was fighting administrative battles by the way she'd let us create our own questions from the book which made it easier to come up with the answers but she expressed frustration over the history she was required to teach. She busted some well known historical myths, no one told me Thomas Jefferson owned slaves(not to mention sleeping (rape when you consider a slave can't say no--but she didn't say that word) before her. No one told me Christopher Columbus wasn't out to prove the world was flat. Greeks advances in mathematics were truly spectacular, they figured out the approximate distance from the sun based on the angle of the moon and the sun relative to the earth's position. The earth being round was settled BC long before Columbus. The other planets are round, why would earth be flat? The shocking thing is that it was in the history books for as long as I can remember.
My point is he had some unconventional methods that you couldn't measure based so how would the 'bad teachers be gotten rid off? Probably the teachers that aren't teaching the test. As far as social studies teachers, there is no other I remember as well and remember the most that I learned from a teacher. The other social studies I remember (I actually remember his name unlike the other teacher) because he was such a hard ass, the only things I remember were what rules not to break. Make sure you bring a pen or you get detention, I'm so glad I held onto that.
My 9th grade math teacher. I always excelled at math until the x's & y's got involved then I became really dense, but once I saw it then he became almost too easy. I had a D but teachers had an option to give a special grade which is a passing grade. No Child Left Behind crowd probably hates teachers like her but no other teacher was personally involved in helping me (I think this is why teachers argue for smaller classrooms) and I think the reason she did that is because she was what happened when things clicked. 10th grade Geometry was an easier subject to understand and math remains one of my favorite subjects, especially from a historical perspective.
I see PR spin and "intellectually honest", geezus, especially when using the pr by school districts which are often dominated by Republicans who "desperately need" funding from private sector who would like to turn K-12 into a for-profit business model which strong labor unions get in the way of. They're also very talented in marketing so they are effective at spin and using an effective narrative.
What else could I say here? Oh yeah, the process it takes to acquire "tenure" is usually 3-years (or at-the-time given that is one union that was effectively stripped) where they have to prove they are a good teacher which is a period they can be arbitrarily fired for any time (something the No Child Left Behind crowd loves).
Uh, badly performing public schools usually have a funding problem. Guess which states have the strongest performing public schools? You guessed it reliably blue states with the strongest teacher unions. New York, Massachusetts, California, Maryland (who NCLB love the Baltimore example but the red link, staff cuts, closing schools=larger classrooms are well documented).
I never had a deleted post in either DU2 or DU3 but it is obviously you lean Republican or favor Republican policies. You find convenient times to teach a liberals a lesson and sometimes they are good opportunities. A lot of it deals with the area of the law which layman lag behind. I have gone on 4th amendment decision reading binges but I know my knowledge is still quite a bit limited. However, your language gives you away and you use their talking points and use examples like immigration policy or when it came to redistricting 'you're liberals do it too' like that means something to someone who puts policy first, politicians second. Redistricting & fairness in representation obviously would be a false argument ploy in I favored Democratic politicians drawing the lines. Its not just those examples, this post I'm replying too clinches it for me.
So does there are "blacks in Australia" and the time you spend arguing that they are wrong.
branford
(4,462 posts)The reason why they are a favorite target is because it is all too easy to find examples of teachers union conduct that is perfectly legitimate and expected, yet nevertheless repugnant, to much of the public who either doesn't understand or care about the nuances of union representation. Both Democrats and Republicans choose their "talking points" carefully and conscientiously for a reason.
You can provide any number of examples of great teachers or the failings of administration in education. I'll likely be the first one to agree. I was constantly regaled with such stories throughout much of my childhood. However, despite your absurd accusations of my purported Republican leanings, I'm a lifelong, active, left-leaning NYC Democrat. I'm also a trial attorney. If I ignored or dismissed potentially meritorious arguments of my opposition, my career would be effectively over. Accordingly, despite my Democratic politics, I refuse to be hypocrite or unable to acknowledge weaknesses or deficiencies in our arguments or among our constituencies. The fact that I've professionally dealt with these exact matters only reinforces what is obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology or partisanship.
What you apparently fail to realize is that I support all unions, teachers, police or anyone else. Police are not some exception, even if I may totally disagree with their political positions. My arguments concern how even when unions do what much of the public consider "bad" or repulsive things, it might still be good for the union and its members, and their right to say and do such things are ultimately good for our country.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)"blatantly incompetent" resisting evaluation systems because they're likely to be flawed or full of shit, you make a pretty heavy claim which is difficult to find but probably exists somewhere out there--I can see a situation where a teacher is simply charged (situations like Kern county do exist and there is an other end to that as well) they'll support due process but I doubt anything less than "administrative leave" but I remember watching a civil case where a teacher was fired and there were no charges (likely due to lack of evidence) who filed it asking for no money, he just wanted to prove his innocence. Basically the allegation was kids were going around "scooping" the girls by forming cups under the girls' breasts. Frustrated, the teaching (based on the allegation) told the students to "stop scooping the girls" and the boys were smart-ass "what is scooping" so he "scooped" those students were the source which testified. A juror interviewed after the trial were saying the mission wasn't to determine what happened but rather if the school had cause over something he wasn't charged with. I have no idea or can't remember the involvement of the union but whatever the case, teachers under that kind of accusation certainly don't have an easy road back-to-the classroom.
I also find it very hard to believe a teachers union based on collective interests of teachers are indifferent to pedophiles in the classroom.
There was also "intellectually honest" and "amnesia" I already went over some of them.
This is what the Republican party is good at "to much of the public who either doesn't understand or care about the nuances of union representation." They go around pushing ID laws which appeals to the "no big deal, I show my ID for everything (though I know a homeless 45-year-old who almost never needs to except when she needs to but the whole catch-22 process of acquiring documentation as well as life getting in the way. They say "voter fraud" when the reality is less people coming to the polls favor Republicans.
You go on about partisanship & ideology, refusing to be a hypocrite, and acknowledging strengths & weaknesses in arguments but the arguments on teacher unions are so filled with holes you can drive a Freightliner through them. OK, eventually defend the under performing public schools based on SAT schools that you eventually close-up shop and replace them with charter schools. I live in the most conservative 200,000+ city so my school board elections consist of charter school proponent vs charter school proponent, look at the states with the "can't fire bad teachers" politicians & the number of charter schools which also has a lack of oversight and look at the documented issues. Who really cares about bad teachers? Arizona has a recent report where they claim Latino & handicapped students are being left behind which isn't outrageous an a state with legislators constantly trying to end ethnic studies in public schools & even universities (though less success there). A state like Florida sees charter schools failing but still receiving taxpayer funding while the public schools are closed down.
Some of those states also allow unlicensed teachers so is tenure a bigger problem? Do they care about bad teachers or paying teachers lower wages (teacher salaries weren't exactly appealing to the "best and brightest" in the first place--adding unlicensed teachers to the labor markets means lower salaries and you certainly aren't attracting the good teachers with that--tenure pay was a point of contention IIRC)?
SO you say you're so non-partisan and not blinded by ideologically but somehow you make their arguments with loaded language but the argument you used as an example (i guess simply a hypocritical one) but the arguments they make are so incredibly weak and it is very easy disprove and if people could connect-the-dots (why is global warming mocked like it is bigfoot but not examining why it is important why it is important to believe-it-or-not-believe)
On the subject of hypocrisy, I'm big on that. I'm not going to oppose something than support it because a Democrat decides he likes the idea (why do they latch on to the bad ones?). Jon Stewart took a Psychology course at William & Mary with the subject of political hypocrisy and you can tell it had influence. Type 'Jon Stewart Hypocrisy' into search and see what comes up.
There does exist some of that when it comes to police unions but can easily find anti-union Republicans embracing police unions. What do they want? To be treated opposite of how they want to be allowed to treat civilians. You don't have to look no further than the police union to find hypocrisy.
branford
(4,462 posts)I'm very partisan - I'm a active Democrat and demonstrably pro-labor. What I try not to be, however, is a radical, hypocrite or ideologue, for no other reason than it backfires politically and weakens otherwise meritorious positions.
You again provide anecdotes of good teachers or poorly run administrations. I don't know why. I already stated that I basically agree with you. Heck, as I already indicated, both my parents were unionized NYC elementary school teachers, and are a rich source of teacher stories, both exceptional and frightening. However, all the good stories in the world will not erase the instances when teachers unions, quite correctly, represent teachers that are just plain terrible. It's the same way that here on DU where a tiny number of the over 850,000 police officers nationwide cast a pall over all police officers. It is not fair, but it is human nature and reflected in the politics of both parties.
In fact, even when they are representing them, the teachers union knows when they're are dealing with terrible, even criminal, teachers. This is a phenomenon applicable to all unions, including the police. Usually the end result is just a good severance package for the teacher and, more importantly, proof to the other members of the union that it will do anything and everything in its power to protect its members. This is a very good thing. However, if you cannot find evidence of terrible or incompetent teachers and unions, with all due respect, you're really not looking hard enough. Of course, the rule certainly also applies to police officers and virtually every other union, particularly in large urban areas.
Every union, like all other organizations, has bad and incompetent members, and the union will and must try to protect them. This is fact, and unfortunately Republicans will use it as a cudgel against unions. As you acknowledge, Republican hypocrisy concerning police (and often fire) unions is quite evident. This should be used loudly and often to defend all unions, not diminish police unions.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)and why it fails as an equivalence. I also catch myself going off-track while watching a crucial game with the #1 seed on the seed (I forgot about the conference loss, losing the edge to Green Bay--here I go again) & home playoff game on the line.
Unions often do work with the other end of the bargaining table. What led to tenure to being created in the first place? Teachers actually didn't come up with it but Being fired for teaching things that weren't acceptable (often for religious reasons). Tenure is a fair process that puts a teachers through a period where they can be arbitrarily fired and vetted with a certification process. A teacher can still be fired, including a bad one. It just requires due process & a fair hearing. Sure they may make the wrong decisions but it isn't about protecting bad teachers or I'd be the wrong person to ask if a teachers' union is incompetent.
It is about protecting teachers from being arbitrarily fired due to administration biases or parents as education is very controversial. When looking at the factors that led to it is academic freedom, sometimes a teacher has unconventional methods but sometimes they're effective. If they're not, that is what a fair hearing is for.
The reason why I'm making these arguments is "protecting bad teachers" shows a lack of understanding what teachers are actually advocating for and what the "NCLB types" are. NCLB wants to tie teacher performance to test scores, teachers will argue critical thinking & a combination of factors. Under funding is a problem, outdated text books, smaller classrooms to help teachers focus on individual needs. They want less teachers, bigger classrooms, and a one style fits all approach rated by tests which grades good memory. Bottom line, how do they intend on replacing the "bad teachers" with good ones with one as effective as Tenure? Much less attracting teaching talent without something as reasonable as due process which follows a difficult probationary period to even acquire it.
I think as time goes by it will become obvious that it was more about union-busting than students or bad teachers. Teacher unions have worked with administrators to give them a way to get rid of the bad teachers that is more than fair for all involved & when you look at the things teacher unions advocate for (compared to corporate reform of government services, how people still fall for that trick I have no idea) you see who is putting education first & who actually doesn't.
Oh, the tiny few when it comes to bad police officers. OK, the biggest problem with police departments is noble cause corruption (AKA unconstitutional policing). The biggest threats to the constitution isn't the obvious fascist but the guy who wants to do some good but something like the law gets in the way. They then to bend (break, in reality) the law, write fiction on police reports, plant evidence or detect evidence by illegal methods, lie on the stand based on their 6th sense or the "not what you know but what you can prove". The word cognitive dissonance. Other officers that are aware are unlikely to snitch due to blue wall and they buy into the "ends justify the means" which is likely to be part of supervisors policing strategy or they'll have big problems with some things (taking money) but not other things. Overtime it becomes widespread
Like you say with bad teachers, if you can't find evidence of this -- Police Chief Magazine is a good place to start.
Oh yeah, personally I don't care if something is left, right, up, down, or radical. If the policy approach is the right approach based on a good understanding of the problems or just simply the right thing to do I don't care where the idea comes from or how unpopular it is. The Radical Republicans from the Lincoln era were one of my favorite political parties in American history. Sometimes the radical idea is the correct one.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)hours ago!!!
NYPD should have known better
tishaLA
(14,176 posts)turn me against unions generally or police unions specifically. Obviously the NYPD has problems--it stinks from the head--and police unions have to learn to advocate as fiercely for more training, especially when dealing with underrepresented communities, as they do for more benefits.
But I trust the overarching desire of the police union to create wage and benefit packages so hard working people can live comfortably and retire with some security
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
vive la commune
(94 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 28, 2014, 03:26 AM - Edit history (1)
I don't believe in eliminating any unions, police or no--that's a bad road to go down, and I do support the right of any wage earner to strike and bargain for better conditions, but police are unique in one respect--they are used against other unions to put down strikes. So, they are on the side of the bosses. They use their authority against other workers, so I can't really consider them a union in a real sense. Is an employer's association a union? Does management get to join up with workers in a union? No.
Marr
(20,317 posts)support them in practice, no. Labor unions are all about different unions supporting one another. The police don't do that, in my experience.
moondust
(19,993 posts)I'm sure the rank and file are expected to stick together behind the leadership--or else!
Lynch and Follmer and probably others don't belong anywhere near a system of justice that depends to a great extent on the exercise of good judgment at all levels. Police unions in particular need the coolest heads of all in leadership positions due to the deadly force element.
Forgive me Godwin, but this whole thing kind of reminds me of how average Germans were more or less required to go along with the insane Nazi leadership--or else!
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I don't believe unions protect people from being fired for cause. IMHO, the police in NY need a big ol' check in about what their job is and who they are doing that job for.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)And it's an actual union not a pretend "union" and one of the very precious few large and strong one's left in this country. Seeing as I'm actually a liberal very much in favor of ALL workers you better believe I'm in favor of ALL worker unions and particularly in favor of one of those very tiny amount of large and strong ones. Why the hell aren't YOU?
Gods, why the hell is anyone in favor of trying to stamp out one of the very few large and strong unions we've got left or ANY union for that matter even allowed here?
belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)divide and conquer working well here on du - rush limpone would be very proud of some of you
LWolf
(46,179 posts)with the teacher and public education bashing.
DU has always been more about partisanship than issues, just like the majority of the Democratic Party.
dawg
(10,624 posts)I support the right for workers to unionize. Even if they occasionally act like assholes. Lots of good people are protected by those unions, too.
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)Strong supporter of manufacture, radio, and other service unions, But the police union pledges their allegiance and serves the 1%, always have and always will.
So, Never did before, and they certainly demonstrated why they don't deserve our support now or ever again in the future.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Obviously, in your opinion they're all corrupt. Way to go.
I belong to a union that has bad guys in it too. Should I be judged for that? I'm a Teamster.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)I'm a union supporter
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)it's a bad thing - and Republicans overwhelmingly support police unions.
And I believe Lynch needs to apologize to Mayor de Blasio. Until he does, he should be given ZERO credibility as a union "leader". He's a right-wing thug with a big cesspool of a mouth.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)
great white snark
(2,646 posts)I support all unions. As a Democrat it's in my DNA passed along from better people than me who secured rights for our workers.
IMHO your outrage is too broad but I do share it in a narrower sense.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 28, 2014, 09:42 PM - Edit history (1)
but I support their right to exist. They certainly sing a different tune when one of their own breaks the law. They have very strong due process rights, including being notified there is an investigation. Law enforcement officers will be questioned by no more than two investigators, and he or she shall be informed of the name, rank and command of the officers conducting the investigation. Law enforcement officers cannot be threatened, harassed or promised rewards to induce the answering of any question. Though these are Garrity Rights. The job is unique where it puts officers into odd situations as the law is why the job exists but the job requirements sometimes don't coexist with the protections the law offers. I don't have a problem with that end of it. Its just when the want the right railroad suspects, they offer the best protections when the question comes up if an officer violates the constitutional rights of another.
I know you're looking for irony and I don't refute that it is there but police unions are the greatest source of it. Another good one is anti-labor Republicans generally support police unions, especially when they don't like their police chief.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)They are not real unions.
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Enemies-Blue-America-Revised/dp/0896087719
NYPD chokehold victim Eric Garner complicit in own death, union says
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nypd-chokehold-victim-eric-garner-complicit-in-own-death-union-says/
treestar
(82,383 posts)How will it be distinguished what professions and occupations can have unions or not?
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Doesn't mean some of the members aren't horrible. Having a union doesn't make you a good person, just organized.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Fuck the police and fuck their "unions".
