4 ms·

I bet the response from a lot of mainstream American leftists will be: whatever the union does is fine, because by definition unions are supposed to support the

I bet the response from a lot of mainstream American leftists will be: whatever the union does is fine, because by definition unions are supposed to support their members.

eevilspock 11y ago
You oversimplify leftists in the same way some leftists oversimplify anti-union sentiment.
mikeash 11y ago
I don't think I have ever seen anyone express that sentiment except to ridicule it, as you have here. And at least in my section of the community, "leftism" is so common that it's assumed to be the default.
- nkurz 11y ago
  It's interesting to note that Dan Weber appears to feel the 'defend all actions' is obviously correct, while you say your community feels that it is obviously wrong. Presumably he would say the opposite about his community. I don't know either of you, but I wonder if there is less consensus on this issue than either of you believes. Or are you two in fundamentally different communities?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Who is Dan Weber? I'm sure we're in different communities, but surely there are a lot of "mainstream leftists" with lots of public visibility? And I haven't seen "unions are always correct" expressed by public figures.
    - nkurz 11y ago
      Sorry, I thought it was clear from context. Dan Weber is 'danielweber', who wrote a sibling comment to yours, but starting from the opposite premise.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        I didn't see it, since I didn't revisit the whole thread again. That comment is rather weird. It seems to be saying basically, "The cops are entitled to a legal defense, therefore a legal defense is good. This is a legal defense, therefore this is good." But the problem is not really that the union is legally defending these officers (if that is in fact part of their responsibilities then it's only reasonable that they should do so) but that they're doing it crazily. Filing a lawsuit to suppress good evidence from being used in an internal investigation is not a reasonable legal defense in my eyes. Anyway, I don't know that that comment qualifies as "anything the union does is fine," unless that was actually supposed to be a parody of something less extreme.
danielweber 11y ago
Unions are supposed to support their members, and legally defend them. If it wasn't the union making this crazy request, it would be the cops' lawyers. And that's not a bad thing. Proper legal defense is an extremely important and fundamental right, even for the people we dislike. Adequate legal defense is often how people end up needing to protect themselves from crooked cops. If this crazy request is honored, then something is broke.
- nkurz 11y ago
  There is a difference between supporting any illegal action committed by individual union members, and supporting the interests of the members as a whole. I'd think (hope?) that there is a degree of egregiousness where the union would realize that they are hurting the group as a whole by defending the corrupt individuals. By contrast, the defendants' lawyers are allowed to concern themselves only with their clients.
- jMyles 11y ago
  The difference is that we, as the taxpaying public, have no choice but to fund this organization (the "union") because our civic entity (the police force) is obliged to hire only from among its membership. I don't care what these cops or their privately-funded lawyers say. But I do care that I have to fund this idiocy.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Unions are supposed to act in accord with their own charters or constitutions. Unions are supposed to support the interests of their entire membership. The union could have, upon watching the video, expelled the cops seen in it for gross and egregious violations of the union's standards of professional conduct. The former members would still be able to use the collectively negotiated clauses in their contracts that protect them from unjust disciplinary actions. If the union does not have standards of professional conduct that would allow them to expel a cop for blatant, open, and notorious destruction of private property, unlawful conversion, spoliation of evidence, deprivation of rights under color of law, and grossly unprofessional and unethical conduct, why the heck would any county or municipality hire any of their members? Most unions can kick you out when shown good cause, including for actions that are neither illegal nor unethical, such as joining a competing union. This is probably something the union should have backed away from, as it makes their entire membership look like they support corruption in policing.
RockyMcNuts 11y ago
A lot of people respond to videos of police malfeasance by blaming the victim who must have been a bad guy and somehow provoked it. Confirmation bias is a powerful thin.
elektromekatron 11y ago
Unions are also supposed to kick out members who bring them into disrepute.

I bet the response from a lot of mainstream American leftists will be: whatever the union does is fine, because by definition unions are supposed to support their members.

eevilspock 11y ago

You oversimplify leftists in the same way some leftists oversimplify anti-union sentiment.

mikeash 11y ago

I don't think I have ever seen anyone express that sentiment except to ridicule it, as you have here. And at least in my section of the community, "leftism" is so common that it's assumed to be the default.

nkurz 11y ago
It's interesting to note that Dan Weber appears to feel the 'defend all actions' is obviously correct, while you say your community feels that it is obviously wrong. Presumably he would say the opposite about his community. I don't know either of you, but I wonder if there is less consensus on this issue than either of you believes. Or are you two in fundamentally different communities?
- mikeash 11y ago
  Who is Dan Weber? I'm sure we're in different communities, but surely there are a lot of "mainstream leftists" with lots of public visibility? And I haven't seen "unions are always correct" expressed by public figures.
  - nkurz 11y ago
    Sorry, I thought it was clear from context. Dan Weber is 'danielweber', who wrote a sibling comment to yours, but starting from the opposite premise.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I didn't see it, since I didn't revisit the whole thread again. That comment is rather weird. It seems to be saying basically, "The cops are entitled to a legal defense, therefore a legal defense is good. This is a legal defense, therefore this is good." But the problem is not really that the union is legally defending these officers (if that is in fact part of their responsibilities then it's only reasonable that they should do so) but that they're doing it crazily. Filing a lawsuit to suppress good evidence from being used in an internal investigation is not a reasonable legal defense in my eyes. Anyway, I don't know that that comment qualifies as "anything the union does is fine," unless that was actually supposed to be a parody of something less extreme.

danielweber 11y ago

Unions are supposed to support their members, and legally defend them. If it wasn't the union making this crazy request, it would be the cops' lawyers. And that's not a bad thing. Proper legal defense is an extremely important and fundamental right, even for the people we dislike. Adequate legal defense is often how people end up needing to protect themselves from crooked cops. If this crazy request is honored, then something is broke.

nkurz 11y ago
There is a difference between supporting any illegal action committed by individual union members, and supporting the interests of the members as a whole. I'd think (hope?) that there is a degree of egregiousness where the union would realize that they are hurting the group as a whole by defending the corrupt individuals. By contrast, the defendants' lawyers are allowed to concern themselves only with their clients.
jMyles 11y ago
The difference is that we, as the taxpaying public, have no choice but to fund this organization (the "union") because our civic entity (the police force) is obliged to hire only from among its membership. I don't care what these cops or their privately-funded lawyers say. But I do care that I have to fund this idiocy.
logfromblammo 11y ago
Unions are supposed to act in accord with their own charters or constitutions. Unions are supposed to support the interests of their entire membership. The union could have, upon watching the video, expelled the cops seen in it for gross and egregious violations of the union's standards of professional conduct. The former members would still be able to use the collectively negotiated clauses in their contracts that protect them from unjust disciplinary actions. If the union does not have standards of professional conduct that would allow them to expel a cop for blatant, open, and notorious destruction of private property, unlawful conversion, spoliation of evidence, deprivation of rights under color of law, and grossly unprofessional and unethical conduct, why the heck would any county or municipality hire any of their members? Most unions can kick you out when shown good cause, including for actions that are neither illegal nor unethical, such as joining a competing union. This is probably something the union should have backed away from, as it makes their entire membership look like they support corruption in policing.

RockyMcNuts 11y ago

A lot of people respond to videos of police malfeasance by blaming the victim who must have been a bad guy and somehow provoked it. Confirmation bias is a powerful thin.

elektromekatron 11y ago

Unions are also supposed to kick out members who bring them into disrepute.