3 ms·
and supporting the interests of the members as a whole That is even more frightening. The union already has tremendous opportunity to negotiate for the rights
by danielweber 11y ago
and supporting the interests of the members as a whole
That is even more frightening. The union already has tremendous opportunity to negotiate for the rights of some members by giving up on the rights of other members. If it could pick and choose which cases were "really worth it" it would end up defending organizational insiders while declining to defend Joe Sixpack.
One positive thing unions provide is that they provide a valuable way for workers to know about and exercise their legal rights. If different kind of organization were providing that benefit, it woulLd still be defending workers accused of bad things.
"Even those accused of REALLY bad things?"
Especially those accused of really bad thing
- logfromblammo 11y agoYou are making this out to be an accusation, when it is, in fact, a public release of damning evidence. There is no dispute that the cops in the video did what they were recorded in doing. The argument is literally that the prosecutors should not consider the publicly available evidence when determining whether the cops should be charged with a crime. The union is not bound by the state's rules of evidence. It can make an independent assessment of the facts available to it and decide whether the union would be better served by keeping those guys in it and defending them to the last, or by cutting them loose and preserving its reputation for the remaining members. It is all down to the operating principles ensconced in its own articles of organization. What goes beyond the pale? If Joe Sixpack sat down and ate a live baby, feet first, and it was caught on video, which then went viral on YouTube, would the union still go to bat for him?