5 ms·

> Can't unions negotiate for fair wages while also throwing the bad apples to the wolves? No, not really. Its the nature of the beast that unions need to prot

> Can't unions negotiate for fair wages while also throwing the bad apples to the wolves? No, not really. Its the nature of the beast that unions need to protect all their member. A noble goal with a noble origin, but it gets pretty perverted in the extreme its been taken to. For example, school union members that are no longer allowed to teach students but cannot be fired (search on cases in both LA and NYC). You would think rationality would prevail but then you run into the other problem. Union membership totals determine power. More members, more money to lobby, which gives you more influence. There is a reason the California Correctional Peace Officers Association continues to advocate for laws that will put more people in jail. At this point, for government workers, we as a country would be much better off without government worker's unions.

ssmoot 11y ago
I don't see how the original transparency comment has anything at all to do with union busting.
- protomyth 11y ago
  If the union is the primary agent blocking transparency then one possible solution is to remove the block.
  - ssmoot 11y ago
    That... doesn't follow. What's to say you'll have salary transparency afterwards? Not you. You're merely speculating that they might be the "primary agent". Maybe there's a smoking gun I've missed. In TX at least, I think police salaries actually are public information. Check it out: http://salaries.texastribune.org/dallas/ http://salaries.texastribune.org/dallas/ Those salaries look, on the whole, pretty modest overall compared to the private sector. The "CEO" of Dallas makes maybe twice what a good programmer in SF might. The median police salary is under $60K. That's a decent living, but it's far from extravagant. That takes into account Police and Firefighter raises were suspended for a few years: http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2013/11/proposed-3-year-contract-for-dallas-police-officers-firefighters-restores-pay-raises.html/ http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2013/11/proposed-3-year-c... All while the unions and collective bargaining was in place. Which makes me think that talking about busting unions is a political sideshow to the original complaint.
Symbiote 11y ago
It's the nature of the beast that corporations exploit their staff. Or something. If you have extreme situations like this, something is badly wrong, but removing all unions isn't the solution. Instead, add more: convince people to join a more moderate union.
- rayiner 11y ago
  What incentive do cops have to join a union that won't insulate them from public accountability, especially given the (real) threat of false complaints from disgruntled criminals?
  - Symbiote 11y ago
    I thought the situation was union protection of incompetent staff, in which case ridicule from colleagues / friends, lost pay through striking, and having to listen to the kind of union boss who supports incompetent staff. But for a significant change in working conditions (which introducing cameras seems to be), then I'd expect the more moderate union to argue this too — if that's what the members want. It might take a lot of negotiation.
  - orionblastar 11y ago
    If there is a criminal complaint it has to go through an indictment hearing by a grand jury. If the officer is not indicted there either is not enough proof or the officer acted in accordance with the law. Usually a judge has to hear the criminal complaint first and determine if it has merit first. If there is no evidence of the complaint, the judge might decide it has no merit. If it is a false complaint there would be no evidence. I don't think a union has the power to change how the court system works. They can protect the officer from getting fired, but the officer still has to be tried in court just like anyone else. Although grand juries are not as strict on officers as they are on other people.
- protomyth 11y ago
  > It's the nature of the beast that corporations exploit their staff. Or something. I mentioned corporations not once, and this is about transparency in government. > If you have extreme situations like this, something is badly wrong, but removing all unions isn't the solution. Instead, add more: convince people to join a more moderate union. I would contend that there is no such thing as a moderate union in this situation. I would be curious if you had any history of "convince people to join a more moderate union"? I am inclined to think rayiner is correct and no incentive exists. Beyond this, we are there employers and the people who pay their wages. An organization interfering with transparency and accountability does not serve the public good.
lmm 11y ago
The NYC case I saw was where the agreement with the union was that cases would be arbitrated, but the school board was refusing to pay their half of the arbitration fees. So yeah, if you refuse to go through the arbitration process that you agreed to, you get to keep paying that teacher's salary even when you're not letting them teach. Can't blame the union for that one.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Do you have a source for that? The only thing I can find is this http://www.law360.com/articles/518338/nyc-loses-bid-to-make-teacher-s-union-appoint-arbitrators http://www.law360.com/articles/518338/nyc-loses-bid-to-make-... which makes it even worse.

ssmoot 11y ago

I don't see how the original transparency comment has anything at all to do with union busting.

protomyth 11y ago
If the union is the primary agent blocking transparency then one possible solution is to remove the block.
- ssmoot 11y ago
  That... doesn't follow. What's to say you'll have salary transparency afterwards? Not you. You're merely speculating that they might be the "primary agent". Maybe there's a smoking gun I've missed. In TX at least, I think police salaries actually are public information. Check it out: http://salaries.texastribune.org/dallas/ http://salaries.texastribune.org/dallas/ Those salaries look, on the whole, pretty modest overall compared to the private sector. The "CEO" of Dallas makes maybe twice what a good programmer in SF might. The median police salary is under $60K. That's a decent living, but it's far from extravagant. That takes into account Police and Firefighter raises were suspended for a few years: http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2013/11/proposed-3-year-contract-for-dallas-police-officers-firefighters-restores-pay-raises.html/ http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2013/11/proposed-3-year-c... All while the unions and collective bargaining was in place. Which makes me think that talking about busting unions is a political sideshow to the original complaint.

Symbiote 11y ago

It's the nature of the beast that corporations exploit their staff. Or something. If you have extreme situations like this, something is badly wrong, but removing all unions isn't the solution. Instead, add more: convince people to join a more moderate union.

rayiner 11y ago
What incentive do cops have to join a union that won't insulate them from public accountability, especially given the (real) threat of false complaints from disgruntled criminals?
- Symbiote 11y ago
  I thought the situation was union protection of incompetent staff, in which case ridicule from colleagues / friends, lost pay through striking, and having to listen to the kind of union boss who supports incompetent staff. But for a significant change in working conditions (which introducing cameras seems to be), then I'd expect the more moderate union to argue this too — if that's what the members want. It might take a lot of negotiation.
- orionblastar 11y ago
  If there is a criminal complaint it has to go through an indictment hearing by a grand jury. If the officer is not indicted there either is not enough proof or the officer acted in accordance with the law. Usually a judge has to hear the criminal complaint first and determine if it has merit first. If there is no evidence of the complaint, the judge might decide it has no merit. If it is a false complaint there would be no evidence. I don't think a union has the power to change how the court system works. They can protect the officer from getting fired, but the officer still has to be tried in court just like anyone else. Although grand juries are not as strict on officers as they are on other people.
protomyth 11y ago
> It's the nature of the beast that corporations exploit their staff. Or something. I mentioned corporations not once, and this is about transparency in government. > If you have extreme situations like this, something is badly wrong, but removing all unions isn't the solution. Instead, add more: convince people to join a more moderate union. I would contend that there is no such thing as a moderate union in this situation. I would be curious if you had any history of "convince people to join a more moderate union"? I am inclined to think rayiner is correct and no incentive exists. Beyond this, we are there employers and the people who pay their wages. An organization interfering with transparency and accountability does not serve the public good.

lmm 11y ago

The NYC case I saw was where the agreement with the union was that cases would be arbitrated, but the school board was refusing to pay their half of the arbitration fees. So yeah, if you refuse to go through the arbitration process that you agreed to, you get to keep paying that teacher's salary even when you're not letting them teach. Can't blame the union for that one.

protomyth 11y ago
Do you have a source for that? The only thing I can find is this http://www.law360.com/articles/518338/nyc-loses-bid-to-make-teacher-s-union-appoint-arbitrators http://www.law360.com/articles/518338/nyc-loses-bid-to-make-... which makes it even worse.