3 ms·

Given that police officers (a) are first-responders whose central job is public safety, (b) are regularly sent into situations where their life and safety is

Given that police officers (a) are first-responders whose central job is public safety, (b) are regularly sent into situations where their life and safety is on the line (6 have been shot to death in the past two months), and (c) regularly face violent and hateful prejudice as an identity, just for putting on the uniform, it's hard to justify that they don't deserve advocacy from a group of people with shared experiences. It doesn't mean that unions should always get their way or that unions should be officially recognized, but police can and should exercise their rights to collectively bargain and strike if necessary.

santoshalper 6y ago
(a) This is a fantastic argument for why they should not be able to collectively bargain and strike. They are civil servants, not labor working for capital owners. (b) You grossly overstate the danger of being a police officer. According to the Department of Labor, being a police officer is not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US. It is, in fact, slightly more dangerous than being an electrician, and significantly safer than driving a cab. (https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf) (c) I think you are being hyperbolic. The intense criticism they are facing today is earned. Not because all, or even most officers are bad, but because they consistently protect the ones that are, and aggressively defend the worst among them. They can have advocacy, but their ability to collectively bargain with us (our government is us) and constantly circle the wagons and protect their own is net harmful to our society.