4 ms·

Isn't that the whole point of unions? To defend their members wherever possible? It shouldn't be the job of the union to criticize their members that's not thei

Isn't that the whole point of unions? To defend their members wherever possible? It shouldn't be the job of the union to criticize their members that's not their role.

chadash 6y ago
They aren’t lawyers who have a duty to defend an individual. One can argue that unions would better serve the majority of their members by not tolerating egregious behavior by individual members.
woofie11 6y ago
No. The role of the unions is to protect the collective group of members. That's different from protecting individual members whenever possible. If a teacher's union protects bad teachers who aren't teaching kids, or a police union protects racist, violent cops, that undermines those groups collectively, and especially undermines the good members of those groups. The role of unions ought to be to push for higher wages, better benefits, and fair treatment. They should help address when something unjust to one of their members happens. When unions act to protect bad apples, it undermines their ability to do that, not to mention the standing of their professions as a whole. To give another analogy, if you have a large family, with a fourth-cousin fifth-removed who gets drunk and beats everyone else's kids with a wooden bat, you protect your family by removing that member from family events, not by standing up for her rights to be there, even though she's a member of your family too.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  Except it looks like the union is successful at defending members and police overall.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    Looking at the news, it doesn't look that way to me. It looks like years of supporting corruption mean its time to pay the piper. Police officers are in a world of hurt right now, largely because of how police unions have acted.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
loopz 6y ago
It's not union's business to interfere with Law.

Isn't that the whole point of unions? To defend their members wherever possible? It shouldn't be the job of the union to criticize their members that's not their role.

chadash 6y ago

They aren’t lawyers who have a duty to defend an individual. One can argue that unions would better serve the majority of their members by not tolerating egregious behavior by individual members.

woofie11 6y ago

No. The role of the unions is to protect the collective group of members. That's different from protecting individual members whenever possible. If a teacher's union protects bad teachers who aren't teaching kids, or a police union protects racist, violent cops, that undermines those groups collectively, and especially undermines the good members of those groups. The role of unions ought to be to push for higher wages, better benefits, and fair treatment. They should help address when something unjust to one of their members happens. When unions act to protect bad apples, it undermines their ability to do that, not to mention the standing of their professions as a whole. To give another analogy, if you have a large family, with a fourth-cousin fifth-removed who gets drunk and beats everyone else's kids with a wooden bat, you protect your family by removing that member from family events, not by standing up for her rights to be there, even though she's a member of your family too.

threatofrain 6y ago
Except it looks like the union is successful at defending members and police overall.
- woofie11 6y ago
  Looking at the news, it doesn't look that way to me. It looks like years of supporting corruption mean its time to pay the piper. Police officers are in a world of hurt right now, largely because of how police unions have acted.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

loopz 6y ago

It's not union's business to interfere with Law.