3 ms·

>I see how poorly public sector works with public sector unions (especially police, but also city government generally) and I wonder if private unions won’t be

>I see how poorly public sector works with public sector unions (especially police, but also city government generally) and I wonder if private unions won’t be just as bad for organizations. I'm not a police officer, so can you provide some insight into how police unions work poorly for police officers (i.e. their members)? >Do we really think the average worker is able to produce better outcomes than management? Are we really that concerned with corporate/organizational outcomes, which seem to generally be doing pretty well? Maybe you can explain why we should be more concerned with corporate/organizational outcomes instead of worker outcomes? >Maybe I’ve just been traumatized by the public sector unions. I'm genuinely interested to hear more about this trauma, if you're able to share.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
>I'm not a police officer, so can you provide some insight into how police unions work poorly for police officers (i.e. their members)? How about police officers who don't want to be working next to another officer with a history of abuse and excessive violence complaint but can't be fired?
- ravitation 5y ago
  I assume you don't literally mean "working next to," but instead mean police unions prevent abusive and/or violent officers from being fired; but, as far as I'm aware, the bigger problem is that frequently arbitration hearings find in favor of officers that have been fired (and are obviously supported by their union) resulting in reinstatement. Police unions don't have direct control over arbitration though, so arbitration reform seems to be the more pressing concern. Of course you could easily make the same hypothetical argument that police officers, accused of some type of misconduct, need support from somewhere merely in the name of due process (much in the same way that legal counsel is seen as a right).
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Pointing to arbitration seems to be passing the buck. The unions had a hand in negotiating the arbitration rules and criteria. Of course arbitration could result in just or unjust firing, but if you accept the premise that it currently too hard to fire bad cops, you have to look for what parties advocate for the position. School teachers are an even more example of this, where it is essentially impossible for management to fire teachers. For example, California employs 300,000+ teachers and fires ~10 year.[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/01/25/firing-a-tenured-teacher-in-california-can-be-tough/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/01/25/firing-a-tenured-teac...
    - ravitation 5y ago
      > Pointing to arbitration seems to be passing the buck. The unions had a hand in negotiating the arbitration rules and criteria. And simply pointing to unions, as opposed to the numerous other parties involved or the process itself, is also passing the buck. Do they have a role in the process and its perceived failure? Obviously, yes, but can we blame police unions for the failures of those that they are negotiating against, or that implement arbitration? > Of course arbitration could result in just or unjust firing, but if you accept the premise that it currently too hard to fire bad cops, you have to look for what parties advocate for the position. I actually don't accept this premise of what is good from the perspective of police officers (or most police officers), i.e. are police officers generally more concerned with what you raised or more supportive of the job protections that enable it; and this framing was the original ask. It might be clear that "it [is] currently too hard to fire bad cops" from the perspective of the general public, but I'm not sure police officers, who the union protects, would agree - despite your framing. I think it's unreasonable to expect unions to protect every interest among its members. The same is obviously true for your example regarding teachers...
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >Obviously, yes, but can we blame police unions for the failures of those that they are negotiating against, or that implement arbitration? This seems like a weird take, but maybe I don't understand. Are you saying that the other parties are equally at fault for failing to prevail in negotiation against the unions? >I actually don't accept this premise of what is good from the perspective of police officers (or most police officers), i.e. are police officers generally more concerned with what you raised or more supportive of the job protections that enable it; and this framing was the original ask. Most cops would believe it is too hard to fire other "bad cops" and simultaneously too easy to fire "good cops" like themselves. I am not claiming that unions are a net detriment to police union workers, simply that there are tradeoffs. >I think it's unreasonable to expect unions to protect every interest among its members. By their very nature of representing all workers, some workers will benefit more than others, and some will see more detriments than others.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

>I'm not a police officer, so can you provide some insight into how police unions work poorly for police officers (i.e. their members)? How about police officers who don't want to be working next to another officer with a history of abuse and excessive violence complaint but can't be fired?

ravitation 5y ago
I assume you don't literally mean "working next to," but instead mean police unions prevent abusive and/or violent officers from being fired; but, as far as I'm aware, the bigger problem is that frequently arbitration hearings find in favor of officers that have been fired (and are obviously supported by their union) resulting in reinstatement. Police unions don't have direct control over arbitration though, so arbitration reform seems to be the more pressing concern. Of course you could easily make the same hypothetical argument that police officers, accused of some type of misconduct, need support from somewhere merely in the name of due process (much in the same way that legal counsel is seen as a right).
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Pointing to arbitration seems to be passing the buck. The unions had a hand in negotiating the arbitration rules and criteria. Of course arbitration could result in just or unjust firing, but if you accept the premise that it currently too hard to fire bad cops, you have to look for what parties advocate for the position. School teachers are an even more example of this, where it is essentially impossible for management to fire teachers. For example, California employs 300,000+ teachers and fires ~10 year.[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/01/25/firing-a-tenured-teacher-in-california-can-be-tough/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/01/25/firing-a-tenured-teac...
  - ravitation 5y ago
    > Pointing to arbitration seems to be passing the buck. The unions had a hand in negotiating the arbitration rules and criteria. And simply pointing to unions, as opposed to the numerous other parties involved or the process itself, is also passing the buck. Do they have a role in the process and its perceived failure? Obviously, yes, but can we blame police unions for the failures of those that they are negotiating against, or that implement arbitration? > Of course arbitration could result in just or unjust firing, but if you accept the premise that it currently too hard to fire bad cops, you have to look for what parties advocate for the position. I actually don't accept this premise of what is good from the perspective of police officers (or most police officers), i.e. are police officers generally more concerned with what you raised or more supportive of the job protections that enable it; and this framing was the original ask. It might be clear that "it [is] currently too hard to fire bad cops" from the perspective of the general public, but I'm not sure police officers, who the union protects, would agree - despite your framing. I think it's unreasonable to expect unions to protect every interest among its members. The same is obviously true for your example regarding teachers...
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      >Obviously, yes, but can we blame police unions for the failures of those that they are negotiating against, or that implement arbitration? This seems like a weird take, but maybe I don't understand. Are you saying that the other parties are equally at fault for failing to prevail in negotiation against the unions? >I actually don't accept this premise of what is good from the perspective of police officers (or most police officers), i.e. are police officers generally more concerned with what you raised or more supportive of the job protections that enable it; and this framing was the original ask. Most cops would believe it is too hard to fire other "bad cops" and simultaneously too easy to fire "good cops" like themselves. I am not claiming that unions are a net detriment to police union workers, simply that there are tradeoffs. >I think it's unreasonable to expect unions to protect every interest among its members. By their very nature of representing all workers, some workers will benefit more than others, and some will see more detriments than others.