4 ms·
mrits: "You guys love the police union too, right? Right???" The general idea, yeah. It proves how strong a union can be. The implementation? No. A union for
by capableweb 4y ago
mrits: "You guys love the police union too, right? Right???"
The general idea, yeah. It proves how strong a union can be.
The implementation? No. A union for people who have monopoly on violence? No. A union that protects people who are actively hurting civilians without recourse? No.
- jimnotgym 4y agoIn the UK the police are neither allowed to form a union or strike.
- denton-scratch 4y agoThey have a union: The Police Federation. It's true the police in the UK are not allowed to strike.
- iasay 4y agoWe just have the masons instead which spans the police, CPS and the entire rest of the legal system. Been burned big time by that.
- jstanley 4y agoHow can you ban people from going on strike? The entire point of a strike is that you're not working when you're supposed to be.
- bombcar 4y agoYou make it illegal to negotiate based on work stoppages, to plan a strike, or otherwise conspire to strike. And you permanently fire those who do. It happened to air traffic controllers in the US.
- kqr 4y agoHow to ban people in general from striking is easy: you just call the cops on them. How to prevent the cops from striking I don't know...
- mschuster91 4y agoIn Germany, police officers, soldiers and (depending on the state) teachers and other sort of public officials swear an oath of office that bans them from strikes ("Beamte").
- formerly_proven 4y agoOTOH they can't be fired, get excellent and cheap health insurance for the entire family, and retirement pay is far beyond the normal pension system, meanwhile the pay increases are often coupled to the results negotiated by unions for equivalent employees.
- wahnfrieden 4y agobiden literally just did this yesterday
- ThunderSizzle 4y agoAlthough that's also a bad answer, since their employer (the government) is also a monopoly with even more power than most businesses.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoI think police unions are a bit different for the same reason we don't have a military union.
- ahelwer 4y agoThe general framework for understanding police unions from a labor perspective is that the primary function of police is to safeguard private property rights, specifically the rights of the owning class. In that sense they are structurally opposed to all other sorts of labor unions, since labor unions threaten the maximal control of owners over the private property used (in conjunction with labor) to generate profit. Police often play a direct role in breaking strikes and harassing organizers, sometimes to the point of physical assault or murder. Police unions are permitted to exist without suppression for this reason: they support the powerful.
- pitaj 4y agoYeah, if you buy into the socialist class conflict theory. But it's pretty obvious that police only protect themselves and the state. They don't care about the private property of rich people any more than it hurts their reputation or the rich people have political connections.
- kqr 4y ago> the rich people have political connections. This is exactly what happens, though. You don't stay truly rich without a decent chunk of political influence. So, yeah, police protect the private property of those who support that idea most.
- ryan93 4y agoSeems like police spend almost all their time dealing with poor people who own almost no valuable property.
- notacoward 4y ago> people who are actively hurting civilians Police are civilians too. Using "civilian" in this way is supporting the militarization of police, and is not a good thing.