4 ms·

> the cops are somewhere between understaffed and simply pouting and not doing their job unless it's exciting so are you pro-worker or not (I suspect you are p

> the cops are somewhere between understaffed and simply pouting and not doing their job unless it's exciting so are you pro-worker or not (I suspect you are pro-worker), cause it sounds like you're hashing out anti-worker rhetoric against your enemies I hear this all the time from ppl, it's this automatic talking point that cops don't do their job, so we should just push dangerous slogans like defund - when cops are desperately needed in actually dangerous neighborhoods. It's a very privileged sentiment.

unethical_ban 4y ago
There is a difference between an actual strike with specific demands, and "quiet quitting" as a police officer. What do police demand? From their unions, it seems they just want continued immunity from murder charges when they negligently kill citizens. If the rail workers threatening a strike had a history of disabling crossing guards on railroad crossings to hit cars without warning, and their union didn't want conductors to get fired for that, I'd be against the railroad union, too. Again, "defund", this scary slogan, attempted to wrap a lot of ideas up, most of which did not directly mean "eliminate the role of law enforcement". And, like I said and you failed to refute, substantial police budget cuts are quite sparse. So what's dangerous besides something that hasn't happened? What's dangerous other than cops quiet quitting to protest things that haven't happened?
- taolegal 4y ago
  The problem of course is public sector unions. Even FDR (one of the biggest union icons) thought the idea of a public sector union is dysfunctional nonsense, it makes no sense that they should exist. Public sector employees are represented by the public in voting. The idea that they should bargain with the public is ridiculous when they are the public elected by the public. Any additional "protection" will dangerously insulate them from reform & accountability to the will of the public. Public sector unions are fundamentally anti-democratic. With a union, they're able to hold other citizens hostage. It's disgraceful and exactly why they're able to get humongous budgets for doing nothing, as you seem to admit. Mind you this happens with teachers and other public sector employees. Pretty much inevitably. Of course, the people who get up-in-arms about police never extend their logic to their own sacred cows.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    A debate on the utility of public unions would be interesting to me, you being up a good point. We should probably nationalize our railroads, too, but that's a different discussion. We've gone off the rails (!) but we might agree more than disagree. My stances: Homelessness: housing needs to be more affordable, income inequality should be reduced through progressively higher taxes, and funding for mental healthcare and public safety should be increased. Cops: major reforms required but they are a necessity in society. Unions: reasonable for private sector, debatable for public sector, dangerous in the case of law enforcement. Oh, and the root of our failures in government is the two party system which lowers morale for the public, promotes political extremism and encourages fear-based politicking instead of solution -based politicking.

unethical_ban 4y ago

There is a difference between an actual strike with specific demands, and "quiet quitting" as a police officer. What do police demand? From their unions, it seems they just want continued immunity from murder charges when they negligently kill citizens. If the rail workers threatening a strike had a history of disabling crossing guards on railroad crossings to hit cars without warning, and their union didn't want conductors to get fired for that, I'd be against the railroad union, too. Again, "defund", this scary slogan, attempted to wrap a lot of ideas up, most of which did not directly mean "eliminate the role of law enforcement". And, like I said and you failed to refute, substantial police budget cuts are quite sparse. So what's dangerous besides something that hasn't happened? What's dangerous other than cops quiet quitting to protest things that haven't happened?

taolegal 4y ago
The problem of course is public sector unions. Even FDR (one of the biggest union icons) thought the idea of a public sector union is dysfunctional nonsense, it makes no sense that they should exist. Public sector employees are represented by the public in voting. The idea that they should bargain with the public is ridiculous when they are the public elected by the public. Any additional "protection" will dangerously insulate them from reform & accountability to the will of the public. Public sector unions are fundamentally anti-democratic. With a union, they're able to hold other citizens hostage. It's disgraceful and exactly why they're able to get humongous budgets for doing nothing, as you seem to admit. Mind you this happens with teachers and other public sector employees. Pretty much inevitably. Of course, the people who get up-in-arms about police never extend their logic to their own sacred cows.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  A debate on the utility of public unions would be interesting to me, you being up a good point. We should probably nationalize our railroads, too, but that's a different discussion. We've gone off the rails (!) but we might agree more than disagree. My stances: Homelessness: housing needs to be more affordable, income inequality should be reduced through progressively higher taxes, and funding for mental healthcare and public safety should be increased. Cops: major reforms required but they are a necessity in society. Unions: reasonable for private sector, debatable for public sector, dangerous in the case of law enforcement. Oh, and the root of our failures in government is the two party system which lowers morale for the public, promotes political extremism and encourages fear-based politicking instead of solution -based politicking.