3 ms·

It's pretty straightforward. A labor union exists to enage in mediated conflict with the employers of its members. The employers of police are the citizens th

It's pretty straightforward. A labor union exists to enage in mediated conflict with the employers of its members. The employers of police are the citizens they're supposed to be serving. From there, it's pretty clear that police unions and citizens are at odds, basically by definition. Since the police are already given wide berth in the law, thanks to things like qualified immunity and civil forfeiture, why do they need additional legal defense in the form of labor unions? In fact they don't, and that's why police unions are almost universally fraternal organizations instead of actual labor unions.

monero-xmr 4y ago
By the same logic anyone employed by the government (which is the vast majority of union workers) should not be allowed to join unions. FDR himself even said as much - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/aug/14/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/aug/14/scott-walk... A lot of logical leaps and tortured arguments to prevent the police from organizing for their own benefit
- shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
  This is a bad faith argument. Not all government employees have the ability to do violence directly on others in the name of the state.
  - lukas099 4y ago
    > A labor union exists to enage in mediated conflict with the employers of its members. The employers of police are the citizens they're supposed to be serving. From there, it's pretty clear that police unions and citizens are at odds, basically by definition. This quote says nothing about violence, and it's what they were responding to, so no it wasn't a bad faith argument.
    - stonogo 4y ago
      The quote is selective, and leaves out the part about qualified immunity, which is absolutely police protection from the consequences of violence.
- stonogo 4y ago
  Your adjectives don't really refute any arguments, though. Personally I'm ambivalent regarding whether police should have unions, but being derisive about someone's reasoning isn't really a platform.

monero-xmr 4y ago

By the same logic anyone employed by the government (which is the vast majority of union workers) should not be allowed to join unions. FDR himself even said as much - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/aug/14/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/aug/14/scott-walk... A lot of logical leaps and tortured arguments to prevent the police from organizing for their own benefit

shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
This is a bad faith argument. Not all government employees have the ability to do violence directly on others in the name of the state.
- lukas099 4y ago
  > A labor union exists to enage in mediated conflict with the employers of its members. The employers of police are the citizens they're supposed to be serving. From there, it's pretty clear that police unions and citizens are at odds, basically by definition. This quote says nothing about violence, and it's what they were responding to, so no it wasn't a bad faith argument.
  - stonogo 4y ago
    The quote is selective, and leaves out the part about qualified immunity, which is absolutely police protection from the consequences of violence.
stonogo 4y ago
Your adjectives don't really refute any arguments, though. Personally I'm ambivalent regarding whether police should have unions, but being derisive about someone's reasoning isn't really a platform.