3 ms·

Cops control their police departments via police unions, and provide their own training that their departments disapprove of. The cops are the state, and decide

by 8note 4y ago

Cops control their police departments via police unions, and provide their own training that their departments disapprove of. The cops are the state, and decide their own policy

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think that may be a decent description of the current state, but there is no reason that it must be the case. Saying No to union demands is always an option on the table.
- ttfkam 4y ago
  You'd like to think so. Unfortunately there are far too many folks in this country who would buy the "this candidate hates cops" and "that candidate wants crime unpunished" line spouted by those unions. Then the politicians who cross them lose, and their "tough on crime" replacement gives the union everything they want and more. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. All those "Thin Blue Line" flags you see everywhere? They have no interest in bringing the police unions to heel for covering up officer misconduct while on duty. There are major cities in the US where even the mayor can't legally fire a police officer caught on video doing wrong.
AbrahamParangi 4y ago
Unions provide important balance to the relationship between labor and capital but public sector unions negotiate not against capital but against the public. Moreover, the balancing force to union demands is that too many demands will kill the company and thus the union, so the union ultimately has a shared interest in the health of the company. Public sector unions have no such incentive. Public sector unions benefit their members at the expense of everyone else, and should be considered a defect of the union system.
- yucky 4y ago
  Vey well stated. I would be curious to hear the counterpoint from someone who is pro-public sector unions.
- ry7frhhbt 4y ago
  This argument sounds appealing because of the sleight of hand in how it uses the term "public". Public sector unions negotiate against varying levels of the state and while that generally translates to negotiating against representatives of the public that isn't actually the same as negotiating against the will of the public directly (unless you think your government representatives are perfectly representing their constituency) nor is it the same as negotiating against the best interests of the public (since public sector employees are tasked with objectives ultimately meant to persue the good of the public so by extension negotiating towards their well-being is also negotiating in favor of their ability to continue serving the public).
  - AbrahamParangi 4y ago
    The state doesn't need to perfectly represent the public to represent the public. Their only leverage is not doing their job. How, exactly, is not doing their job serving the public a form of serving the public?
    - ry7frhhbt 4y ago
      This is more conflating of synonyms. Just because the state represents the public in the literal sense doesn't mean it actually represents the desires of needs of the public in the sense of an abstract representation. The pedantry is important because in the former case the public has less reason to care if the activity is impeding the persuits of their representative beuracracy if those activities aren't representations of things the public actually cares about (or wants in the fashion they're being persued) Further, because public sector workers still represent agents of the public until they're let go. If the state abuses its agents too thoroughly for them to perform their tasks, or simply enough to have an impact its agents well-being, then the union represents a corrective force to the state's shortsightedness. This is an important dynamic because workers are only easily replaced if the next group doesn't also come to feel similarly aggrieved enough to unionize and strike. Further still, I'd point out that equating the state to the public it serves is only useful if the argument assumes that the public should be free to abuse its agents without ethical qualm.

by 8note 4y ago

Cops control their police departments via police unions, and provide their own training that their departments disapprove of. The cops are the state, and decide their own policy

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I think that may be a decent description of the current state, but there is no reason that it must be the case. Saying No to union demands is always an option on the table.

ttfkam 4y ago
You'd like to think so. Unfortunately there are far too many folks in this country who would buy the "this candidate hates cops" and "that candidate wants crime unpunished" line spouted by those unions. Then the politicians who cross them lose, and their "tough on crime" replacement gives the union everything they want and more. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. All those "Thin Blue Line" flags you see everywhere? They have no interest in bringing the police unions to heel for covering up officer misconduct while on duty. There are major cities in the US where even the mayor can't legally fire a police officer caught on video doing wrong.

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

Unions provide important balance to the relationship between labor and capital but public sector unions negotiate not against capital but against the public. Moreover, the balancing force to union demands is that too many demands will kill the company and thus the union, so the union ultimately has a shared interest in the health of the company. Public sector unions have no such incentive. Public sector unions benefit their members at the expense of everyone else, and should be considered a defect of the union system.

yucky 4y ago
Vey well stated. I would be curious to hear the counterpoint from someone who is pro-public sector unions.
ry7frhhbt 4y ago
This argument sounds appealing because of the sleight of hand in how it uses the term "public". Public sector unions negotiate against varying levels of the state and while that generally translates to negotiating against representatives of the public that isn't actually the same as negotiating against the will of the public directly (unless you think your government representatives are perfectly representing their constituency) nor is it the same as negotiating against the best interests of the public (since public sector employees are tasked with objectives ultimately meant to persue the good of the public so by extension negotiating towards their well-being is also negotiating in favor of their ability to continue serving the public).
- AbrahamParangi 4y ago
  The state doesn't need to perfectly represent the public to represent the public. Their only leverage is not doing their job. How, exactly, is not doing their job serving the public a form of serving the public?
  - ry7frhhbt 4y ago
    This is more conflating of synonyms. Just because the state represents the public in the literal sense doesn't mean it actually represents the desires of needs of the public in the sense of an abstract representation. The pedantry is important because in the former case the public has less reason to care if the activity is impeding the persuits of their representative beuracracy if those activities aren't representations of things the public actually cares about (or wants in the fashion they're being persued) Further, because public sector workers still represent agents of the public until they're let go. If the state abuses its agents too thoroughly for them to perform their tasks, or simply enough to have an impact its agents well-being, then the union represents a corrective force to the state's shortsightedness. This is an important dynamic because workers are only easily replaced if the next group doesn't also come to feel similarly aggrieved enough to unionize and strike. Further still, I'd point out that equating the state to the public it serves is only useful if the argument assumes that the public should be free to abuse its agents without ethical qualm.