2 ms·
You think unions shouldn't be looking out for their members? It's not on the unions, it's on the people who hired the officers.
by parineum 2mo ago
You think unions shouldn't be looking out for their members?
It's not on the unions, it's on the people who hired the officers.
- detaro 2mo agoeven if you purely want to frame it is that: is helping to convince large parts of the public that cops are above the law and can't be trusted by covering for the bad apples "looking out for their members"?
- parineum 2mo agoYes.
- topspin 2mo ago> It's not on the unions, it's on the people who hired the officers. This model you have inside your head, where there are public officials responsible for hiring that can exercise whatever they imagine are the prerogatives of the public at large when making hiring decisions, is fictional. Public sector unions, for better or worse, have long since obviated such jeopardy and effectively call all shots with regard to who is hired for what.
- phatskat 2mo agoPolice unions are far and away much different than any other union you might think of. Most unions are in fact good for the ir members and society - police unions are not.