3 ms·

The mere existence of a union shouldn't prevent dismissal cases from prevailing, though, unless something else is seriously wrong with the adversarial process.

by mjn 13y ago

The mere existence of a union shouldn't prevent dismissal cases from prevailing, though, unless something else is seriously wrong with the adversarial process. I'm represented by a union [1], and as a result I could ask my union for advice and/or support, if my job was terminated or if I were otherwise disciplined. Their lawyers would look into it and determine: 1) what advice to give me; and 2) whether there is a violation of rights serious enough to threaten the collective interest of the union members, thereby justifying the union themselves lodging an objection. But the union would not defend me if their lawyers thought the dismissal was according to procedures and with sufficient evidence; it's not considered in the union's interest to defend clearly bad employees, and in practice they object in only a minority of dismissals. Even when they do lodge an objection in a given case, there is hardly any guarantee they will prevail. Why don't police unions work like that? My guess is a mixture of factors, relating to both cultural aspects (the "no snitching" culture) and ineffective oversight or even outright collusion from people who are supposed to be their adversaries in such procedures, such as judges. [1] http://www.dm.dk/da/OmDM/Organisationen/English http://www.dm.dk/da/OmDM/Organisationen/English

philwelch 13y ago
And who exactly determines the procedures? Isn't this something public sector unions routinely negotiate? American public sector unions (teachers as well as police) routinely convince the public that they represent the public interest rather than the private interests of their members so there is no one left to lobby against them, giving them a blank check to make it impossible to dismiss a union member for misconduct.
- mjn 13y ago
  Yes, the procedures are negotiated between the unions and the employers. In the case of public-sector unions, the elected government is responsible for representing the public interest in the negotiations. The legislature can also pass laws directly mandating certain procedures, if they wish, since ultimately the whole union system operates within parameters specified by the labor laws. Imo public opinion has to align against police misconduct for it to be dealt with. If the public is offended by misconduct not being punished, this provides both an incentive for elective officials to make sure that can be done, and to police unions to be pragmatic about which kinds of interests they wish to defend; it may not be in the members' collective interest to defend a few bad apples, especially if doing so greatly angers the public. Of course, it might be in their interest if the whole lot of them are bad apples... My impression, though, is that the majority of Americans are hardly concerned about police misconduct, and generally support the police against complaints, which doesn't provide very fertile ground for anyone interested in pushing reforms. You can win an election by being tough on crime, but can you win an election by being tough on police misconduct?
  - philwelch 13y ago
    But unions can effectively lobby the government, making it extremely difficult for the government to negotiate with public sector unions. Usually the union owns both sides of the negotiating table and gets a blank check. Just look at what happened to Scott Walker, and not even he crossed the police.
    - mjn 13y ago
      Can't unions' opponents also lobby the government? The Fraternal Order of Police does lobby the government on criminal-justice issues, but so do large organizations like the ACLU, NAACP, National Lawyers' Guild, etc. on the other side. The difference seems to be that more voters and politicians side with the FOP's policy recommendations, than with those that their opponents propose. In a democratic system, whether a major crackdown on police abuses happens depends to a large extent on whether there is actually public support for such a crackdown. Is the current situation that there is strong public support for a crackdown, but FOP lobbying is keeping it from happening? I don't think that's the case; my read is that the majority of people actually think the police are basically good guys who shouldn't be hassled more. The dissenters are a mixture of left-wing/minority-activist groups who are suspicious of racial profiling and police abuse directed mainly at minorities, plus some libertarian groups wary of increasingly militarized policing. But afaict by far the majority opinion thinks those concerns are overblown and supports the cops.
      - philwelch 13y ago
        That makes sense, but teachers unions have similar power and people actually do want good education for their children. I guess that the teachers unions fool people into thinking they want good education as well, but their real interest is the private interests of their members.

by mjn 13y ago

philwelch 13y ago

And who exactly determines the procedures? Isn't this something public sector unions routinely negotiate? American public sector unions (teachers as well as police) routinely convince the public that they represent the public interest rather than the private interests of their members so there is no one left to lobby against them, giving them a blank check to make it impossible to dismiss a union member for misconduct.

mjn 13y ago
Yes, the procedures are negotiated between the unions and the employers. In the case of public-sector unions, the elected government is responsible for representing the public interest in the negotiations. The legislature can also pass laws directly mandating certain procedures, if they wish, since ultimately the whole union system operates within parameters specified by the labor laws. Imo public opinion has to align against police misconduct for it to be dealt with. If the public is offended by misconduct not being punished, this provides both an incentive for elective officials to make sure that can be done, and to police unions to be pragmatic about which kinds of interests they wish to defend; it may not be in the members' collective interest to defend a few bad apples, especially if doing so greatly angers the public. Of course, it might be in their interest if the whole lot of them are bad apples... My impression, though, is that the majority of Americans are hardly concerned about police misconduct, and generally support the police against complaints, which doesn't provide very fertile ground for anyone interested in pushing reforms. You can win an election by being tough on crime, but can you win an election by being tough on police misconduct?
- philwelch 13y ago
  But unions can effectively lobby the government, making it extremely difficult for the government to negotiate with public sector unions. Usually the union owns both sides of the negotiating table and gets a blank check. Just look at what happened to Scott Walker, and not even he crossed the police.
  - mjn 13y ago
    Can't unions' opponents also lobby the government? The Fraternal Order of Police does lobby the government on criminal-justice issues, but so do large organizations like the ACLU, NAACP, National Lawyers' Guild, etc. on the other side. The difference seems to be that more voters and politicians side with the FOP's policy recommendations, than with those that their opponents propose. In a democratic system, whether a major crackdown on police abuses happens depends to a large extent on whether there is actually public support for such a crackdown. Is the current situation that there is strong public support for a crackdown, but FOP lobbying is keeping it from happening? I don't think that's the case; my read is that the majority of people actually think the police are basically good guys who shouldn't be hassled more. The dissenters are a mixture of left-wing/minority-activist groups who are suspicious of racial profiling and police abuse directed mainly at minorities, plus some libertarian groups wary of increasingly militarized policing. But afaict by far the majority opinion thinks those concerns are overblown and supports the cops.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      That makes sense, but teachers unions have similar power and people actually do want good education for their children. I guess that the teachers unions fool people into thinking they want good education as well, but their real interest is the private interests of their members.