Take away collective baragining privileges for police "unions"

[bluestateguy]

Police need to be disempowered and made easier to fire.

No more special rights for police.

[Brickbat]

1. This plays into the argument that unions make it harder to fire people.

Unions make it harder to fire people without cause.

[WinkyDink]

8. Or work them harder without cause, or punish without cause, or harass, or....etc.

[Recursion]

29. The argument is that if Wilson hadn't resigned the union would have prevented the PD from firing him

I personally think collective bargaining is always better than the chaos that would result if public employees had to individually negotiate salaries and benefits, so I can't ever say I'd be against unions for public employees.

[melm00se]

44. The role of the union in the termination process

is to ensure that the termination procedures outlined in the contract are followed and the employee is afforded due process.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. With or without. N.T.

[tritsofme]

2. Sounds like this idea came out of a Scott Walker workshop.

Looking to bust any other public employee unions today?

[bluestateguy]

4. No, Walker's bill exempted police "unions"

Special rights for police.

[tritsofme]

5. Only because he couldn't get away with it.

Maybe you two can huddle up and figure out more effective ways to bust up some more unions?

[GGJohn]

12. Walker's bill exempted Firefighter's unions also,

do you want to get rid of them too?

[11 Bravo]

81. Love the scare quotes. And here I thought only ...

FoxNews employed that particular lame-ass tactic.

[Bjorn Against]

3. I certainly think they should be able to bargain for better wages and benefits

As pro-union as I am however, even I think their ability to protect those who abuse their power needs to be restricted.

[branford]

6. If your argument is that collective bargaining is a "privilege,"

and as a result, police enjoy "special rights," you've basically laid the framework for eliminating collective bargaining for all government employees and weakening union protections for all workers. Congratulations, you sound like a conservative Republican.

Many would argue that a lot of unions should be disempowered, and their employees made easier to fire. The fact that police unions seek to protect their members makes them no different from other unions, and should be treated no differently under the law.

For instance, many teachers unions, due to legal obligation and sound policies that are different than the police, seek to protect and represent teachers accused, and sometimes already convicted, of heinous acts, including pedophilia and other sexual assault of children, rape, violent assaults, drug dealing, etc., in addition to blatant incompetence. Should we also take away collective bargaining "privileges" for teachers "unions," in order to disempower them and make bad teachers easier to fire? No more special rights for teachers? We need to protect the children!

Of course, you are free to disagree and protest the choices of police unions, but they are no less legitimate than any other union.

[WinkyDink]

7. I will NEVER be anti-union!! Strength in numbers for workers is, to me, a bedrock Democratic

principle.

[Initech]

72. Amen! Being anti union is anti democratic!

[Dawson Leery]

9. I will be the first (perhaps only) to recommend this post.

I will go further and argure that those with the power to enforce laws on behalf of the state should be barred (by constitutional amendment) from having collective bargaining rights.

When you are the state, you certainly do not need a union.

[branford]

14. Do you apply your philosophy to ALL government employees? nt

[Dawson Leery]

15. As stated in the post, only those with enforcement capacity

would be denied collective bargaining rights.

Patrick Lynch of the NYC patrolman's association would defend the SS officers who sent the Jews to their death.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/31/patrick-lynch-new-york-citys-blue-bulldog-278942.html

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. How about those whose job it is to enforce regulations?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. I would make a delineation for those who carry weapons in the commission of their duties. nt

[greatlaurel]

16. The failure of the DA's and the Grand Juries to indict have nothing to do with police unions.

If police officers can be fired for any reason, then the level of corruption involving the police will explode. The protections of police outlined in union contracts protect everyone by preventing ever increasing levels of corruption. Without the work rules, every politician will be given carte blanche to fire police officers for not enforcing the political will of the politician.

The reason the right wingers want to destroy public unions is so they can pervert the use of public employees to enrich themselves even more at the expense of the taxpayers.

Civil service laws and union contracts prevent the kind of corruption you want.

The failure to indict sits firmly at the feet of the District Attorneys who are refusing to present the cases against these police officers in the Grand Juries. In both Missouri and New York the DA's could have indicted these officers without going to the Grand Juries. These DA's and the cowardly politicians who back them are the ones at fault, not the unions.

Anti-union right wing propaganda has no place on this web site.

[loyalsister]

20. Actually that's not true

Jay Nixon and Chris Koster rely heavily on their endorsement. And then there's Jeff Roorda the infamous police union spokesman is a state rep.

The police unions have a lot of power in this state because they are fickle. They endorse Democrats and republicans.

I don't think their unions should necessarily be disbanded. But, they should be more selective about who they go to bat for.

[greatlaurel]

31. Nothing in my post is incorrect. Attacking unions is just allowing divide and conquer tactics to win

The fact that gutless politicians want to show white, suburban voters they are "law and order" candidates goes back to Democrats being unwilling to discuss the real causes of the crime white people are afraid of; poverty, lack of treatment for mental health issues,including drug abuse treatment, and pollution from lead and other neurotoxic pollutants. The Democratic Party has allowed the right wing to use divide and conquer tactics for far too long. It is time to start calling these tactics out every chance we get. Union busting is just more divide and conquer.

Police unions need to recognize that they need to stand with the minority communities very quickly. The murders committed by these criminal officers are destroying any trust the majority of citizens may have had. The unions need to repudiate these actions in order to protect the rights of their members.

Nixon has destroyed any hopes he had of a national campaign, by his despicable actions. It is good for all of us, he has shown his true colors.

[joeglow3]

49. Why do YOU get to pick which unions are busted?

[baldguy]

10. Republicans would love that.

Instead of the moderately-professional cadre of police officers which the more civilized among us can seek to improve the behavior & training of, we'd be left with an over-armed occupation force farmed out to the lowest bidder.

[TheKentuckian]

17. When is it that you were going to employ these lofty ideals?

Moderately professional, my ass. They are a racist, corrupt, murderous, hostile gang of occupiers.

[baldguy]

22. Oh, yeah. That's the ticket!

-----------------------------

The thing is, taking away the very idea of police unions would turn the police into the unprofessional, occupying force you're complaining about, and increase the problems of racism, corruption & criminal violence that we need to eliminate.

[TheKentuckian]

97. They are what I said they are right now. Denial won't fix a thing.

I wish to break them, drive many out of the profession, to disconnect them from what ties them to the system, to sew discord, to bust up the fraternity, to demotivate, to weaken community respect, to put them at each other's throats, and mostly to devastate their political influence to oblivion.

You see the "fixers" and reformers have not only failed in spectacular fashion but continue to plan to fail because they don't want fundamental changes but to slap on a coat of paint and hang some new drapes in building with bad bones even when shiny and new so now it is destroyer time.

Nothing good can be built on a bad foundation. The rot must be torn down to clear the way for a new building now.

I'm not offering a repair plan but rather a desperate one for a necessary demolition and one I wouldn't consider in a different environment for broader labor that doesn't exist now. Under present conditions it is crazy to support a rogue gang's ability to leverage political power to prevent systemic change to said gang.

In context, what is the benefit to society? They must be degraded in power and influence by any and every means, if you have better suggestions then great but if you are going to wipe and dangle to maintain the status quo and continued expansion of power then there is nothing to discuss with me, I'm well past the smoothing of the roughest edges stage.

The police are an existential threat to equality and a free society, operating as the muscle of corruption and systemic evil. They must be weakened and broken. If they cannot be broken then destroyed.

[branford]

23. All 780,000+ police officers in the USA are "racist, corrupt, murderous, hostile gang of occupiers?"

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/police-and-detectives.htm

Wow, that's some massive stereotyping and generalizing!

More importantly, how exactly will removing police officers' collective bargaining and union rights make them less a ""racist, corrupt, murderous, hostile gang of occupiers?" In fact, arguments could easily be made that the purported problems would become much worse while the ability to recruit good candidates would rapidly vanish. If they're easier to fire, they are more easily manipulated by those in power and have far less to lose.

[TheKentuckian]

37. A great many are and the rest cover for and make excuses for them

It is an institutional not a personal issue. My cousin is a cop, a black cop is he personally racist? No, is he a member of a racist institution? Oh yeah.

No, i don't think busting their unions will make them better, i do think it will make them weaker, more under siege, less cohesive, and less invested in the job.

[tritsofme]

27. What a bunch of horseshit nonsense.

[joeglow3]

52. Wow. And you fighting people saying the same things about a whole race.

Apparently stereotypes are cool when it is YOU making them.

[TacoD]

34. Actually Republicans love cop unions, they are the only unions they do love

Every anti-union rant I have ever heard from a right-winger exempts cop unions.

[branford]

35. Police and firefighter unions. Fireman are definitely on the R "good union" list.

For instance, firefighters, along with the police, were except from Scott Walker's union "reforms."

However, like the police, the firefighters tend to be conservative in outlook and politics.

[joeglow3]

53. Holy fucking shit I am glad I don't live there

Maybe it is perspective, but I live in red Nebraska and our unions in Omaha are very liberal.

[Ykcutnek]

11. Limit their bargaining to salaries/benefits.

They should have no say in their disciplinary action.

WE, the people should.

[HappyMe]

38. I agree.

Salary and benefits - okay. Closing ranks around bad cops - NO!

[joeglow3]

54. Why do we, the "business owners" get to decide, but other business owners don't.

Stop and think for a second about what you are saying. That is EXACTLY the argument made every time someone wants to bust a union.

[branford]

61. People do not seem to understand the larger principles at issue.

Their arguments are the exact same used by Scott Walker to gut the public employee unions in Wisconsin.

The ultimate outcome of this rationale may mean police unions could be eliminated or restricted, but the rest of the public sector unions would undoubtedly meet the same fate, and with their demise, the end of what little remains of the labor movement.

[DustyJoe]

77. ^this^

Throw in all govt employees and teachers with the people having a say in disciplinary actions, not the accused and union discipline protections. Then abuse by public employees like police, code enforcement, tax collections etc. would hopefully wane. Anyone that has been at the mercy of goverment overreach of power at the employee level from local govt thru federal levels know exactly what it's like.

[procon]

13. Don't be so quick to condemn unions.

The fix is in.

Unions are doing what all unions are suppose to do; protect their members. If you want to blame someone, start by pointing at the government and our elected representatives. In a just world, yes, they are suppose to protect the interests of the people and negotiate a contract that includes better training and makes it easier to weed out bad cops.

Instead, the government negotiated the terms of the contract and signed agreements that shields bad cops because this also serves as a cover to deny wrong-doing and protect the government from paying for expensive lawsuits and big settlements when cops do bad things.

[NaturalHigh]

18. Don't count on it.

Trying to bust unions is a terrible idea.

[TheKentuckian]

21. I wonder where all of these full throated defenses where when every other union was being broken

Where has it been as our own party has gone after the teachers?

Only now when it is to protect a racist fucking gang or murderous thugs acting as an occupying army do certain folks get all full up on solidarity.

No we aren't going to rebuild labor around these gangs, they are hostile to all other workers and see themselves as separate and above.

No, if the only union we can have in this country is for the occupying enemy of the public then I prefer to have none at all. That is far from my preference but no, I won't stand up for the blue gang as they oppress the people that is stupid, it is called giving aid and comfort to a actively hostile enemy.

[greatlaurel]

30. I have been very outspoken in my support for all unions, public and private. Using this issue to

attack public employee unions is a very clever right wing divide and conquer tactic. By allowing the right wing to separate out special accommodations for police and fire unions, the right wing is showing again how it has worked tirelessly to divide and conquer the working people in this country.

Let us not fall for this tactic on this website. Call it out for what it is.

[kelly1mm]

24. Collective barganing is a right, not a priviledge. nt

[HuckleB]

26. +1

[HuckleB]

25. Unions are not the problem.

[Starry Messenger]

28. *sigh*

Sure minimum wage mall cops would make this all better. You know who municipalities hire when they want non-union?

Wackenhut.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wackenhut

"The Wackenhut Corporation provides security services to commercial and government organizations. It is a subsidiary of U.K. based G4S, which is one of the largest security corporations in the world. [1]

"It is known throughout the industry that if you want a dirty job done, call Wackenhut." -retired FBI agent, William Hinshaw in a September 1992 SPY Magazine article by John Connolly.

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

Wackenhut Corporation has been a corporate funder of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).[2] See ALEC Corporations for more."

Unions are there to enforce job protections, they don't hire and fire. Go after the system that hires racist assholes--BY DESIGN.

[joshcryer]

39. The union has no power over whether they support racist assholes?

[Starry Messenger]

42. Labor laws? You've heard of these, I assume.

[joshcryer]

47. Ones unions don't petition to allow exceptions?

Like, you know, say, maybe, a police union saying "hey, we want to be able to drop this guy if he commits a racially motivated murder."

How about a union rule saying "hey, we don't want to represent this guy if he tweets racist shit or is recorded being a racist scumbag"?

Any efforts to those ends?

[Starry Messenger]

80. Do other laws allow for that?

Do criminals not get lawyers if they are shitheads? Unions follow law and due process. They don't get to make shit up when someone is an asshole. Otherwise half the country wouldn't have jobs.

[joshcryer]

86. Only 11 states protect workers. The rest are at-will.

ie, they can fire you for any reason whatsoever.

Union members make up 11% of the working population, hardly half the population.

What unions do get is to have direct communication with the prosecutor of a killer cop.

Why don't unions just stay out of it? Pay for the defense lawyer, that's it. I think that would be the ethical thing to do.

89% of the working population doesn't have the same protections as unions. When the law comes down on them, they are screwed.

This is simply where we are going to have to disagree. See, unions in Hollywood didn't have to support SOPA/PIPA. And I know you didn't support their supporting SOPA/PIPA. I do not see a difference between that and them supporting child molesters or murderers. Even if they are contractually obligated to do so they can easily press for measures to allow them to absolve themselves of such charges. Keep the person paid while the investigation is going on. No more influence other than that. No ear of the damn prosecutor.

[Starry Messenger]

94. Word salad.

[Logical]

32. They are not real unions. Their main job is to protect bad cops. nt

[branford]

33. Teachers unions protect pedophiles, rapists, drug dealers,

and of course, blatantly incompetent teachers. This representation sometimes even occurs after a criminal conviction. Their duty to represent and protect all their members is, in fact, one of the legal obligations of such unions.

So, are teachers unions therefore not "real unions" because they routinely protect very bad teachers?

It's obvious that many here really don't understand the general duties and obligations of any union or simply do not care because they hate the police. Ironically, the desire to treat police unions differently, including all the strained and often illegal justifications, are the very same reasons conservatives use to attack the labor movement.

[joshcryer]

40. The "legal obligation" can be fixed.

The union wouldn't want it to be fixed, however, as that weakens their dispute power. Mark Berndt cost CA taxpayers to the tune of $140 million due to his deplorable behavior, and dozens and dozens of abuse victims. And why? Because the union covered up his abuse allegations going back to the late 80s, ala the Catholic Church.

[Starry Messenger]

43. LAUSD is not the union--it's the school district.

Just FYI. UTLA is the name of the teachers union in LA.

[joshcryer]

48. Sure, as if the union isn't intimately involved.

They actively fought against legislation that would give unions the ability to absolve themselves of sex offenders if they wanted to in CA.

[branford]

60. Do you understand why a union would fight against such a law?

The duty of fair representation is a bulwark union principle that ensures all union members will benefit from the protection and support of their union and its resources. Any deviation from this standard would provide and encourage doubts among individual union members that, despite paying dues and following union rules and procedures, they could be abandoned when expedient.

No union, liberal or conservative, would ever support a measure that would legally disrupt the fundamental and necessary trust between union leadership and members. It's an idea straight out of the Heritage Foundation.

In any event, in the CA incident you describe, the union should have fought for Berndt. It's their job. If you believe the union is too influential with the school district and its leadership, and note that both the union and school district lean heavily Democratic, you should direct your ire at LAUSD and encourage mandated transparency from them.

[joshcryer]

62. They should not have had to.

The fact that there was a coverup of his activities indicates a culture of cronyism and nepotism.

There are certain cases (especially criminal) where the union shouldn't have to support anyone.

[branford]

66. Any break with the absolute duty of fair representation

creates an inherent breach of trust between and union and its members. No union would openly support such a measure, both because the membership would likely be outraged and it's bad policy.

You might believe an exception could be made for criminal conduct, but beware the slippery slope. Once the duty becomes negotiable in any way, there's no limit on where it could end, particularly with Republicans control the levers of power.

If you want to weaken support for unions among the working class, discussing limits on when a union should represent a member is the way to go. However, I'm surprised to see such proposals on a Democratic forum.

[joshcryer]

75. Why should the union trust criminals?

Why should criminals have a union's trust?

This makes no sense.

I see no slippery slope here.

All the union has to do is say "we're not involving ourselves with that dispute."

Then, the rapist goes to jail, the union can say "well, you're a fucking dispicible piece of crap, so stfu."

Instead what we have are unions fighting against legislation to make it easier to fire rapists and police unions like in Ferguson having literally the same voice as the damn prosecutor in the case. That's absurd.

People talk about racism, people talk about misogyny. Well some things are systemic and simply calling upon some magical system to fix it won't work if we don't accept that it exists at all levels.

[branford]

76. You don't understand the union's duties.

You argument that basically states that unions shouldn't have to represent "bad" members misses the point.

The union has to represent all its members diligently and equally. They don't get to pick or choose.

If a union member knows that their union can abandon them, there's no trust. Without trust, there's no support or solidarity, no less willingness to pay dues.

There are many ways to fight issues like racism, misogyny, etc., but attacking one of the bedrocks of unions is perilous, short-sighted, and counter-productive.

[Starry Messenger]

82. A lot of people here don't understand a union's duties.

They think it's a reward for good behavior, like getting ice cream.

Thank you for your detailed posts.

[joshcryer]

84. So unions shouldn't have to fight sexism, racism, misogyny?

They are above the rules of the EEOC?

I think they should have to differ, and especially in criminal and civil rights cases, their duty should be nothing more than allowing people to get their pay while under investigation.

They shouldn't have the ear of the head prosecutor of a killer cop.

[branford]

89. No, "unions shouldn't have to fight sexism, racism, misogyny." etc.

A union is essentially just a collection of workers that band together in solidarity to achieve bargaining parity with management and advocate for the interests of their members.

As a group, unions tend to have liberal viewpoints since labor rights is generally part of a progressive agenda, and they will support other liberal groups and causes. However, union political, cultural and social positions and advocacy certainly need not be progressive in any way. If the members support conservative ideas, so will the union. That does not diminish the legitimacy, no less legality, of any union. Do not take for granted that unions can or should always support left of center ideas or causes. For instance, there is often much friction between the labor and environmental movements.

In any event, unions only act in the interest of its members as determined by its members. Sometimes this might mean fighting issues like sexism, racism and misogyny, and sometimes this means effectively supporting individuals who are demonstrably sexist, racist or misogynistic. All members will be treated the same because all members are equal and important.

You want to pick and choose how a union advocates for its members based on the content of their political ideas and speech. This is largely unlawful, and could have far reaching and extremely negative repercussions for all unions and the labor movement.

Whether you or I believe any particular unions should have more or less political influence is irrelevant. The attack on unions is also misplaced. Even if police unions did not exist, officers could still band together in professional associations and other groups, advocate for any causes and positions they choose, lobby representatives, etc., just like non-union professionals such a lawyers, doctors and engineers. Police have significant influence because they are popular with the general population, vote as a group, and engage in the political process, not because they collectively bargain.

[joshcryer]

90. Issues of racism and sexism etc, are always worker issues.

If it wasn't unions but a "police association" you'd still be defending it? So you'd defend the prosecutor being the head of a police association in Ferguson that donated for Wilson's cause? Or is it just because it falls under "unions" that it's OK to support a killer cop?

[branford]

91. Sigh . . .

You or I do not get to decide what issues are important to any particular union unless we are members, and even then, democratic process prevails. That is the very point.

I'm defending the existence of all unions, and now apparently, the First Amendment. You cannot pick and choose what unions are acceptable or legitimate based on their political viewpoints, both as a matter of law and policy. Of course, you need not personally support any union with whom you disagree. Singling out certain unions is the very divide and conquer strategy advocated by anti-labor advocates like Scott Walker, and one of the reasons for the weakening of the labor movement.

More importantly, people and groups have First Amendment rights to advocate as they wish, including supporting issues that your or I oppose and vice versa. I need not support the decisions of the Wilson prosecutor in order to acknowledge that police groups, both union and otherwise, are legally entitled to support him. This has nothing to do with collective bargaining and unions, and no law will prohibit such advocacy absent a wholesale revision to the Constitution.

Your issues really have nothing to do with unions or collective bargaining. You simply wish to silence and disenfranchise those with whom you disagree.

As an aside, some simple research, rather than reliance of rumor or innuendo, would also reveal that the charitable organization where McCulloch is on the board did not donate to Wilson, and accordingly, created no actionable conflict of interest. (See my post # 59 on this thread - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025901280#post57 ).

[joshcryer]

92. I want them to be better.

Not to stop existing. You seem to think they must be compelled to support all illegal behavior.

But you know what happens to someone if you do drugs and work for a union? Yeah, you know. And you know that some unions resist drug testing bullshit? Yeah. But it's oh so hard to resist racism, or sexism, or rapists. They need to be protected.

[branford]

95. You're missing the point.

Last edited Sat Dec 6, 2014, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

It doesn't matter that you, I or anyone else wants any or all unions to "be better," however any individual wants to define such vague terminology.

Many unions do actively oppose racism, sexism, etc., but largely because it is a reflection of the positions and desires of their membership and/or such advocacy inures to the direct benefit of the members. However, they need not do so. It's not a matter of whether taking such a position is hard or not, it's just a free choice directed by the membership. Unions don't exist to foster progressive social change, although they may certainly do so. Rather, they exist to advance the exclusive interests of their members, primarily as equalizing measure against the interests and exploitation of management.

Furthermore, the police unions do not support illegal behavior any more than the teachers unions support pedophilia, drug use or illiteracy. The unions, however, do represent and support their members who are accused, and sometimes even convicted, of such misbehavior and crimes. Think of a union's duties as similar to that of a defense attorney. They simply ensure that their client / members are treated with all due process and fairness and actively seek the best outcome for them. As a matter of policy and the law, their concern is not broader social issues, justice or anything else, only zealously and loyally representing their client / member. As I explained earlier, this loyalty must exist equally among all the members of the union, or it's not really a union at all. Again, unions are not compelled to support illegal behavior any more that defense attorneys are compelled to support criminality. They support individuals.

[Starry Messenger]

79. You made a serious error of fact.

I corrected it. You are welcome.

[joshcryer]

85. It remains a fact that the unions fought the sex offender law.

That let the unions absolve themselves in clear cut cases.

And I refuse to believe that the union wasn't intimately involved in all cases as such.

That's their job.

[Starry Messenger]

93. It remains a fact that your claim that LAUSD is the union is totally wrong

Such breathtaking lies do nothing to support the rest of a rather dumbshit argument.

You got caught and don't have the grace to retract and correct. Par for the course.

[femmocrat]

63. Well, that didn't take long.

It is such a short hop to start attacking teachers. Teachers unions do not protect incompetent teachers or felons. The union only protects their right to due process.



Oh, and UNREC!

[branford]

67. Read all my posts in this thread far more carefully,

I'm not attacking teachers, I'm defending unions, all unions. I used the example of teachers unions because they are, quite correctly, strenuously defended on DU, and just like the police, they represent members that are often vilified by the public. Attempts to restrict or eliminate police unions will inevitably hurt other unions like the teachers.

I'm fully aware of the duties and and obligations of labor unions, particularly with respect to teachers. I've worked at the NLRB, practiced labor law (I'm a trial attorney in NYC), and both my parents are retired NYC teachers. Don't lecture me about about teachers, their unions or the relevant law.

Teacher unions most certainly represent and protect incompetent and criminal teachers. One need simply read the news They do so because they are legally obligated and it's good policy. A union must dutifully try to protect all its members, even the ones who are less savory. That is how trust is maintained between a union and the membership.

Attempts to find nuance by claiming any real practical distinction between representation and protection vs. assuring due process is ludicrous. "Due process" requires the union represent their member loyally and to the best of its ability, similar to a lawyer (if the representation is not actually an attorney). Unions just don't file a grievance and then tell their member "good luck," and then when the inevitable unfair labor practice complaint is filed, claim they're no longer responsible because they ensured "due process." A proper union zealously and actively defends its members, anything less it arguably a breach of their legal obligations and a betrayal of trust.

[WinkyDink]

96. What twaddle your premise is.

[branford]

98. What's different when a police union defends a member accused of a crime,

or even convicted, and when a teachers or union defends a member accused of or convicted of a crime?

They are both fairly, equally and impartially representing and supporting the interests of a member.

If you try to make some distinction that excludes protections to police unions, as many other posters here realize, you inevitably damage the entire labor movement. Unions do not have to support all liberal politics to be "legitimate."

[LanternWaste]

36. What exactly leads you to believe collective bargaining is a privilege rather than a...

What exactly leads you to believe collective bargaining is a privilege rather than a fundamental right of the world's workers?

[Oilwellian]

41. Are you sure you're on the right page?

Perhaps you got your DU and FR tabs confused.

[Lee-Lee]

45. Move to NC- it's been that way here since the 50's

Collective bargaining is illegal for all police, or for that matter all state or local government employees.

[Hotler]

46. You hear repugs all the time being anti union, but never....

do you hear them talk about breaking up the police unions or the pro sport unions.

[branford]

56. I believe that the Republicans would cheerfully and readily sacrifice

the police, fire and the minuscule number of other conservative-leaning unions if it meant they could crush the labor movement, or even just all public sector unions. Police associations, not including unions, are and would still continue to be sufficiently popular with the public, and therefore politically influential, that little would change. More importantly, there is no way under the Constitution to ban police social, professional and political groups or their ability to speak on behalf of officers or lobby elected officials.

The real question is whether Democrats willing to support and justify conservative arguments against unions in order to weaken or destroy police unions?

The next time any teachers union, as per their duty, supports a convicted pedophile, rapist or other widely acknowledged piece of human excrement, remember the arguments of many here on this thread and others because the will differ very little than Republican talking points or the discussions on Free Republic.

[NCTraveler]

50. Call this office. They will support your efforts to eliminate unions one at a time.

http://www.flgov.com/

[Rowdyboy]

65. Don't forget to encourage them to check into other union-haters like Scott Walker

[TBF]

51. Any opportunity to bash unions ... nt

[merrily]

55. Thing is, the left wants strong unions. It shouldn't be a choice between

unions or slaughters.

[closeupready]

57. Nope. Can't.

[woo me with science]

58. What a quintessential Third Way "solution."

You can't even parody the talking points anymore...

[CK_John]

59. We have fallen into Ronnie world. nt

[irisblue]

64. NO, I disagree with your premise.

unions are not the problem. Lack of independent civilian oversight of ANY officer involved shooting is a much better option in my opinion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

68. Stupid, unethical cop-bashing. N.T.

[Initech]

73. It's also stupid, unethical union bashing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. Not by intent, though. Unions are just collateral damage. N.T.

[Historic NY]

69. It has nothing to do with bargaining rights...

Union Reps not unlike others Unions excercise control over there member. There are crazy rules which stop members from talking about an incident w/o have a rep present. I guess if your wanted to take away Civil Service rules then you might have a chance.

Lawyering up and not talking can be fixed if the legal process starts sooner. There is a process but its been usurped.

[True Blue Door]

78. Poor cops are not less racist or less violent.

Just more dependent on the rich members of a community. Stupid idea.

[Prophet 451]

83. No

As soon as you ban any union, that allows teh right to argue that "you see, unions aren't necessary".

[madfloridian]

87. And while we are at it take away the rights of teachers' unions.

After all they are protecting all the bad teachers.

[TorchTheWitch]

88. no

We need more unions not less. Any EVERY worker should have the power of unions behind them.