Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:43 PM Nov 2014

For those on DU who feel that police "unions" are legitimate and are acting "responsibly"

ST. LOUIS – The St. Louis Police Officers Association (the Police Union) has released a statement condemning the St. Louis Rams football players who entered the field displaying the "hands up don't shoot" pose.

Roorda was incensed that the Rams and the NFL would tolerate such behavior and called it remarkably hypocritical. "All week long, the Rams and the NFL were on the phone with the St. Louis Police Department asking for assurances that the players and the fans would be kept safe from the violent protesters who had rioted, looted, and burned buildings in Ferguson. Our officers have been working 12 hour shifts for over a week, they had days off including Thanksgiving cancelled so that they could defend this community from those on the streets that perpetuate this myth that Michael Brown was executed by a brother police officer and then, as the players and their fans sit safely in their dome under the watchful protection of hundreds of St. Louis's finest, they take to the turf to call a now-exonerated officer a murderer, that is way out-of-bounds, to put it in football parlance," Roorda said.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/11/30/stl-police-officers-association-condemns-rams-display/19721979/

87 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
For those on DU who feel that police "unions" are legitimate and are acting "responsibly" (Original Post) 99th_Monkey Nov 2014 OP
Roorda , fired from the police force for " making false statements " pkdu Nov 2014 #1
Why hire a documented liar as business manager? Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #3
He opposes cameras as well... Ino Dec 2014 #4
Yep. They only get "one angle", not the "whole picture", which you get from the officer's report. Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #7
What does he mean by.., ReRe Dec 2014 #16
Apparently a job requirement. He fit the bill perfectly. pkdu Dec 2014 #5
And? LostInAnomie Nov 2014 #2
Roorda is an ass marym625 Dec 2014 #6
Oh sure, and calling it a "myth" is really gonna help. Ass (Roorda, not the OP). nt uppityperson Dec 2014 #8
"Exonerated," my ass. - nt KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #9
Police unions should only concern themselves with pay, benefits, and safety. True Blue Door Dec 2014 #10
I so totally agree with you. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #11
Part of that includes the image the profession projects Major Nikon Dec 2014 #13
I'd like someone to investigate the SLPOA's "Unionnes" ReRe Dec 2014 #17
This. hifiguy Dec 2014 #43
the police as Mad Max/Road Warrior olddots Dec 2014 #12
Should unions singlemindedly stand up for their members? Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #14
Last I checked, murder is totally a serious crime. n 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #19
True. But Wilson has not been officially charged with any crime (nt) Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #20
True, but pretty-much everyone knows Wilson murdered Brown, plain & simple. nt 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #21
So unions should stand up for their members, Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #24
Correct. HERVEPA Dec 2014 #28
OK, so you are accused of a crime and fired from your job as a result. Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #29
He was fucking exonerated by a clearly corrupt system and prosecutor. HERVEPA Dec 2014 #31
Pretty sure Nye Bevan supported strong union representation Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #32
He also supported unrepresented and the poor and disadvantaged HERVEPA Dec 2014 #35
What you describe 'fired from your job' is what a Union should do. What the police Union said about Bluenorthwest Dec 2014 #49
Actually, the polls I've seen suggest the majority of Americans disagree with you. Donald Ian Rankin Dec 2014 #56
Neither has Brown. Rex Dec 2014 #63
Members can sue a Union for failure to represent them KinMd Dec 2014 #83
Well...They Serve to Protect, SoapBox Dec 2014 #15
K&R ReRe Dec 2014 #18
Hey now they are not going to protect most people's right to protest or exercise 1st Amendment lunasun Dec 2014 #22
The police unions could be more selective about who they will go to bat for loyalsister Dec 2014 #23
Yes, I think that is what is needed as well 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #25
Just think, if the courts treat police just like us ordinary serfs...maybe we can eventually move Rex Dec 2014 #64
Actually billionaires have been jailed, but in Iceland not here 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #66
I saw that, yeah just meant Wall Street. Rex Dec 2014 #69
roorda.... spanone Dec 2014 #26
Odd how cops can get fired for illegal behavior in one place 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #27
This is what unions do. NCTraveler Dec 2014 #30
+1. Too many DUers are shortsighted on this issue. Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #33
When was the last time you heard of a pollce union 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #34
Shouldn't unions primarily represent their own members? (nt) Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #36
Yes, to a point. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #37
You're 100% pro-union, except for the ones you don't like? Huh? branford Dec 2014 #40
You make a good case. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #47
You are certainly free to oppose the opinions and activities of any particular union. branford Dec 2014 #50
I guess for every good thing, there is a bad side to it, or someone who abuses it. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #54
I beg to differ. This is criticism toward members of another Union for expressing their opinion. Bluenorthwest Dec 2014 #44
I'm PRO UNION! Well, kind of, depends...ask me tomorrow! snooper2 Dec 2014 #38
Pro-union? Yes. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #41
You're not pro-Union, you're just pro-liberal union. It reeks of hypocrisy. branford Dec 2014 #45
Well said. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Dec 2014 #57
Myth? damnedifIknow Dec 2014 #39
"It'd be a shame if anything should happen to you nice folks all safe in your dome there." Iggo Dec 2014 #42
huh? nt 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #48
Translating from Cop-squawk to Gangster-lingo. Iggo Dec 2014 #51
Ah, yes. I see. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #52
I Thought The Tone Was Pretty Threatening Too ProfessorGAC Dec 2014 #84
My dad always said TBF Dec 2014 #46
There is no easy answer to our police problem 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #53
Wow. One union seward is an ass TBF Dec 2014 #61
I support body cams too. So what? Oh, and please refrain from putting words in my mouth. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #65
You used the phrase "police unions" without qualification - TBF Dec 2014 #68
What no one can explain to me is how making the police minimum wage with no professional standards Starry Messenger Dec 2014 #55
For the same reasons they do it to you guys to generate disillusionment, to reduce the TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #79
I can't tell if you are advocating that or not? Starry Messenger Dec 2014 #80
You know, I'm not sure but I am lean toward yes, break them. Destroy their power TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #81
What do you suppose will be moved in to replace them? Starry Messenger Dec 2014 #82
In the short term, even worse Pinkerton types but that won't hold up as well TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #85
Your scare quotes are ridiculous. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Dec 2014 #58
Police Unions supported Walker's attack on the other unions Exultant Democracy Dec 2014 #59
Supporting Democrats is not, cannot, and should not, be a requirement for unionization. branford Dec 2014 #70
Teachers don't get guns. Groups that support republicans shouldn't get our support here. Exultant Democracy Dec 2014 #72
I'm not suggesting that you have to politically support any particular union, branford Dec 2014 #74
Scott Walker and his pet police union would disagree, they gutted the other union's rights Exultant Democracy Dec 2014 #75
That's not exactly what happened. branford Dec 2014 #76
Because that's part of the police "jurisdiction", protecting the status quo..... socialist_n_TN Dec 2014 #73
Your coloring of the unions seems beg a valid and rational alternative. Shall we wait...? LanternWaste Dec 2014 #60
Individuals can say this shit, but inappropriate as a statement by the Union. uppityperson Dec 2014 #62
Why? branford Dec 2014 #71
Unfortunately I am on a device that won't copy paste, but the last part is not in support uppityperson Dec 2014 #77
I'm not really entirely disagreeing with you. branford Dec 2014 #78
I agree with you JonLP24 Dec 2014 #87
Free speech means nothing to this dipsh*t...knr joeybee12 Dec 2014 #67
A police union is focused on police officers JonLP24 Dec 2014 #86

pkdu

(3,977 posts)
1. Roorda , fired from the police force for " making false statements "
Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:52 PM
Nov 2014

Hired by the SLPOA as business manager....

: barf:

Ino

(3,366 posts)
4. He opposes cameras as well...
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 12:04 AM
Dec 2014

both dashcams and on-body... because they cause "constant second-guessing"! What an idiot.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
16. What does he mean by..,
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:52 AM
Dec 2014

... "second-guessing?" Can someone please define that term for me? To me, it means it would be difficult to come up with an alibi on the spot, to justify what was recorded in camera. To justify the brutality they deem necessary to subdue a cooperating innocent citizen, especially if they have dark skin.

Looks to me like Missouri's Dept of Justice has been taken over by criminals, from top to bottom. And they can call themselves Democrats till the cows come home, but that don't make them one.

pkdu

(3,977 posts)
5. Apparently a job requirement. He fit the bill perfectly.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 12:04 AM
Dec 2014

Police protect their own , right or wrong....like a grizzly , and don't give a fuck who get hurt in the process.

LostInAnomie

(14,428 posts)
2. And?
Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:53 PM
Nov 2014

A union's job is to look out for the interests of its members. It isn't too much of a stretch to believe that they find the idea that police go around executing people to not be in their interests.

The working conditions are all part of their agreement with the city. I'm sure there are clauses in the agreement that allow for extended hours and cancelled off days during emergencies.

marym625

(17,997 posts)
6. Roorda is an ass
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 12:05 AM
Dec 2014

A monumental ass.

How dare people express their views and still expect cops to do their jobs!

K&R

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
10. Police unions should only concern themselves with pay, benefits, and safety.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 01:43 AM
Dec 2014

Beyond that is a perversion of their responsibilities.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
11. I so totally agree with you.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 01:47 AM
Dec 2014

I need look no further than my own hometown Portland for a good example of why this is true.

Investigated by DoJ for excessive force against citizens struggling with mental health issues.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
13. Part of that includes the image the profession projects
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:03 AM
Dec 2014

Public unions have a duty to project a positive image of their employees because ultimately the people determine at least the pay and benefits part of that equation through elected officials and to a lesser extent safety.

However, I don't think this particular union in this instance did their profession any favors.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
17. I'd like someone to investigate the SLPOA's "Unionnes"
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:58 AM
Dec 2014

Like is this a "private" union. Is it associated with the AFL-CIO, or not? Where's the Charter? Is it posted on their wall for every Tom, Dick and Harry to see?

 

olddots

(10,237 posts)
12. the police as Mad Max/Road Warrior
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:03 AM
Dec 2014

We all know how Mel Ginson ended up .Seems like these people believe they are vigilantes roaming the distopian landscape fighting us the bad guy non cops .Life becomes a movie

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
14. Should unions singlemindedly stand up for their members?
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:06 AM
Dec 2014

I would say that normally they should, except perhaps when the member has been charged with a serious crime. But that's really not the case here, is it?

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
24. So unions should stand up for their members,
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 08:33 AM
Dec 2014

except those members that "everyone knows" did something wrong, the lack of official charges notwithstanding?

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
29. OK, so you are accused of a crime and fired from your job as a result.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 03:04 PM
Dec 2014

You are then exonerated by the legal process (either found not guilty or all charges are dropped). However, your employer refuses to take you back, and your union won't help you, because "we just know you're guilty".

You're fine with this?

 

HERVEPA

(6,107 posts)
31. He was fucking exonerated by a clearly corrupt system and prosecutor.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 03:26 PM
Dec 2014

If you don't understand that, look a little closer.
And why in the world is your handle "Nye Bevan"? Doesn't fit your posts at all.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
32. Pretty sure Nye Bevan supported strong union representation
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 03:29 PM
Dec 2014

of folks who were accused of a crime but when subsequently the charges were dropped.

 

HERVEPA

(6,107 posts)
35. He also supported unrepresented and the poor and disadvantaged
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 03:32 PM
Dec 2014

That sure in hell doesn't apply to the murdere here.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
49. What you describe 'fired from your job' is what a Union should do. What the police Union said about
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 04:42 PM
Dec 2014

the NFL players had nothing in common with being fired, the players have no power over Wilson, nor over his employers. They are just citizens speaking their minds.
I wonder if you feel that Union Member and man found not guilty OJ Simpson's Unions should have run around castigating those who still said he was guilty? How about Michael 'Not Guilty' Jackson? Or should the Unions have defended them in cases involving employer discrimination only? Should all Unions speak out against anyone who is critical of any member ever? Or just the cop's Unions?

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
56. Actually, the polls I've seen suggest the majority of Americans disagree with you.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 05:23 PM
Dec 2014

It may well be that "your belief that Wilson murdered Brown, plain & simple" is correct, but that doesn't justify using "pretty-much everyone knows" in place of "I think" to make your views sound more authoritative.

KinMd

(966 posts)
83. Members can sue a Union for failure to represent them
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:29 AM
Dec 2014

The duty of fair representation is incumbent upon U.S. labor unions that are the exclusive bargaining representative of workers in a particular group. It is the obligation to represent all employees fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. Originally recognized by the United States Supreme Court in a series of cases in the mid-1940s involving racial discrimination by railway workers' unions covered by the Railway Labor Act, the duty of fair representation also applies to workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act and, depending on the terms of the statute, to public sector workers covered by state and local laws regulating labor relations.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
18. K&R
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 03:05 AM
Dec 2014

This is going to be fun. Who has more power? The Rams/NFL, or St Louis's piddly little corrupt county police department? As a matter of fact, this might make the St Louis police wish that Roorda had kept his trap shut.

lunasun

(21,646 posts)
22. Hey now they are not going to protect most people's right to protest or exercise 1st Amendment
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 04:02 AM
Dec 2014

If they do not agree all that goes away
On a football field or a street
I think we already know that is their position from past experience

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
23. The police unions could be more selective about who they will go to bat for
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 04:38 AM
Dec 2014

I think most reasonable people would agree that the police chief was definitely right about this. I think the unions should have higher standards than they apparently do.

THIS is how police brutality should be addressed.


CPOA came to the aid of former officer Rob Sanders when it called for Police Chief Ken Burton to step down and condemned the firing of Sanders. Sanders was fired after surveillance cameras captured him using excessive force against inmate Kenneth Baker in a holding cell in August 2011.

Sanders has since been charged with third-degree assault and his trial is ongoing. The next hearing is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. Friday.

http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2013/4/9/columbia-police-officers-association-aims-support-/

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
25. Yes, I think that is what is needed as well
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:39 PM
Dec 2014

Police unions ought not to be in a position of excusing or condoning criminal behavior of police, period.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
64. Just think, if the courts treat police just like us ordinary serfs...maybe we can eventually move
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 05:50 PM
Dec 2014

up to the big leagues...investment bankers! I've had people on DU tell me with a straight face, that sending a billionaire to jail will not deter their behavior. How would we know? Never happened before.

Last uber wealthy rich guy on trial (for raping his own child) got off easy with no jail time. The judge sited affluenza as the case and let him go free. And people are stupid enough to think judges won't let cops off the hook all the time?

HELLO.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/justice/delaware-du-pont-rape-case/

spanone

(135,627 posts)
26. roorda....
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:44 PM
Dec 2014
Roorda has worked in law enforcement for seventeen years. He was a police officer in Arnold, Missouri until 2001, when he was fired for making false statements. Later, he became chief of police in Kimmswick, another city in Jefferson County. He is the executive director and a business manager of the St. Louis Police Officers Association.

On January 16, 2014, Roorda sponsored a bill that, if passed, will allow the government to close "any records and documents pertaining to police shootings if they contain the name of any officer who did the shooting, unless the officer who did the shooting has been charged with a crime as a result of the shooting, in which case such records or documents shall not be closed."

Roorda said the organization (St. Louis Police Officers Association) has had concerns about dashboard cameras in use on many city patrol cars and would have the same worries about on-body devices. Roorda said both types of cameras provide video of “one angle of an encounter” that sometimes doesn’t reflect exactly what happened. “In general, cameras have been bad for law enforcement and the communities they protect,” he said. “It causes constant second-guessing by the courts and the media.”

Roorda has helped with the fundraising of Officer Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who is under investigation in the killing of unarmed civilian Michael Brown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Roorda

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
27. Odd how cops can get fired for illegal behavior in one place
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:50 PM
Dec 2014

then just go to a different jurisdiction and get hired (but as pollce chief? really?) like nothing happened.

That is true of Darren Wilson as well.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
30. This is what unions do.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 03:07 PM
Dec 2014

Love the good parts, hate the bad. Fact is the union knows their membership. It is extremely easy to go after a union on one thing. I won't attack as I'm glad their membership is allowed to group and fight for their wages, more often than not middle class, while providing them benefits specific to their profession. Including representation. Dumb statement but it won't turn me anti-union. I am happy they have that right. We all should.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
33. +1. Too many DUers are shortsighted on this issue.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 03:31 PM
Dec 2014

I just imagine a corporate manager saying "yeah, the guy was found innocent, but he's still fired, and the union should stay out of it because we just know he's guilty".

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
34. When was the last time you heard of a pollce union
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 03:31 PM
Dec 2014

stand up for organized labor and the right to collective bargaining, UNLESS it is THEIR OWN
so-called "union".

Stand up for or support ANY other union? pppff.. forget it.

It is a travesty in my book that cops -- both historically and currently -- overwhelmingly stand
on the side of big business and mega-corporations, against workers and unionization in
general, and not for workers nor for their right to organize into unions.

I'm 100% pro-union, and because of that, am utterly opposed to shadowy cabals posing as "unions"
to abuse the very notion of unions, by using them to enable criminal behavior by those entrusted
to "protect and serve" the public.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
37. Yes, to a point.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 03:38 PM
Dec 2014

I basically agree with TrueBlueDoor, who posted up-string this:

"Police unions should only concern themselves with pay, benefits, and safety.
Beyond that is a perversion of their responsibilities."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5893265

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
40. You're 100% pro-union, except for the ones you don't like? Huh?
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 03:52 PM
Dec 2014

Just because workers form a union and collectively bargain, does not necessarily mean they adopt liberal or progressive values. Such organizations are still unions and most definitely "legitimate" even when they espouse values and positions that are decidedly illiberal.

Police unions fight for the benefit their members, and their members decide what's in their benefit, no you or anyone else. You are free to believe they are "shadowy cabals," but it does not change the legal reality, nor should it.

I can certainly understand, but not necessarily agree with, the argument against union rights for government workers, as even union stalwarts like FDR had his reservations. However, I doubt many here are about to jettison all government workers, which now represent a very large portion of our unionized workforce, to hobble police unions because of their more conservative politics.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
47. You make a good case.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 04:26 PM
Dec 2014

Of course I understand that this is not a simple matter, with a simple solution (ban all police unions?) ... and that we really cannot pick and choose which unions we like or don't like.

That said, I feel it is dangerously disingenuous to insist that ALL unions -- even ones who condone police abuse and protect known criminals on the police force -- are above reproach by anyone, but ESPECIALLY by progressives, just because it's not PC to be "anti-union".

IMHO, any truly "Pro-union" point of view, needs to include clear standards and practices for ANY union, that unequivocally preclude any condoning, sanctioning, protecting, covering-up criminal activity by police officers.

ADDED ON EDIT: .. otherwise police unions become a shit-stain on the fabric of our criminal justice system, one that can come back and bite, if police unions are allowed enough rope to hang themselves, along with giving the word "union" a very bad name.

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
50. You are certainly free to oppose the opinions and activities of any particular union.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 04:43 PM
Dec 2014

That much is beyond dispute, and is guaranteed by the Constitution. However, your OP questioned the actual legitimacy of the police unions, even going so far as including scare quotes.

To support unions means to support the rights of workers to collectively bargain and act as a bulwark against the excesses of capitalism by permitting enhanced bargaining power for labor. Although unions unsurprisingly tend to hold and advocate liberal positions overall, general progressive advocacy is not a requirement for unionization.

All unions fight for the interests of their members, even the bad members. In fact, if they pick and choose which members warrant their protection, they are not fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility and could be liable for various labor violations. I should know, it's exactly these types of claims by union members that I dealt with when I worked for the NLRB during law school many years ago.

It's easy to read the news and find innumerable instances of public and private unions properly fighting for member rights under circumstances that many might consider shameful or shocking, including incompetent and pedophile teachers, IRS agents who violate the privacy of taxpayers, and drunk and high auto workers. Police unions protecting officers accused (but not convicted) of wrongdoing is fully and similarly consistent with union responsibilities and expectations.




 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
54. I guess for every good thing, there is a bad side to it, or someone who abuses it.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 05:19 PM
Dec 2014

And this is a case in point.

As I already posted elsewhere on the string, I agree totally with TrueBlueDoor, who posted this:
"Police unions should only concern themselves with pay, benefits, and safety. Beyond that is a perversion of their responsibilities." http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5893265

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
44. I beg to differ. This is criticism toward members of another Union for expressing their opinion.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 04:18 PM
Dec 2014

I've never been in a Union that would go yap about any criticism offered to members embroiled in scandal or crime, guilty or innocent. To attack the players for speaking their minds is far away from representing their membership in matters related to employer relations and contracts.
Had they simply said 'we disagree with that gesture and agree with the GJ' that would bestanding up for their member. Telling other people to stow their opinion about the larger issue of police violence toward African American people and others is interfering with the free expression of people who hare not their members nor employers of their members. That's not 'what Unions do' that's what gangs of enforcers do.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
41. Pro-union? Yes.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 04:08 PM
Dec 2014
Pro-Police-Criminal-Cabal-posing-as-a-"union"? Not so much.

Police Unions Produce Rules That Protect Bad Actors, That’s How Public Unions Work
http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/14/police-unions-produce-rules-that-protect

Police Unions Cross Line While Bullying Public Officials:
California cops employ mafia-style tactics against their critics.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/31/police-unions-cross-line-while-bullying

The Bad Kind of Unionism
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/the-bad-kind-of-unionism/

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
45. You're not pro-Union, you're just pro-liberal union. It reeks of hypocrisy.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 04:20 PM
Dec 2014

It's like being strongly for free speech, as long as you agree with it.

Unions that espouse more conservative views are no less legitimate, and that's even before consideration of the First Amendment. Unions represent their members, and only their members. When their members are conservative, its hardly surprising that the union's positions on issues are conservative.

Also, read your own cited articles more carefully. They basically support the more conservative position against all government sector unions. Are you ready to back the Republicans, crush public employee unions, eviscerate what little remains of the union movement, all in an attempt eliminate unions with politics that are not to your liking?

Iggo

(47,486 posts)
51. Translating from Cop-squawk to Gangster-lingo.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 04:43 PM
Dec 2014

Last edited Mon Dec 1, 2014, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)

"...and then, as the players and their fans sit safely in their dome under the watchful protection of hundreds of St. Louis's finest..."

equals

"Don't forget who protects your ass."

ProfessorGAC

(64,413 posts)
84. I Thought The Tone Was Pretty Threatening Too
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:43 AM
Dec 2014

To me it was fairly blatant and quite ominous. Worse than the sentiment of the letter itself i thought. Not that i approve of the sentiment either

TBF

(31,919 posts)
46. My dad always said
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 04:22 PM
Dec 2014

The union isn't perfect but it's all we've got. And the union stewards are not perfect. I think we can separate one racist scumbag from millions of decent union members worldwide.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
53. There is no easy answer to our police problem
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 05:16 PM
Dec 2014

It just grieves me to the bone, to see the whole concept of unionization be used to enable police abuse & infuse police officers with a sense of entitlement to harass, rape, beat-up, and/or murder citizens pretty much at-will, because they KNOW the "union has their back".

I don't know how anyone who is truly concerned about rampant police abuse of unarmed citizens can not be at least a little concerned as to the roll a police union plays in setting the stage for the abuse in the first place.

TBF

(31,919 posts)
61. Wow. One union seward is an ass
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 05:36 PM
Dec 2014

and you want to bash all unions as a result? That is beyond the pale especially at a democratic party website. WTF?

Honestly.

You know how we fix the abuse problem? Cameras on every damned one of them - as Obama is trying to get funding for. He is miles ahead of you.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
65. I support body cams too. So what? Oh, and please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 05:51 PM
Dec 2014

Show me where I have ever "bashed all unions". You can't.

That is a complete fabrication.

TBF

(31,919 posts)
68. You used the phrase "police unions" without qualification -
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 06:08 PM
Dec 2014

if you feel differently please edit your OP to reflect that.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
55. What no one can explain to me is how making the police minimum wage with no professional standards
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 05:23 PM
Dec 2014

makes this situation better.

Coming from a profession that hears "strip their protections!!!11" every time a teacher does something bad, I am loathe to turn around and cry for the end of police unions.

This is a crappy union though, no mistake. It happens.

TheKentuckian

(24,934 posts)
79. For the same reasons they do it to you guys to generate disillusionment, to reduce the
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 01:42 AM
Dec 2014

attractiveness of the field, to engender public disrespect for the field, reduce professional cohesion, to drive out the current population, to minimize the sense of investment and reward, and to weaken them beyond ability to resist reforms.

It powers them down significantly, it's happening to you, how do you not see the severe reduction in political power?

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
80. I can't tell if you are advocating that or not?
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 01:59 AM
Dec 2014

Anyway, the thought of private security firms like Wackenhut in place of public, unionized, police forces, scares me. I've seen people here advocate for stripping cops of their pensions, collective bargaining and even their unions. If you do that, you open the door to privatization, which is the other reason they do it to "us guys."

Reform is possible, but not with setbacks like deunionizing the police forces. It will take leadership and political will.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/Change-Agent/2014/1201/California-police-chief-connects-cops-to-the-community-video

TheKentuckian

(24,934 posts)
81. You know, I'm not sure but I am lean toward yes, break them. Destroy their power
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 02:59 AM
Dec 2014

reduce their ability to make mischief, take their pride.

These "professional", unionized police scare me and the value of supporting agents of a racist, authoritarian gang seems dubious to me

TheKentuckian

(24,934 posts)
85. In the short term, even worse Pinkerton types but that won't hold up as well
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 07:44 PM
Dec 2014

Much easier to separate from community support and handle if it goes to shit.

I'm not interested in smoothing the roughest edges or lesser evilism here. If we have to deal with a lawless gang either way, let's make sure it is one with way less mojo.

Exultant Democracy

(6,594 posts)
59. Police Unions supported Walker's attack on the other unions
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 05:26 PM
Dec 2014

Last edited Mon Dec 1, 2014, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Police Unions are the only unions to regularly support Republicans.

Most importantly police unions are used to stop effective over-site of a group that has far too much power to go unchecked.

I support the right to collective bargaining, but only so far as it isn't used and abused to get away not only with murder but a long list of other crimes. The only way we will ever get better police is to get ride of the police unions.

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
70. Supporting Democrats is not, cannot, and should not, be a requirement for unionization.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 11:35 PM
Dec 2014

Many unions try to protect members who've committed illegal and heinous conduct. It's hardly just the police. It's what unions do for all members, there is even a name for, it's called the duty of fair representation.

For instance, teachers unions are, quite correctly, heavily supported on DU. Nevertheless, teachers unions have supported not only obviously incompetent teachers, but also proven rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers, and other violent teachers. People who have knowingly hurt children, some even after they have been criminally convicted! They protect these individuals because they legally have to, and because doing so ultimately protects all teachers, and despite the fact that it may not be good for the students whom they teach.

The entire rationale against police unions can easily and readily be applied to not only specific iconic liberal unions like teachers, but to all public sector unionized employees. Never forget this simple fact when complaining about police unions actually doing their job as representatives for their members. Moreover, due to the protections of the First Amendment, the law will never make a distinction concerning union protections based upon the politics and ideology of any union or its individual members.

Exultant Democracy

(6,594 posts)
72. Teachers don't get guns. Groups that support republicans shouldn't get our support here.
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 11:45 PM
Dec 2014

Police Unions are a problem and they cause far more problems then they solve.

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
74. I'm not suggesting that you have to politically support any particular union,
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 11:59 PM
Dec 2014

including police unions.

However, police unions cannot normally be treated differently under the law due their politics and without potentially eviscerating all public sector unions. Just imagine how many Americans believe other unions, such as teachers or nurses, "cause far more problems than they solve," and the effect on unions if such opinions permitted the government to silence or restrict them.

You can pass laws that generally deal with the issues you have with police officers. Attacking their ability to unionize, however, is near-impossible, foolish, and could have repercussions ultimately devastating to the Democratic Party.

I would also ironically note that some teachers do in fact have guns, and some local teachers unions do in fact support and advocate teachers possessing guns.

Exultant Democracy

(6,594 posts)
75. Scott Walker and his pet police union would disagree, they gutted the other union's rights
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 12:03 AM
Dec 2014

without doing anything to the police union. This like just happened a few years ago it was kind of a big deal so we know it can happen. We just have to do the reverse of what Walker did and gut the thug police unions powers while leaving the underpaid and under appreciated teachers alone.

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
76. That's not exactly what happened.
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 12:22 AM
Dec 2014

Walker was exceedingly shrewd in how he differentiated among the different types of unions and what issues the law actually covered. The laws were actually very limited and targeted, did not challenge the existence of either type of union or affect their First Amendment rights, and mostly just took away government assistance to the teachers unions by eliminating such measures as ending automatic dues deductions and providing more uniform control over certain benefits. Although I definitely did not support Walker or the purported labor "reforms," as an attorney, I certainly respect how such limited and near surgical legal precision could be so devastating. Nevertheless, given political realities, the popularity of police, constitutional concerns, and the issues you want addressed concerning the police unions, for all intent and purposes, nothing will change concerning police unions anywhere.

Although I'm not going to write a detailed legal brief about the nuances, I encourage you to research the issues further if you're truly interested.

I will note, however, that nothing in Wisconsin changed the protections provided to any union under the Constitution or federal labor law, the narrow exceptions provided to the police unions in Wisconsin only happened because of the strong political and popular support of police among the populace, and many here howled and complained about the inequity of treating one union differently from another. You are simply reinforcing and acknowledging the current hypocrisy.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
73. Because that's part of the police "jurisdiction", protecting the status quo.....
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 11:57 PM
Dec 2014

That's another reason police unions aren't really unions, as in working class organizations. They're the enforcers of capitalism, which means they will never be on the side of the working class against the owners.

Trotsky pointed this out when social democrats were being recruited for the police forces in Germany (I believe it was) during a period of "reform" of capitalism. The fairly long passage ended with the quote that said something like, "Someone who works to support the ruling class is just a bourgeois cop, not a worker."

That's pretty much the way it is. People need to get over the belief that the cops are there for you. They're not. Their primary job is to protect bourgeois notions of property and to protect the owners, not the average worker. Since their main job is to protect the owners FROM the working class, any sort of "union" is just a sham.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
60. Your coloring of the unions seems beg a valid and rational alternative. Shall we wait...?
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 05:32 PM
Dec 2014

Your coloring of the unions seems beg a valid and rational alternative. Shall we wait...?

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
71. Why?
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 11:41 PM
Dec 2014

The union released a statement in support of its members. It's hardly surprising.

You are certainly free to disagree with the statement, but it's perfectly legal and protected under the First Amendment, and the only people who can substantively determine if such statements are "good" or "bad" are the actual union members, not you or I.

The real issue is whether the members of the police union agreed with the statement. To the expected dismay of many here, I would imagine that virtually the entire membership of the union was in accord with the statement.

uppityperson

(115,674 posts)
77. Unfortunately I am on a device that won't copy paste, but the last part is not in support
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 12:47 AM
Dec 2014

but threatening and is inappropriate as well as much of the whole thing, not in support of its members, but criticizing Rams and NFL. That is what I think inappropriate .

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
78. I'm not really entirely disagreeing with you.
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 01:30 AM
Dec 2014

I, too, did not support the union's statement.

However, unions of all types release these sort of statements all the time, including remarks that could be described as "threatening" to laymen. It's really nothing exceptional or unique. In fact, think of the Redskins' name issue. A number of unions, often in support and solidarity with other liberal groups, have issued statements condemning the team, and many were "less than diplomatic."

For many here, it's not that they believe these types of "threatening" union communications are generally not acceptable or appropriate, it's just that they do not like the politics and perspective of the police union. It has nothing to really do with unions and their purview, as it does with partisanship.

If these types of statements were able to be curtailed, you'd see a lot fewer statements and a lot less strong and fiery rhetoric for all unions, including those you and I support.

It's essentially a free speech issue. You have to tolerate speech you find abhorrent in order to ensure all the "good" speech is always protected. Of course, that does not mean you have to agree with anything.

If you want to stop these types of statements, you need to convince the individual members of the police unions that it's not appropriate. I believe that would be a very difficult and thankless task.





JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
87. I agree with you
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 08:22 PM
Dec 2014

I just find irony in a "free speech issue" condemning St. Louis Rams players' free speech.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
86. A police union is focused on police officers
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 08:11 PM
Dec 2014

Same as a NFL players union does for players like filing grievances for Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson.

I don't have issues with either action. OK, the police union condemns it. I still have my own judgments of the actions the St. Louis players players which I support.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»For those on DU who feel ...