General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor 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/
pkdu
(3,977 posts)Hired by the SLPOA as business manager....
: barf:
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)Ino
(3,366 posts)both dashcams and on-body... because they cause "constant second-guessing"! What an idiot.
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... "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)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)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)A monumental ass.
How dare people express their views and still expect cops to do their jobs!
K&R
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)Beyond that is a perversion of their responsibilities.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)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)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)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?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)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)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?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)except those members that "everyone knows" did something wrong, the lack of official charges notwithstanding?
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)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)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)of folks who were accused of a crime but when subsequently the charges were dropped.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)That sure in hell doesn't apply to the murdere here.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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)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.
Rex
(65,616 posts)So why are the police so upset at somebody else's opinion?
KinMd
(966 posts)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.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Their Own.
The Police Militias are fucked up.
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)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)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)Police unions ought not to be in a position of excusing or condoning criminal behavior of police, period.
Rex
(65,616 posts)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/
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Iceland is way ahead of us in that regards.
spanone
(135,627 posts)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 doesnt 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)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)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)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)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.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Union seeks severance for teacher convicted of raping student
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/12/union-seeks-severance-for-teacher-convicted-raping-student/
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Police Unions Produce Rules That Protect Bad Actors, Thats 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)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?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)You mean this has all been a bad dream?
Iggo
(47,486 posts)Iggo
(47,486 posts)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."
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Thanks for that.
ProfessorGAC
(64,413 posts)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)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)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)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)Show me where I have ever "bashed all unions". You can't.
That is a complete fabrication.
TBF
(31,919 posts)if you feel differently please edit your OP to reflect that.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)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)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)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)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
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)TheKentuckian
(24,934 posts)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.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)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)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)Police Unions are a problem and they cause far more problems then they solve.
branford
(4,462 posts)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)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)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)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)Your coloring of the unions seems beg a valid and rational alternative. Shall we wait...?
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)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)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)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)I just find irony in a "free speech issue" condemning St. Louis Rams players' free speech.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)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.