Even if it’s personal, which again you have no proof of: it can be personal and racist at the same time.
I’m sure that those supporting racism would like everyone to think so.
And now you’re flat out contradicting yourself.
Unions protect cops against politics or entitled people. They give representation, and make sure that a cop accused of something gets a fair hearing.
Cops protect cops when they commit crimes. They hide the fact that their fellow cops committed crimes, and do not report them when they witness them personally.
The “make sure that a cop accused of something gets a fair hearing” sounds good but the contract clauses make everything difficult. Cops protect cops? Sure, but what do you think is the problem when a police officer’s transgressions are known and recorded like Chauvin’s? His actions were not hidden. His actions were reported. His, and those of other asshole cops, actions are known but he wasn’t fired previously. The four MN may have been fired without "due process’; what do you think this process is? It is the process spelled out in the union contract.
I’ve not read the whole thread but I see a few people mentioning the “us vs. them” mentality. That is a big problem with some of the non-academy police training done in the USA. The “warrior cop” training like that done by Grossman. If you listen to some of the rhetoric used in things like “The Bulletproof Warrior” training which is very heavy on white Christian tones (cops ordained by god and such) it is not hard to see how this can be a problem. Minneapolis just banned their police from going to this training. This needs be done nationwide.
Some disturbing imagery in the video in the spoiler.
If you have specific problems with provisions in a union contract, then we can discuss them and whether they are being used to a positive effect, and if not, what can be changed in them to get to that.
The blanket condemnation of unions, OTOH, is simplistic at best, and tends to invite ulterior motives from those who are against the very notion of unions. At the very least, it is an attempt to shift the blame away from dirty cops.
This I think is the main disconnect.
The US is a nation of laws. Just because you feel one set of laws hasn’t been followed, does NOT give you free reign to go break others.
You CAN work to change without breaking other laws. You can condemn the rioting and the looting and understand that the law was broken and want justice done.
When you post the gibberish that you just did to try and blame someone else for condemning rioting, that is simply idiotic.
Rioting/Looting is illegal/ FULL STOP
The injustice that is being fought is not a single isolated incident and WIL NOT be solved by any amount of rioting or looting. The single incident that sparked the rioting and the looting IS being tried. The officer HAS been charged.
What are you rioting and looting for ?
The continued injustice you shall reply. Yes, yes, people agree with that.
They don’t agree that rioting and looting is the way to go about making a change.
Was there a union contract anywhere that did not have verbiage protecting the workers from job loss by fiat? I’m not condemning unions, this is one of the main reasons they exist. But my point is that, in general- and I would be astounded by a counterexample- politicians who count on union endorsements and votes are less likely to push back when these features are proposed. One result of this is language that makes it so difficult to fire police officers when they misbehave or underperform. Why do we see so many officers involved in situations placed on paid administrative leave and such instead of fired? Because that right was negotiated in the contract between the employer and union. There are specific steps that must be taken.
The dirty cops are enabled by this protection given them by their local politicians.
So, if I get you right, you are saying that you are more bothered (or even equally bothered) about someone stealing something during a riot than a group of people systematically being screwed over?
Probably not. I would assume that the primary reason for having a union contract is to protect workers from job loss by fiat. That was why unions were formed in the first place.
There were riots and protests and people being hurt or killed in the process of creating the protections that unions now provide.
They have provisions that protect cops from being fired for unsupported allegations or slander. They have protections against being fired for political reasons.
What they don’t have is a clause to protect dirty cops. That is other dirty cops.
If a union contract says that an officer can only be fired after an investigation into conduct, and his fellow officers investigate and say he smells like roses, what is the union to do?
Should we strip protections against officers, allow them to be fired based on someone’s say so? Or should we encourage officers to be honest in reporting criminal activity among their colleagues?
I believe a lot of the problems facing blacks in America can be traced back to the state of the black family.
Because the modern black family is highly dysfunctional (or non existent in many cases) black children are not prepared to learn in public schools. Because the black family is dysfunctional black children are not prepared to interface productively with society and the working world. Because the black family is dysfunctional black children don’t know what healthy families and healthy relationships look like, and raise more dysfunctional children themselves later on in life.
The real problems run far deeper than any government solution or social welfare program can reach. But this is topic is far too sensitive for any politician or “community leader” to broach, and indeed will likely persist until the situation is so untenable that the only way forward is for the black family to do better, for itself.
Take their pensions.
Okay, not TAKE exactly. But put a percentage of their pension at risk. For every incidence of excessive force?, 10% reduction. Present for another cop breaking the law?, 5% reduction. Leave the force in disgrace? Criminal charges laid? 25% reduction. Body cam not on? 1% every incident.
End ‘desk assignment’ duty after incidents, change to half pay leave.
End quiet retirements of cops caught doing something dirty, but NOT in the papers.
Every SIU investigation has a citizen participant/overseer. Zero deals are tolerated.
Get caught denying someone their constitutional rights? Career over.
You obviously have no idea of how Police complaints work. :rolleyes:
That would be unconstitutional in my state. :rolleyes:
Let me repeat myself.
The US is a nation of laws. Just because you feel one set of laws hasn’t been followed, does NOT give you free reign to go break others.
And you think the Republicans are going to get rid of bad cops? Riiiiiiiight.
That’s nice, people agreeing that injustice is wrong. It’s a worthless platitude, but it’s nice. It ensures that more harmless black men and women will be killed by our government, but it’s definitely nice to hear.
What’s nicer would be fixing the problem, ending the injustice, not just agreeing that injustice is wrong. When is THAT going to happen? Our country has been in existence for nearly 250 years, and our black residents have been targeted by institutional violence every moment of that existence.
When does that end? When does the government put forth a commitment to ending this violence? When will the government actually stop killing unarmed black men and women?
You have ignored a chunk of what I wrote.
There are many instances where dirty cops either did not attempt, or were not successful in hiding sociopathic conduct. The sociopaths remained on the job anyway. The reasons those are still employed, after the multiple complaints registered and sustained against them, is because they are not like most people and cannot be fired without detailed and step by step procedures followed, and if the employer or government messes one up or takes too long, the system defaults to no action.
(Qualfied immunity is a whole 'nother story.)
I do think overly-powerful unions can be a problem but they are not the cause. I don’t think Georgia has police unions (I could be wrong) and, while the incident is not the same, the murderers of Arbery didn’t get arrested until a video when live.
They are at least less likely to agree to ridiculous union contracts since they do not expect a union endorsement, ever.
But the damage is done. The notion of “past practice” plus the fact that I can recall no negotiation ever where a union lost a right in negotiations means a solution is very difficult. I stand my my contention that the rights given and procedures enumerated in contracts are a prime reason autocratic cops are employed.
And qualified immunity.
They would likely rewrite the contract benefits so a few months more of service would make that up.
Agreed.
I’m not sure what you are saying unless you are saying that, since it is possible that someone will break a law if I exercise my rights, then I should be forbidden to do so.
I didn’t ignore any part of what you wrote. I just did not agree that your democrat bashing is as relevant as you make it out to be.
I reiterate, if there is a specific clause that protects dirty cops, then lets discuss it and deal with it. I can only assume that you are not actually making the ridiculous assertion that democratic politicians bless such a clause.
What you are trying to get me to believe here, is that if there is one cop that says, “Yes, I saw that officer violate this citizen’s civil rights when he shoved a screwdriver into his ass.” the union would have a clause in their contract, blessed by the democrats in office, that would prevent discipline and removal.
What I am telling you is that the way it plays out is that a citizen says, “This officer violated my civil rights when he shoved a screwdriver into my ass.” and his partner that witnessed the whole thing says, “Nu-uh, that didn’t happen.” What do you suggest the union do at that point?
It sounds like you want to make it so that any officer can be fired for a citizen complaint, even if not corroborated. This could be a good thing, were it not for the fact that some citizen’s complaints would be taken much more seriously than others.
It would be great if all jobs had to go through actual steps to fire someone, rather than just kicking them off because of petty or political reasons. That people tend to be lazy and not want to follow these steps isn’t really a justification for eliminating the entire system of worker protections.
I also have no illusion that anti-union activity would stop with police, but that the police union issue is used as a wedge to try to justify a distrust of all unions.
I also am under no illusion that, even if you got rid of the police union entirely, even if you got rid of all unions, it would not solve the problems of police brutality.