Submitted by albalfa t3_yw67qq in WorcesterMA
Seekay2022 t1_iwixchi wrote
Terrible. I don't doubt there is some justification for this investigation.
What's fucked up is that Chief Sargent is a decent guy. Really is. But it seems he is losing control of his troops. Time for removal?
Batista: You're the new CEO of Worcester. Of course you're participating in the investigation. The question is whether you have the klackers to do something about problems that are found.
SmartSherbet t1_iwl9z96 wrote
Actions speak louder than words. If he were a decent guy, he wouldn't have all these cretins working for him and he wouldn't allow them to treat the community the way that they do. He doesn't get credit for talking nice while the people he hires brutalize those they are sworn to protect.
Seekay2022 t1_iwljr2r wrote
He can be a decent guy and a weak or failing leader all at the same time. He also has to deal with the police union. These incredible last chance agreements WPD cops can get aren't because Sargent goes uh, duh ok. It's all baked into the contract. Very very hard to fire a cop.
Karen1968a t1_iwlry5z wrote
But but but liberals believe unions are good!
outb0undflight t1_iwmdtrt wrote
Gonna be clear, I'm not interested in whatever Karen's response to this is because, let's be real, it's gonna be some braindead NIMBY shit, but for anyone who is actually curious about the tension between the labor movement and police unions, read on...
Karen would like people to see her response and think, "Wait, that's hypocritical! Stupid liberals!" Unfortunately for them this line of thinking falls apart when you apply even 30s of critical thinking to the question, "Are police unions part of the labor movement?"
They're not, but let's examine why they're not, and why it's not only fine to be pro-labor and against police unions but why it's arguably hypocritical to be anything else.
Why would members of the labor movement include police unions in our number when, push comes to shove, the police will never support us?
One of American law enforcment's earliest activities was strikebreaking. Why? Because it was politically and economically useful, of course!
>The use of public employees to serve private economic interests and to use legally-ordained force against organizing workers was both cost-effective for manufacturing concerns and politically useful, in that it confused the issue of workers rights with the issue of crime.
But it's not like you need to go back to the 1800s to see this in action. Remember how much money the cops got paid to stand there and harass people during the St. Vincent Nurse's strike?
In fact, it wouldn't be out of line to say that much of our image of modern policing developed largely in response to the police's role in suppressing organized labor.
>Anti-labor activity also compelled major changes in the organization of police departments. Alarm boxes were set up throughout cities, and respectable citizens, meaning businessmen, were given keys so that they could call out the police force at a moment’s notice. The patrol wagon system was instituted so that large numbers of people could be arrested and transported all at once. Horseback patrols, particularly effective against strikers and demonstrators, and new, improved, longer nightsticks became standard issue. Source
Which brings me to my second point...
Police do not see themselves as part of the labor movement.
Let's get this out of the way early, yes, the main role of any union is to protect the interests of their members. In that respect, police and labor unions don't differ much. But as you can see from the AFL-CIO page on What Unions Do, part of what makes a union strong is that no union exists in a vaccuum. They're part of web that strengthens and supports each other in a struggle that tries to benefit all workers. It should perhaps come as no surprise then that only one single police union: The International Union of Police Associations (which represents only 2.7% of American police) is actually affiliated with the AFL-CIO. And that affiliation is...troubled at best.
Kim Kelly, the incredible labor writer for Teen Vogue, says it best:
>Williams argues that the shared workplace identity that makes up the “thin blue line” mentality for cops transcends other identity markers, and shows how they view themselves as police first, and everything else second. As such, police unions tend to keep their distance from the rest of the labor movement (unless they’re cracking its members’ skulls). Even the basic terminology is different. These organizations are usually broken down into “lodges” instead of “locals,” and are more often known as “associations” rather than unions. Some people balk at the thought of referring to police associations as “unions” at all, and it’s understandable why, though for the sake of this piece, we’ll hold our noses and use the more common term. Labor unions exist to protect people; police exist to protect property. They may carry their version of union cards and enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining agreements, but that’s about where the similarities between cops and unionized workers end. Source
So yeah, no...police "unions" are not unions. Don't let people like this fucking troll try to convince you this is some great liberal hypocrisy. The Labor Movement is just that, a movement. Cops only care about themselves, you don't owe them a fucking thing.
guybehindawall t1_iwmy4t0 wrote
Man's out here trying to get on r/bestof
your_city_councilor t1_iwngsbn wrote
Some years ago, in the 1990s, the International Socialist Organization (which is now gone, but which influenced a whole generation of the American left) had a discussion on police unions, and they found that they were contradictory. They weren't regular unions, but they were unions nonetheless that sometimes need to be supported, based on their demands, at least according to the ISO.
Karen1968a t1_iwmfc31 wrote
It’s a great liberal hypocrisy. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Liberals love free speech, until they don’t. They love unions until they don’t. Spin it anyway you’d like, it doesn’t change a thing. And just as an aside your source is Teen Vogue? 😜
outb0undflight t1_iwmjxvh wrote
>And just as an aside your source is Teen Vogue? 😜
Kim's a respected labor writer who's been published inThe New Republic, WaPo, and Esquire as well as had a literal book about the labor movement published by Simon and Schuster. But sure, go off about how writing for Teen Vogue is something to scoff at as if it's some great accomplishment to be the least liked person on a municipal subreddit.
guybehindawall t1_iwmyoni wrote
Unions are good when they protect workers from corporate greed, and bad when they shield public servants from accountability. Any questions?
Karen1968a t1_iwn2ra2 wrote
None whatsoever
Typical liberal hypocrisy trying to spin the facts to fit their narrative.
And unions are always bad 🤷♀️
guybehindawall t1_iwn5t0b wrote
Ah, classic Karen - what happens when someone's brain is so poisoned they can only communicate in trite cliches.
Karen1968a t1_iwnt6gy wrote
Awwww. Thanks for acknowledging I have a brain. Most of the loser liberals on here don’t even recognize that. Y’all have a good night, my trolling is done for the day 😀
[deleted] t1_iwm0fs7 wrote
[deleted]
Karen1968a t1_iwlrui8 wrote
Batista does not. That’s why he was hired
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments