#Next you're gonna tell me that there's a long standing, systemic history of problems within law enforcement in general! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

I remember when cops filmed. I think 99% of it was filmed downtown when the Friday, Saturday night strip was still a thing. I remember people walking in front of the camera singing the bad boys theme song and trying their hardest to be on tv. I was pissed it wasn't aired

Thanks! Got it working. Seems like the direct link was being wonky for some reason.

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.

Unions are good when they protect workers from corporate greed, and bad when they shield public servants from accountability. Any questions?

[deleted]