Submitted by marshall_project t3_z727sx in nyc
metafunf t1_iy4skzx wrote
Reply to comment by k1lk1 in A Rikers Officer Had Sex With a Detainee. It Took 7 Years to Fire Him. by marshall_project
You want to get to rid of unions but also support unionize of Amazon and Starbucks? It’s almost like union protect workers rights or something. Weird huh?
BrieGoneThot t1_iy4u3rb wrote
It's almost like labor unions protect the workers, but law enforcement unions protect the violent enforcement arm of the oligarchy.
DelTeaz t1_iy5v5r8 wrote
It’s about public vs private sector unions. Public sector unions are wayyy worse.
k1lk1 t1_iy4squi wrote
I do?
cC2Panda t1_iy5nzwo wrote
When private unions protect rapists and murders like police/prison guard unions you'll have a point, but as of now Starbucks unions won't be protecting baristas from murder charges so they aren't even in the same ball park. The only real reason people have problems with these unions isn't because of pay and benefits but because they are shield from prison time for crimes they commit, if police were held accountable then very few people would care.
ThepunfishersGun t1_iy5vopm wrote
Get rid of the laws that protect the murders and rapists and police unions become moot in terms of this nonsense and simply become collective bargaining representatives for cops, like they're supposed to be. For example, drastically change or get rid of qualified immunity for LEO. For heaven's sake, finally make all sexual encounters with those in custody illegal and prosecute sex with those in custody as rape. Uniformed cops should be held to at least the same criminal standards as everyone else, and for damned sure off duty cops who commit a crime shouldn't be given any special protections under the law and should be treated like a civilian.
cC2Panda t1_iy5w920 wrote
On top of that I think that we should increase polices total annual pension/benefit contributions, but every single lawyers fee and lawsuit should be paid out by the police as a whole. When an abusive asshole is costing every other cop their year end bonus they'll whip him into shape really fucking quick.
ThepunfishersGun t1_iy63wm7 wrote
I would also include higher ranking officers' pensions/benefits funds in that pool of lawsuit funding. Imagine some sargeant or lieutenant having to pay out because the idiots under them couldn't keep it together when interacting with the public. Do you think they'll stand for having money coming out of their pockets?
Edit: grammar
fafalone t1_iy7a5jm wrote
Qualified immunity is only for civil lawsuits. There is no legal immunity, just corrupt traditions and union contracts treated like law.
Emotional_Age5291 t1_iy4ugss wrote
There’s a difference between breaking the law and not having to wake up 5am every morning to goto statbucks
ChornWork2 t1_iy53lyq wrote
Meh, imho there is a very credible basis to oppose public sector unions but support private sector ones. If the public doesn't like how the govt is treating its employees, they can act directly by voting. We don't vote who is in charge of private companies. If we allow govt to set & enforce the laws, no clue why we can't allow it to set & enforce labor terms for govt employees.
Further, elected officials don't have strong accountability for long-term economic situations. In public sector, imho unions have more power because people will feel pain of labor action for public services more acutely than they will general bad budgetary decisions.
And that is before considering issues specific to police unions...
headphase t1_iy5adjb wrote
>oppose public sector unions but support private sector ones.
I don't think it's as simple as this; let's consider less-contentious examples like FDNY or Sanitation. Both groups are public servants, and both derive huge (justified) protections for their members.. which arguably would not otherwise exist without representation. No mayor will campaign on buying indoor truck exhaust rigging for every fire station as a cancer prevention measure, because frankly the public doesn't give a shit about (or vote based on) that.
Maybe you'll say "ok, then oppose law enforcement unions only" which is a fair reaction, but I think the argument can still be made that without law enforcement unions, we (the citizens) would endure even worse outcomes in criminal justice and public safety. Consider things like training standards/pay, off-duty support infrastructure (mental health, medical, financial, etc), and protection from improper discipline. It's easy to imagine a city where unrepresented cops/guards act with greater violence, worse competence, and less discretion.
(Disclaimer: private sector union member who sees value in representation for all workers)
ChornWork2 t1_iy5d2fz wrote
overwhelming majority of workers aren't unionized, including presumably those that work with vehicles in an indoor setting. If it is a serious issue, likely should change workplace safety rules generally.
Yeah, zero chance on convincing of the value of police unions. Utterly corrupt against the public interest and they feel no shame in making that clear. Hell, look at how cops have corrupted prosecutorial process (look at grand jury indictment rates when a cop is the accused) as an example...
headphase t1_iy5mf0n wrote
>overwhelming majority of workers aren't unionized
Huh? That's just wrong. For the examples I gave, DSNY is Teamsters 831 (93% membership) , FDNY is IAFF 94 (82%+ membership)
>If it is a serious issue, likely should change workplace safety rules generally.
The example I gave is just one of many which go beyond the scope of basic OSHA compliance. With even an ounce of critical thinking, you can surely appreciate the amount of protections a labor group can gain for themselves through the collective bargaining process.
By the way, who do you think spent the 20th Century fighting to earn the most basic workplace safety rules (and beyond), if not unions?
ChornWork2 t1_iy5q4tp wrote
I meant majority of workers in general, including peeps that have to work in indoor settings with vehicles.
Public unions don't make any sense. If wanted to say had a rule to incorporate best practices around safety or whatever, so be it.
MurrayPloppins t1_iy54v0e wrote
Strongly agree with this. Private sector unions work to support the interests of labor, against those of capital owners. Public sector unions work for the interests of labor, against the interests of the public in general in the form of the government (provided you believe the government works generally for the benefit of the public, which…. Kinda?).
NetQuarterLatte t1_iy5d025 wrote
In order words:
- If employees working for me (or for you) form an union: bad
- If employees working for other people form an union: good
MurrayPloppins t1_iy5dtiq wrote
Close! Unions of employees working for me as a business owner are good, because the only person who suffers from that situation is me, and everyone in the union benefits. But you replace “me” in that arrangement with the general (tax paying) public, then the benefit to the union members has the potential to be entirely offset by the detriment to everyone else. And, to the point of the guy I replied to originally, the public has the choice to change policy on public labor if needed.
NetQuarterLatte t1_iy5gi0h wrote
>Unions of employees working for me as a business owner are good, because the only person who suffers from that situation is me, and everyone in the union benefits.
Your employees can just quit and find a better job, no?
That's what they do with government jobs, for example:
>Among larger agencies, vacancy rates were highest at the Department of Buildings, at 24.2% (489 vacancies), the Department of Health at 19.1% (1,189 vacancies) and the Department of Social Services at 17.3% (2,256 openings).
​
>But you replace “me” in that arrangement with the general (tax paying) public, then the benefit to the union members has the potential to be entirely offset by the detriment to everyone else.
How so? You seem to be framing unions as a strictly zero-sum thing.
​
>And, to the point of the guy I replied to originally, the public has the choice to change policy on public labor if needed.
If this sub is any indicator, our government would only employ people at minimum wages and fire people at a whim. Like https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-20221111-hihcpddocrfb3jq6toftxj5nee-story.html
Topher1999 t1_iy563l2 wrote
You definitely still try to put the square in the triangle hole.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments