|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 8, 2020 0:26:11 GMT -6
I agree we need better.
The defunding advocates also agree on the need for better policing.
They argue that removing many functions police carry out now poorly would allow that. Divide the current workload into real police work and other.
Better doesn't mean more cops added and keeping all the ones we have. We need the right cops doing the right job.
We don't get great police work when they spend too much time as first responder on matters better handled other ways.
Take all the hours police spend on that, you could have fewer cops able to do more police work. Give that work they're not good at to others.
Defunding also allows removing those cops who do some pretty bad work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jul 8, 2020 6:53:44 GMT -6
Good luck removing bad cops when the police union protects them.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Jul 8, 2020 6:57:15 GMT -6
Good luck removing bad cops when the police union protects them. That right there is the main problem. No discipline for cops with bad service records and multiple complaints. Puts a stain on all the good cops. (Of which I think are the majority of cops) |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 8, 2020 8:10:42 GMT -6
Good luck removing bad cops when the police union protects them. That right there is the main problem. No discipline for cops with bad service records and multiple complaints. Puts a stain on all the good cops. (Of which I think are the majority of cops) Good point. Not just unions but corrupt management are barriers. You have to root out both to make this have any sense.
As I understand it that is the main reason why you "defund" the entire department. It is total reboot. A police union has no traction if all the union members are fired. When you form a new Department of Public Safety or Whatever, the union can reform but only represent the NEW policing arm of the new Department.
The Defund that they did in Camden did disband the union.
Some of these proposals are essentially unigov proposals where they disband the city police and the county take on the expanded law enforcement. So new hires. This means corrupt city organization including the union are out of play with county government having a different management. Even if there is a union at county, the city cops are all fired, so only the cops you want and need are hired into the county.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 8, 2020 8:15:09 GMT -6
I doubt a defund movement makes much sense in any but fairly large departments with a large volume of non-police activity foisted onto them over time. Big cities are where the big problems are with unions and corruption though, so worth looking at.
In that case you need a pretty good sized county government to handle the mess a defund makes.
All in all it seems unlikely to me to be a solution you can carry out everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 9, 2020 19:42:28 GMT -6
There may be a lot of towns like Muncie where the police/fire unions and the local Democratic Party organization are basically one and the same
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 12, 2020 9:25:59 GMT -6
An outbreak of sensibleness in DC link
Adams, who is raising a 9-year-old son, lives near the complex and visits often. Before Davon was killed, Adams, 30, said, “I would say defund them,” referring to police. Now she is having second thoughts. Noting the death of the boy, she said, “This is beyond. Police need more presence here. They need to step it up. They’re sitting in their cars. Walk around. Where are all the police people on bicycles?”White liberals have almost zero interest in this sort of thing. although it is aimed at something hundreds of times more damaging than police-caused deaths, it doesn't really provide liberals with their number one need - to spew partisan hatred at their political enemies. |
|
|
|
Post by BSU Card Fan in AZ on Jul 12, 2020 19:56:29 GMT -6
Good luck removing bad cops when the police union protects them. That right there is the main problem. No discipline for cops with bad service records and multiple complaints. Puts a stain on all the good cops. (Of which I think are the majority of cops) The union protects bad cops because they are afraid of repercussions if they don’t. Which is total BS. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 12, 2020 20:17:00 GMT -6
That right there is the main problem. No discipline for cops with bad service records and multiple complaints. Puts a stain on all the good cops. (Of which I think are the majority of cops) The union protects bad cops because they are afraid of repercussions if they don’t. Which is total BS. Yep, and you get rid of a union without dissolving the contract, one way is to disband the department and get the new Public Safety Department or County government to start from scratch.
I am sure there would be some kind of lawsuit about that from the union, but public employee unions have much less legal protection or power. The real power comes from corruption in management working hand in hand with corruption in the union.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jul 13, 2020 5:50:15 GMT -6
I am sure there would be some kind of lawsuit about that from the union, but public employee unions have much less legal protection or power. The real power comes from corruption in management working hand in hand with corruption in the union.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You haven't been around unions much, have you? Union power comes from its political slush funds. And its ties to organized crime. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 13, 2020 5:58:57 GMT -6
In public employee unions no. Two big factors. One is pension money and one is strikes. Both relate to money floating around in the private sector unions.
The pension money and union dues that fueled corruption in private sector unions historically is not the same. Pension money is controlled by the politicians in public pension mechanisms, often woefully underfunded. NOT in union controlled pension reserve accounts.
Dues are spent for lobbying and management of union affairs, and are NOT collected in large "strike funds" which sit there for long periods of time, so it is much harder for large amounts of money cannot be siphoned into criminal enterprise, or to pay very high paid national union officers.
In private sector unions criminal involvement was facilitated in large part by the corruption in the Teamsters Union, to a lesser degree in other unions that honor a picket line. That Union has had unusually great influence since transportation of good is critical. If your local manufacturing union goes on strike and the Teamsters won't cross picket lines the strike really works. Replacement workers can't be hired to maintain output.
Public employee unions cannot generally strike. And if they do, there is no issue with truckers refusing to transport product or supplies to the striking plant.
The corruption is political more than financial. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jul 13, 2020 9:12:10 GMT -6
Oh, then maybe you can explain how SEIU has spent over $9 million in contributions to almost exclusively liberal causes? Or the over $8 million from AFSCME? Again, to almost exclusively liberal causes. American Federation of Teachers, $8.6 million. National Education Association, $6.4 million. All of this in just this election cycle. The list goes on. All of them are almost exclusively to liberal causes/candidates. So tell me again how it's not financial? It's all here: www.opensecrets.org |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 13, 2020 9:52:27 GMT -6
Oh, then maybe you can explain how SEIU has spent over $9 million in contributions to almost exclusively liberal causes? Or the over $8 million from AFSCME? Again, to almost exclusively liberal causes. American Federation of Teachers, $8.6 million. National Education Association, $6.4 million. All of this in just this election cycle. The list goes on. All of them are almost exclusively to liberal causes/candidates. So tell me again how it's not financial? It's all here: www.opensecrets.orgThere is no doubt public employee unions lobby and are political. That is what I just said.
That is not criminal corruption...which was my point.
That the unions support liberal political causes is simply the fact that public employees by definition work for government and conservative political doctrine generally calls for smaller government. Hardly a mystery or a plot.
For teachers, the issues relate to conservative support for charter schools, some conservatives favoring religion in the public school classroom, some opposing sex education and a raft of other single issues.
On some of these issues in education I agree. Public schools seem to me a necessary way to insure all students have education available.
As for public employee unions for police, fire and other areas, I think it invites political corruption. Particularly in the local context in Muncie for example. The Federal level unions for air traffic controllers and other jobs there don't worry me as much, there are legitimate concerns where the politicians on both sides have chosen to impact public safety as well as worker health and safety and a union seems to me quite justified in working for its members safety.
The history of unions shows that safety was a major reason unions in the private sector became established. The political action of unions over 100 years gradually turned to lobbying for protections for NON union members, supporting laws for minimum wage, child labor, safety regulations and so on for workers NOT in non union jobs.
This was not necessarily noble on their part. It simply insured non union shops had more similar cost structure as union shops and made unions more acceptable.
The current union influence is very much less than even 50 years ago. Unions and management now bargain about retaining jobs, stopping foreign out sourcing and much less often about wages or even safety measures. Right to Work laws and other measures now weaken unions. It is to be seen how that plays out.
It's now more job preservation and a fight to keep unionized shops afloat against foreign competition. Right now union membership is dropping like a rock and unions look much less relevant as management is not transnational and really doesn't give a damn about keeping jobs here. Why would they?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 13, 2020 10:02:40 GMT -6
By the way teachers whether unionized or not ought to be worried about reopening schools. I don't think the answer is so clear there.
A lot of teachers are older and at risk and I don't see much said at the White House about faculty and staff safety. The WH emphasis on students being relatively safe is not the only risk involved.
Even that is not really clear. We have not seen yet the long term impact of the virus on young people. If the right is concerned about immunization using vaccine, I do not understand arguing that it is fine to be infected by "natural" means and that is completely safe. Any number of young people are at risk. When we get to college age that is particularly true.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 13, 2020 11:02:06 GMT -6
It could be that teaching is not a suitable job for people over 60 for the foreseeable future. But we can't completely shut down k-12 education because of that
|
|
