Continuing (if anyone's in the mood) the discussion of policing in America, race, etc. that began on the George Floyd thread but sure, we can leave Floyd out of this as much as possible.
Can you argue against police having unions and for teachers having unions?
This might be interesting. A liberal journalist, certainly. But he's advocating police union busting. Who would he vote for? Democrats are not union busters and voting republican would be unthinkable for him and most of his readers.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/bust-the-police-unions/619006/
I've spoken before here about the mason's union that my father once belonged to. That union took care of its workers and protected them against unfair practices and working conditions. It also maintained high standards of craft among its members. The union reps wouldn't tolerate slipshod work, and they wouldn't defend any worker found guilty of turning in such work. Police unions in many cities have clearly forgotten about the second part of their responsibilities. Which goes a long way toward explaining why public trust in them has so eroded.
A union, especially a public-service union, that defends its members against all consequences of their actions without engaging in self-policing to make sure that the members are worthy of union protection is failing in its responsibility to the broader community. Maybe saying "bust" such unions is too strong, but they do need to be taken down a peg. If they aren't, they're going to store up so much resentment against themselves that there is a real danger of their eventually being busted. It would be so much better for everybody concerned if it the situation wasn't allowed to go that far.
Police unions seem to function pretty differently from ordinary unions. In particular, when it comes to misconduct (which seems like far too light a term for the despicable behaviour I have in mind) they seem to function to obstruct justice, and as accessories after the fact. Police absolutely deserve unions to help them negotiate the terms of their labour, and I don't even begrudge them a union observer in disciplinary hearings. But they can't act with impunity and be entirely unaccountable for their actions. And anyone who helps to cover up police activity which, if done by someone else, would amount to gross negligence or a crime, is part of the problem and should be fired. Those are bad apples. And when you let apple rot, the rot runs deep into the pile.
Frankly, I'm not sure that focusing on police unions is the right thing to do--or, I'm not sure it's the right first step. While these unions do seem to need some kind of reform, the real underlying issue is gross negligence and criminality on the part of police officers, who are empowered to use violence against the rest of us. (That said, there is evidence (https://www.npr.org/transcripts/871298161) that cops get more violent (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3095217) after they unionize, perhaps because they appreciate their increased immunity.) Police unions present obstacles that need to be removed--e.g. many unions have secured the right to wait at least 48 hours before interrogating officers for misconduct, which is an obvious worst practice--but the list of what's wrong with the cops is just a lot longer than the list of their union protections.
If we want to get serious, then we need to adopt low-tolerance codes of conduct and widespread firings (and just rebuild the thing entirely), we need to get serious about training, especially in standards of evidence (most of it, like GSR, spatter, and lie detectors, is bogus, and even non-bogus things like fingerprints are poorly understood and routinely misused and misrepresented) and interrogation (coerced confessions are rampant, and interrogative techniques are transparently bad), we need to get serious about investigating misconduct and probably attach stiffer-than-usual penalties to it (they need to be held to a higher standard), we need to end this kind of training seminar ("killology" (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/police-trainer-best-sex-killing/)), we need prosecutorial justice (including fewer plea bargains and more trials), etc.
The list is long.
Quote from: apl68 on June 22, 2021, 07:17:14 AM
I've spoken before here about the mason's union that my father once belonged to. That union took care of its workers and protected them against unfair practices and working conditions. It also maintained high standards of craft among its members. The union reps wouldn't tolerate slipshod work, and they wouldn't defend any worker found guilty of turning in such work. Police unions in many cities have clearly forgotten about the second part of their responsibilities. Which goes a long way toward explaining why public trust in them has so eroded.
A union, especially a public-service union, that defends its members against all consequences of their actions without engaging in self-policing to make sure that the members are worthy of union protection is failing in its responsibility to the broader community. Maybe saying "bust" such unions is too strong, but they do need to be taken down a peg. If they aren't, they're going to store up so much resentment against themselves that there is a real danger of their eventually being busted. It would be so much better for everybody concerned if it the situation wasn't allowed to go that far.
Interesting. Whose job would it be to monitor work done by union members to determine if it's up to standard or not? Isn't that time consuming?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 22, 2021, 08:03:16 AM
Police unions seem to function pretty differently from ordinary unions. In particular, when it comes to misconduct (which seems like far too light a term for the despicable behaviour I have in mind) they seem to function to obstruct justice, and as accessories after the fact.
This is much like how virtually
all unions act. They automatically defend members against any charges, and when members are even
convicted of crimes outside their work, unions will push for sentencing so that they can serve on weekends and keep their jobs, etc.
This includes faculty unions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Platonov)
Quote
On November 9, 1999, [Vladimir] Platonov appeared in court on a bail hearing on a charge of attempted murder for an attack on his wife.He was convicted of assault. The court gave him a conditional sentence of two years. In September 2001, Platonov took early retirement as a professor of the University of Waterloo.
He attacked his wife, hitting her in the head
with a rock. Early retirement;
there's union outrage for despicable conduct........
And he wasn't even in a profession in which physical violence is part of the job, like it is for cops. So faculty have no business getting on their high horses in light of incidents like this.
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 22, 2021, 08:18:22 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 22, 2021, 08:03:16 AM
Police unions seem to function pretty differently from ordinary unions. In particular, when it comes to misconduct (which seems like far too light a term for the despicable behaviour I have in mind) they seem to function to obstruct justice, and as accessories after the fact.
This is much like how virtually all unions act. They automatically defend members against any charges, and when members are even convicted of crimes outside their work, unions will push for sentencing so that they can serve on weekends and keep their jobs, etc.
This includes faculty unions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Platonov)
Quote
On November 9, 1999, [Vladimir] Platonov appeared in court on a bail hearing on a charge of attempted murder for an attack on his wife.He was convicted of assault. The court gave him a conditional sentence of two years. In September 2001, Platonov took early retirement as a professor of the University of Waterloo.
He attacked his wife, hitting her in the head with a rock. Early retirement; there's union outrage for despicable conduct........
And he wasn't even in a profession in which physical violence is part of the job, like it is for cops. So faculty have no business getting on their high horses in light of incidents like this.
Exactly the problem I was contemplating. If the liberals (Parasaur...) want to make headway on police reform they have to align with the moderates or middle-conservatives (Marshy) who just don't like unions, period.
Oh well, we can train teachers and corporate employees to give up their toxic racism-enabling ways. That'll prevent any more George Floyd incidents, won't it.
I just believe that nobody is above the law, not even the queen. I'm told that was a popular opinion in certain parts of the late eighteenth-century world.
Shrug.
(For what it's worth, I was actually activated on this issue by the police murder of a white man--gasp!--almost fifteen years ago. What I've seen and learned since has not inspired confidence.
Just a few months ago, a cop here chased down a cyclist and rammed him with his car because his back reflector had broken off (or something along those lines--a lot has happened since then and my memory is fuzzy). That's not okay.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 22, 2021, 10:43:41 PM
I just believe that nobody is above the law, not even the queen. I'm told that was a popular opinion in certain parts of the late eighteenth-century world.
Shrug.
If you're the forumite I'm thinking of you've also posted that you think looting and malicious destruction of property during demonstrations are no big deal.
It's OK to take sides. But if that's what you're doing then people notice.
ETA:
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 22, 2021, 10:43:41 PM
(For what it's worth, I was actually activated on this issue by the police murder of a white man--gasp!--almost fifteen years ago. What I've seen and learned since has not inspired confidence.
Some of your best friends are white.
QuoteJust a few months ago, a cop here chased down a cyclist and rammed him with his car because his back reflector had broken off (or something along those lines--a lot has happened since then and my memory is fuzzy). That's not okay.
It's possible to sound like you're in favor of police reform without sounding like you're on the fringes. Coleman Hughes does it.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 22, 2021, 10:43:41 PM
I just believe that nobody is above the law, not even the queen.
And that's the crux of it. Nobody should be above being held responsible for their actions, which is what the law is about. Where police officers aren't always being held sufficiently responsible, there need to be measures taken to fix that. Nearly everybody agrees with that in principle. Most Americans are prepared to recognize that steps need to be taken to rein in egregious police offenders of the sort that have been so widely publicized. The tragedy is that the reform movement has all too often been hijacked by extremists with extremist agendas. Whenever that happens to a good cause, people who might otherwise support it become afraid to lend their support for fear of empowering that extremism. I'm afraid that the moment for police reform may already have been largely lost in some states and cities.
I'm glad our local police and mayor's offices have recognized the need to engage in community policing to help keep the police in good standing with all parts of the community. But we don't have very strong public-sector unions around here to react against needed procedural changes.
Quote from: mahagonny on June 23, 2021, 05:50:21 AM
If you're the forumite I'm thinking of you've also posted that you think looting and malicious destruction of property during demonstrations are no big deal.
It's OK to take sides. But if that's what you're doing then people notice.
If you notice, then you should take the time to read and understand what was actually said, and then
accurately represent it, rather than some strawman you like tilting at.
To reiterate for clarity: property damage is going to happen during large demonstrations. Nobody can control tens or hundreds of thousands of people well enough to prevent four or five of them from starting that. You can't tarnish a group of tens or hundreds of thousands of people with that. I'm happy to agree that it's not okay, but in the scheme of things it's really,
really small potatoes because
nobody is getting hurt. You can try to take your broken window to the emegency room, but nobody there will help you with it because it's less important than even a minor human ailment.
When you compare property damage to (1) police brutality and murder of citizens or (2) violent state responses to protests, the inconvenience of property damage pales in comparison to the actual harms suffered by citizens at the hands of state actors charged with
preventing harm to them. Focusing on the smaller issue is just a bad faith rhetorical tactic aimed at drawing attention away from the important stuff. If you're so concerned about property damage during protests against police brutality,
then work to eliminate the need to protest against police brutality.
Quote from: apl68 on June 23, 2021, 06:28:05 AM
Nearly everybody agrees with that in principle. Most Americans are prepared to recognize that steps need to be taken to rein in egregious police offenders of the sort that have been so widely publicized. The tragedy is that the reform movement has all too often been hijacked by extremists with extremist agendas. Whenever that happens to a good cause, people who might otherwise support it become afraid to lend their support for fear of empowering that extremism. I'm afraid that the moment for police reform may already have been largely lost in some states and cities.
The problem is that when you don't do anything about it for decades, that's what breeds "extreme" responses. We wouldn't have gotten to the point of arguing for defunding the police (if that's what worries you, or firing them all, as I advocate) if meaningful action had been taken
decades ago. People are tired of accepting measured compromises which are never enacted in the first place. Demanding small-scale technocratic change has resulted in nothing. If demanding significant change gets compromised down to something smaller, that's still a win, and a bigger one than sitting around quietly achieved.
It's like climate change, really. The emissions cutbacks required of us in the late nineties weren't all that significant, and were easily achievable. Today, they'd be seriously punishing. In the late nineties, we weren't yet seriously considering geoengineering because the problem hadn't yet metastasized; today, we are, because it has.
I'm a member of two unions, and I am a staunch supporter of unions in general. I and many members of other unions draw the line when unions defend systemic racism and murder. So, no, just because unions are protected by liberals does not mean liberals will not speak out and vote against the police union's aims to maintain systemic racism and protect murderers. I'll be the first in line to dismantle police unions, if it were actually possible.
Andy why the hell would I think and do otherwise? Where the hell would you get such an assumption that liberals and union members would defend police unions just because they are organized labor? Just because it would cost the left some political power and poke holes in the consistency of policy, doesn't mean the left has to abandon important principles that transcend unions and political power. Abandoning principles just to protect political power would be thinking and acting like a Republican . . . . .
So it's not possible to take police unions away from them? Who's been trying hard to do it and needs more support? That's what people of principle would be doing. What I see academics doing is mostly writing more books about white supremacy in our culture and licking their chops over who's going to get to teach the new anti-racism courses.
ETA: These are not going to put significant pressure on police, but they make money for the stars of the CRT movement (e.g. Kendi, Hannah-Jones and DiAngelo, who are lightweight academics, although hardly anyone admits it) and the academics riding their coattails.
From CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/18/us/portland-oregon-police-resign-team/index.html):
Quote
Dozens of Portland police officers resign from team that responds to protests after member is indicted
About 50 officers assigned to the Portland police department's crowd control team resigned one day after one of the team's officers was indicted for allegedly using his department-issued baton to assault a protester last summer.
The wholesale resignation of the police department's Rapid Response Team (RRT) took place after a Multnomah County grand jury handed down an indictment Wednesday charging Officer Corey Budworth with fourth-degree battery. All the officers who resigned their positions on the team returned to their regular assignments.
This will be interesting to watch over the next few years. So far, these police are staying with their regular duties. If it's just theatre, then in a while they'll return to things as before. If they start quitting their jobs, and the city can't find sufficient replacements, then there will definitely be fewer people arrested, or even interacting with police.
Be careful what you wish for.
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 23, 2021, 10:40:05 AM
From CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/18/us/portland-oregon-police-resign-team/index.html):
Quote
Dozens of Portland police officers resign from team that responds to protests after member is indicted
About 50 officers assigned to the Portland police department's crowd control team resigned one day after one of the team's officers was indicted for allegedly using his department-issued baton to assault a protester last summer.
The wholesale resignation of the police department's Rapid Response Team (RRT) took place after a Multnomah County grand jury handed down an indictment Wednesday charging Officer Corey Budworth with fourth-degree battery. All the officers who resigned their positions on the team returned to their regular assignments.
This will be interesting to watch over the next few years. So far, these police are staying with their regular duties. If it's just theatre, then in a while they'll return to things as before. If they start quitting their jobs, and the city can't find sufficient replacements, then there will definitely be fewer people arrested, or even interacting with police.
Be careful what you wish for.
Good. 50 bad cops outing themselves as such and resigning in one day from an assignment which allowed them to cause a great deal of harm is good news. Everyone will be better off for it. If only they could be fired outright.
Solidarity is good and fine. Solidarity to obstruct justice is not. When it isn't the cops doing it, it's called 'conspiracy'.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 23, 2021, 11:10:47 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 23, 2021, 10:40:05 AM
From CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/18/us/portland-oregon-police-resign-team/index.html):
Quote
Dozens of Portland police officers resign from team that responds to protests after member is indicted
About 50 officers assigned to the Portland police department's crowd control team resigned one day after one of the team's officers was indicted for allegedly using his department-issued baton to assault a protester last summer.
The wholesale resignation of the police department's Rapid Response Team (RRT) took place after a Multnomah County grand jury handed down an indictment Wednesday charging Officer Corey Budworth with fourth-degree battery. All the officers who resigned their positions on the team returned to their regular assignments.
This will be interesting to watch over the next few years. So far, these police are staying with their regular duties. If it's just theatre, then in a while they'll return to things as before. If they start quitting their jobs, and the city can't find sufficient replacements, then there will definitely be fewer people arrested, or even interacting with police.
Be careful what you wish for.
Good. 50 bad cops outing themselves as such and resigning in one day from an assignment which allowed them to cause a great deal of harm is good news. Everyone will be better off for it. If only they could be fired outright.
Solidarity is good and fine. Solidarity to obstruct justice is not. When it isn't the cops doing it, it's called 'conspiracy'.
I guess this is an aside but I'm putting it here anyway.
This is how some people (I don't know how many, but how ever many most academics are capable of believing, it's way more than that) feel when they read 'take away (pick one) faculty unions or tenure and the best faculty will give up teaching for good and make more money in industry.'
More on topic: I doubt I can convince you but anyway, here goes. These Portland Police have actually showed quite a bit of restraint in an atmosphere of verbal abuse, smear campaigns and misinformation. Many people (overwhelmingly more so among self identified liberals) are thinking ridiculously erroneous high numbers of BIPOC individuals that they believe are killed by police every year. How things got that way I'm not sure exactly, but the race-baiters and other lefties who are better informed seem to think it's just fine that so many are so misinformed.
https://www.policemag.com/596346/half-of-surveys-very-liberal-respondents-believe-1-000-or-more-unarmed-black-men
Quote from: mahagonny on June 23, 2021, 10:27:46 AM
So it's not possible to take police unions away from them? Who's been trying hard to do it and needs more support? That's what people of principle would be doing. What I see academics doing is mostly writing more books about white supremacy in our culture and licking their chops over who's going to get to teach the new anti-racism courses.
ETA: These are not going to put significant pressure on police, but they make money for the stars of the CRT movement (e.g. Kendi, Hannah-Jones and DiAngelo, who are lightweight academics, although hardly anyone admits it) and the academics riding their coattails.
The reason it's so hard to break unions like police unions and teachers unions is because organized labor in those professions ultimately have the upper hand in any scenario--they have the real power of the strike and more importantly the fear of the strike--it is what keeps them intact. This is very different from your experience with higher ed faculty unions. Higher ed unions, on the whole, are too afraid to go on strike, because the members themselves are too afraid to go on strike. That's why your college's faculty union is impotent.
As for what higher ed writers write about, we've been over this before, and I gave you the start of a reading list of left-wing academics who trash police unions. Obviously, you did not read it. But I did not expect you to, and that's why we are here having the same tired conversation again.
Of course, that combination of having struck already and the looming fear of it happening again is potent. There are some colleges where this has happened.
Here's an interesting piece. Maybe this was on your list. I don't remember. https://www.baystatebanner.com/2020/06/23/58823/
There's no question police unions will try to fuck you up if you don't play their game. Remember the Dukakis/Bush race? The Boston police went with Bush.
The reasons our union isn't stronger are, true, not only the reluctance to strike, but the abject lack of support from the tenure track faculty union, which made a pact with administration many years ago to refrain from advocating for or including us. Also the presence of administrators who, while having background in democratic local politics, hire the best union busting attorneys available, meddled in organizing efforts, and retaliated against union organizers using complicit tenured faculty. The worst of these administrators took a scornful view toward adjunct faculty as has been vividly expressed by Polly_Mer, a popular CHE forumite.
Some faculty unions are likely to get weaker as they promote far left political ideology, and in particular as it relates to the current racist movement called 'antiracism' which some members don't want. I suspect they will fear it makes them vulnerable to accusation in the normal performing of their duties. Or maybe they just don't buy the eternal victimology for Black Americans approach.
I'm not sure there's really a contradiction-unless you're committed to thinking only in terms of rigid dichotomies.
Unions are just a way for workers to organize and bargain collectively with employers. They can, and often have been, vehicles for workers to gain better working conditions and higher pay. Of course, they can be used to do other things too, historically they were sometimes committed to keeping racial minorities out of workplaces, for example.
I think stronger unions would be a good thing, in general. That doesn't mean I'm required to think all unions, everywhere, are making everything better, all the time. In the case of Police Unions, I don't have a problem with them negotiating pay and benefits-or some issues touching on the pay and discipline of police officers-but the police are an armed group charged with enforcing laws-so it seems troubling when you have unions routinely denying the right of elected leaders to regulate their conduct.
Quote from: Caracal on June 24, 2021, 05:02:32 AM
I think stronger unions would be a good thing, in general. That doesn't mean I'm required to think all unions, everywhere, are making everything better, all the time. In the case of Police Unions, I don't have a problem with them negotiating pay and benefits-or some issues touching on the pay and discipline of police officers-but the police are an armed group charged with enforcing laws-so it seems troubling when you have unions routinely denying the right of elected leaders to regulate their conduct.
Police unions are just doing what is normal for other unions. They use their influence to promote whatever they think will give them the most power in the long run. Other unions promote certain political candidates or parties, go on strike
in support of other unions, even when they have no inherent reason to strike, and so on.
And public sector unions, like teachers, have much more power than private sector unions in strikes because they provide essential services that can't be easily and immediately purchased elsewhere. (There are not nearly enough private school spaces that could accommodate all students, even if parents could afford it.) In contrast, if workers at GM go on strike, people can buy from any other automaker. It's the competition that makes private sector strikes basically self-correcting.
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 24, 2021, 05:20:52 AM
Police unions are just doing what is normal for other unions. They use their influence to promote whatever they think will give them the most power in the long run. Other unions promote certain political candidates or parties, go on strike in support of other unions, even when they have no inherent reason to strike, and so on.
And public sector unions, like teachers, have much more power than private sector unions in strikes because they provide essential services that can't be easily and immediately purchased elsewhere. (There are not nearly enough private school spaces that could accommodate all students, even if parents could afford it.) In contrast, if workers at GM go on strike, people can buy from any other automaker. It's the competition that makes private sector strikes basically self-correcting.
I'd agree generally with the one exception that public college adjunct faculty unions are not noticeably more successful than private college ones. 'Part-time' hiring being the brilliant anti-labor ruse of our era which labor advocates have not really figure out how to counterattack. Adjunct advocacy has everything going against it structurally.
The problem with your broad brush approach to unions, Marshy, is that it accuses all unions from the mightily lion police union to the limping along mousey adjunct union of the same greed.
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 24, 2021, 05:20:52 AM
Quote from: Caracal on June 24, 2021, 05:02:32 AM
I think stronger unions would be a good thing, in general. That doesn't mean I'm required to think all unions, everywhere, are making everything better, all the time. In the case of Police Unions, I don't have a problem with them negotiating pay and benefits-or some issues touching on the pay and discipline of police officers-but the police are an armed group charged with enforcing laws-so it seems troubling when you have unions routinely denying the right of elected leaders to regulate their conduct.
Police unions are just doing what is normal for other unions. They use their influence to promote whatever they think will give them the most power in the long run. Other unions promote certain political candidates or parties, go on strike in support of other unions, even when they have no inherent reason to strike, and so on.
Except that other unions don't typically go out of their way to cover up crimes and misconduct, to the point where the membership is almost entirely immune from consequences. If I beat up a student or fail them in retribution for writing their essay on a topic I disagree with them about, my union rep will be there to make sure the correct procedures are followed at the disciplinary hearing, but I'm gonna be toast. I wouldn't stand a chance, and rightly so.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 24, 2021, 07:20:25 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 24, 2021, 05:20:52 AM
Quote from: Caracal on June 24, 2021, 05:02:32 AM
I think stronger unions would be a good thing, in general. That doesn't mean I'm required to think all unions, everywhere, are making everything better, all the time. In the case of Police Unions, I don't have a problem with them negotiating pay and benefits-or some issues touching on the pay and discipline of police officers-but the police are an armed group charged with enforcing laws-so it seems troubling when you have unions routinely denying the right of elected leaders to regulate their conduct.
Police unions are just doing what is normal for other unions. They use their influence to promote whatever they think will give them the most power in the long run. Other unions promote certain political candidates or parties, go on strike in support of other unions, even when they have no inherent reason to strike, and so on.
Except that other unions don't typically go out of their way to cover up crimes and misconduct, to the point where the membership is almost entirely immune from consequences. If I beat up a student or fail them in retribution for writing their essay on a topic I disagree with them about, my union rep will be there to make sure the correct procedures are followed at the disciplinary hearing, but I'm gonna be toast. I wouldn't stand a chance, and rightly so.
In that case, the problem is about the disciplinary process, rather than the union involvement.
(And the fact that the
culture among police, religious orders, etc. may encourage cover-ups, that's not really going to depend on the presence or absence of a union, and the union certainly can't explicitly promote that.)
Quote from: lightning on June 23, 2021, 09:55:49 AM
I'm a member of two unions, and I am a staunch supporter of unions in general. I and many members of other unions draw the line when unions defend systemic racism and murder. So, no, just because unions are protected by liberals does not mean liberals will not speak out and vote against the police union's aims to maintain systemic racism and protect murderers. I'll be the first in line to dismantle police unions, if it were actually possible.
See, honestly, this is where I, and tens of millions (not all ofays either) think liberal media and academics have been a problem contributing to counterproductive dialogue, needless escalation of tension. Speaking out against someone's excessive use of force is (do we dare mention him again?) applicable in the George Floyd case. But speaking out as though there was conclusive evidence of racial animus is not. This hasn't stopped the left from doing exactly that.
Our faculty union has its own 'anti-racism committee.' So every time they can say they've found more racism it's a win for them, justifying their importance.
QuoteAndy why the hell would I think and do otherwise? Where the hell would you get such an assumption that liberals and union members would defend police unions just because they are organized labor? Just because it would cost the left some political power and poke holes in the consistency of policy, doesn't mean the left has to abandon important principles that transcend unions and political power. Abandoning principles just to protect political power would be thinking and acting like a Republican . . . . .
...or a human being with a career and ambition.
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 24, 2021, 07:33:07 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 24, 2021, 07:20:25 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 24, 2021, 05:20:52 AM
Quote from: Caracal on June 24, 2021, 05:02:32 AM
I think stronger unions would be a good thing, in general. That doesn't mean I'm required to think all unions, everywhere, are making everything better, all the time. In the case of Police Unions, I don't have a problem with them negotiating pay and benefits-or some issues touching on the pay and discipline of police officers-but the police are an armed group charged with enforcing laws-so it seems troubling when you have unions routinely denying the right of elected leaders to regulate their conduct.
Police unions are just doing what is normal for other unions. They use their influence to promote whatever they think will give them the most power in the long run. Other unions promote certain political candidates or parties, go on strike in support of other unions, even when they have no inherent reason to strike, and so on.
Except that other unions don't typically go out of their way to cover up crimes and misconduct, to the point where the membership is almost entirely immune from consequences. If I beat up a student or fail them in retribution for writing their essay on a topic I disagree with them about, my union rep will be there to make sure the correct procedures are followed at the disciplinary hearing, but I'm gonna be toast. I wouldn't stand a chance, and rightly so.
In that case, the problem is about the disciplinary process, rather than the union involvement.
(And the fact that the culture among police, religious orders, etc. may encourage cover-ups, that's not really going to depend on the presence or absence of a union, and the union certainly can't explicitly promote that.)
Sure, except to the extent that the union has helped to determine the nature of the disciplinary process (e.g. regulations stipulating that investigators must wait at least 48 hours before questioning a union member--a practice which we
know is a serious problem when applied to the civilian population).
But in any event, you'll recall that my first post said:
QuoteFrankly, I'm not sure that focusing on police unions is the right thing to do--or, I'm not sure it's the right first step. While these unions do seem to need some kind of reform, the real underlying issue is gross negligence and criminality on the part of police officers, who are empowered to use violence against the rest of us. (That said, there is evidence (https://www.npr.org/transcripts/871298161) that cops get more violent (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3095217) after they unionize, perhaps because they appreciate their increased immunity.) Police unions present obstacles that need to be removed--e.g. many unions have secured the right to wait at least 48 hours before interrogating officers for misconduct, which is an obvious worst practice--but the list of what's wrong with the cops is just a lot longer than the list of their union protections.
Here's your situation, though, Parasail:
The nation is never going to get a consensus to do what you want, abolishing all the police and starting over with something else. You've been reading the news. You can see where we are headed if that is advocated for strongly: civil war, and more hatred for academia (which some of us even within academia think would be deserved). However, there is something that could happen and that is legislation that would curtail the options and power of unions. You could pursue this, but only with the help of republicans. Chris Christie would be inviting you out to dinner in a heartbeat. But you'd have to be prepared for collateral damage to teacher's unions who want teachers to stay home with masks on instead of going back to work. Then again, some academics are enjoying making a good living studying problems and writing about them without having much interest in resolution. You could be one of those.
Like I said, I don't think the union is the root cause of the problems. Its power merely exacerbates them. There are a lot of simpler, less draconian things you can do which would make an immediate difference, like abolishing upper IQ bounds, establishing independent investigations of complaints (and crimes and violent encounters), forbidding cops to lie about the evidence against you to your lawyer, eliminating waiting periods for interrogation of officers involved in violence or wrongdoing, making complaint and disciplinary records public, ensuring that officers fired for misconduct are unemployable as police officers in other jurisdictions, establishing stricter penalties for cops found guilty of crime, actually charging officers with crimes, charging those who abet them with obstruction, etc. Similarly, you could pretty easily legislate about standards of evidence and evidence training. No more bite mark evidence or lie detector tests, blood spatter, GSR, etc., dispel myths about "shedders" of DNA, and on and on.
I mean, for fuck's sake, I know of detectives who were found guilty of planting evidence who kept working for another 20 years afterwards (and, predictably, were responsible for several further wrongful convictions).
And on the prosecutorial side, we need to disempower prosecutors, who've arrogated the roles of judge and jury for themselves as well. When a prosecutor violates Brady, their career should be in jeopardy and their convictions subject to external review. Currently, there's basically no consequence to violating Brady, and prosecutors do it all the time. Worse, it's incredibly difficult to find out about it, and we typically don't for 10+ years after the conviction was secured. You also need to eliminate plea bargaining, and get rid of confessions entirely (the German model is instructive in both of these respects).
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 25, 2021, 07:06:45 AM
And on the prosecutorial side, we need to disempower prosecutors, who've arrogated the roles of judge and jury for themselves as well. When a prosecutor violates Brady, their career should be in jeopardy and their convictions subject to external review. Currently, there's basically no consequence to violating Brady, and prosecutors do it all the time. Worse, it's incredibly difficult to find out about it, and we typically don't for 10+ years after the conviction was secured. You also need to eliminate plea bargaining, and get rid of confessions entirely (the German model is instructive in both of these respects).
George Floyd accepted a plea bargain deal around 2009. As a result, he only got a five year sentence for aggravated robbery and left on parole. In Texas the sentence could have been up to 99 years. Did the system fail him?
Quote from: mahagonny on June 30, 2021, 01:38:46 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 25, 2021, 07:06:45 AM
And on the prosecutorial side, we need to disempower prosecutors, who've arrogated the roles of judge and jury for themselves as well. When a prosecutor violates Brady, their career should be in jeopardy and their convictions subject to external review. Currently, there's basically no consequence to violating Brady, and prosecutors do it all the time. Worse, it's incredibly difficult to find out about it, and we typically don't for 10+ years after the conviction was secured. You also need to eliminate plea bargaining, and get rid of confessions entirely (the German model is instructive in both of these respects).
George Floyd accepted a plea bargain deal around 2009. As a result, he only got a five year sentence for aggravated robbery and left on parole. In Texas the sentence could have been up to 99 years. Did the system fail him?
Plea bargaining is a scourge, yes. It's coercion, pure and simple, and its whole purpose is to avoid using state resources to prove a case (and I should remind you that it's your constitutional right to be judged by a jury of your peers, to face your accusers and the evidence, etc.). It encourages people--including the innocent, especially those who've been coerced into confessing--to take prison time in exchange for less disruption to their lives. It concentrates power in the prosecutor's hands, it lowers standards of evidence, it encourages cops to lie about evidence (including to defence attorneys) and over-charge (IIRC they call this 'laddering' in the UK, and it's not allowed), it encourages false confessions, it means that the overwhelming majority of people in US prisons were never actually convicted of a crime, etc. They also don't make any sense, because you have to go in front of a judge and say that you're pleading guilty of your own free will and free from coercion--but every time there's a plea deal, you've been coerced.
It completely undermines due process and existing checks on the reliability and durability of evidence, as well as the idea that evidence is what puts you behind bars. IIRC, the latest figures indicate that at the federal level, ~97% of cases result in plea bargains, and ~94+% do at the state level.
If you're guilty and there's enough evidence against you to be confident about securing a conviction, they can be a good deal. The problem is that, by and large, they aren't offered in such cases; they're offered when there's a dearth of evidence for the charges being brought. It's a way for the cops and the DA to avoid actually investigating the case. And most public defenders will encourage you to take a plea deal, because the outcome is certain and eats up less of your and their time and resources. Plea bargaining bears significant responsibility for mass incarceration.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 30, 2021, 07:22:17 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 30, 2021, 01:38:46 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 25, 2021, 07:06:45 AM
And on the prosecutorial side, we need to disempower prosecutors, who've arrogated the roles of judge and jury for themselves as well. When a prosecutor violates Brady, their career should be in jeopardy and their convictions subject to external review. Currently, there's basically no consequence to violating Brady, and prosecutors do it all the time. Worse, it's incredibly difficult to find out about it, and we typically don't for 10+ years after the conviction was secured. You also need to eliminate plea bargaining, and get rid of confessions entirely (the German model is instructive in both of these respects).
George Floyd accepted a plea bargain deal around 2009. As a result, he only got a five year sentence for aggravated robbery and left on parole. In Texas the sentence could have been up to 99 years. Did the system fail him?
Plea bargaining is a scourge, yes. It's coercion, pure and simple, and its whole purpose is to avoid using state resources to prove a case (and I should remind you that it's your constitutional right to be judged by a jury of your peers, to face your accusers and the evidence, etc.). It encourages people--including the innocent, especially those who've been coerced into confessing--to take prison time in exchange for less disruption to their lives. It concentrates power in the prosecutor's hands, it lowers standards of evidence, it encourages cops to lie about evidence (including to defence attorneys) and over-charge (IIRC they call this 'laddering' in the UK, and it's not allowed), it encourages false confessions, it means that the overwhelming majority of people in US prisons were never actually convicted of a crime, etc. They also don't make any sense, because you have to go in front of a judge and say that you're pleading guilty of your own free will and free from coercion--but every time there's a plea deal, you've been coerced.
It completely undermines due process and existing checks on the reliability and durability of evidence, as well as the idea that evidence is what puts you behind bars. IIRC, the latest figures indicate that at the federal level, ~97% of cases result in plea bargains, and ~94+% do at the state level.
If you're guilty and there's enough evidence against you to be confident about securing a conviction, they can be a good deal. The problem is that, by and large, they aren't offered in such cases; they're offered when there's a dearth of evidence for the charges being brought. It's a way for the cops and the DA to avoid actually investigating the case. And most public defenders will encourage you to take a plea deal, because the outcome is certain and eats up less of your and their time and resources. Plea bargaining bears significant responsibility for mass incarceration.
Not only all that, but Floyd only served a few years for the offense, which if he was guilty, was less than he deserved.
ETA: and less justice and deterrence than victims of violent, armed home invasion & robbery need and deserve, because, in case it needs to be reiterated, all lives matter.
Thank you for the info about plea bargains, Parasaurolophus. I see them used all the time in TV shows and I never thought about them in this way. I don't know anything about Floyd's prior crimes but if he was indeed coerced into a plea, that was time he spent in incarceration that he could've used to get help in a more humane environment.
Quote from: permanent imposter on July 02, 2021, 07:44:27 AM
Thank you for the info about plea bargains, Parasaurolophus. I see them used all the time in TV shows and I never thought about them in this way. I don't know anything about Floyd's prior crimes but if he was indeed coerced into a plea, that was time he spent in incarceration that he could've used to get help in a more humane environment.
The trouble is that plea bargains are
by their nature coercive. John H. Langbein has a classic (and fantastic) article on the subject from way back in 1978. You can access it for free here (https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/543/). Things have only gotten worse since then.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 02, 2021, 10:25:21 AM
Quote from: permanent imposter on July 02, 2021, 07:44:27 AM
Thank you for the info about plea bargains, Parasaurolophus. I see them used all the time in TV shows and I never thought about them in this way. I don't know anything about Floyd's prior crimes but if he was indeed coerced into a plea, that was time he spent in incarceration that he could've used to get help in a more humane environment.
The trouble is that plea bargains are by their nature coercive. John H. Langbein has a classic (and fantastic) article on the subject from way back in 1978. You can access it for free here (https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/543/). Things have only gotten worse since then.
I also find Parasail's posts interesting and informative although out outlooks are frequently different. I find it interesting too that you hadn't heard about Floyd's prior crimes. They were numerous. I bet you've seen photos of him as the family man. He lived in Minneapolis, while they were in Texas or somewhere, five of them. It's the liberal media narrative. A black man has to be Bill Cosby to not be a good guy.