quote:

All of my family members retired from the Trades Unions: (Carpenters, Pipe fitters and Machinist) mainly in Ohio.

I hope you can see the difference between the trades unions and public employee unions.
Trade unions are not negotiating against the public.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

All of my family members retired from the Trades Unions: (Carpenters, Pipe fitters and Machinist) mainly in Ohio.

I hope you can see the difference between the trades unions and public employee unions.
Trade unions are not negotiating against the public.

So, what do you propose in place of a union to protect me in my place of employment?

Or I it merely a “tough luck you chose the line of work”? What happens when all the people like me are run off because they are abused by the politicians at the top?

We keep saying we want good cops. Good cops have to be protected. How do you propose doing that?

quote:

So, what do you propose in place of a union to protect me in my place of employment?

Public policy should be set by the voters.
If you want more money, or better working conditions in some way, it's a public policy matter. Convince the public, rather than negotiating against the public.
I'm sorry if that sounds simplistic, but that's how it should work.

The demands of trade unions are limited by competition. Public employee unions have a monopoly. The only way voters have a say, if they can't control public policy, is to vote with their feet and leave the jurisdiction.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

So, what do you propose in place of a union to protect me in my place of employment?

Public policy should be set by the voters.
If you want more money, or better working conditions in some way, it's a public policy matter. Convince the public, rather than negotiating against the public.
I'm sorry if that sounds simplistic, but that's how it should work.

Simplistic is eventually you’ll get cops that are exactly what you pay for. The good candidates will go where there is union protection. Or they just won’t be cops.

Eventually, you’ll wind up with the police you deserve with that policy.

This is all nothing but academic. However, if you want to topple unions, you should have an actual plan to replace it. Unless your plan is to defund the police. If that is the case, so be it. (I am not being a smart ass about it. I honestly think there might be a better alternative than unions. If the voters don’t want to protect the good officers, then the results are on them)

quote:

Simplistic is eventually you’ll get cops that are exactly what you pay for. The good candidates will go where there is union protection. Or they just won’t be cops.

Eventually, you’ll wind up with the police you deserve with that policy.

But that hasn't played out that way in the private sector, at least in a broad brush sense.

There are good employees in both union and non-union work environments. The good candidates go to where they feel they are treated the best, but the non-union businesses seem to want to compete on that playing field along with the unions. There are plenty of great places to work that aren't union.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Simplistic is eventually you’ll get cops that are exactly what you pay for. The good candidates will go where there is union protection. Or they just won’t be cops.

Eventually, you’ll wind up with the police you deserve with that policy.

But that hasn't played out that way in the private sector, at least in a broad brush sense.

There are good employees in both union and non-union work environments. The good candidates go to where they feel they are treated the best, but the non-union businesses seem to want to compete on that playing field along with the unions. There are plenty of great places to work that aren't union.

There is. But, in the private sector, if a company fails to properly recruit, or retain their employees, it affects the bottom line. Failing to retain or recruit quality employees eventually causes them to go under. I think that’s pretty much the bottom line with no protection on one side and unions on another.

I am vehemently anti-union.

But

I make an allowance for PD and FD. PD and FD people have a strong desire to serve the public, so strong that they'll continue to work not just under life threatening situations but also under constant attacks from city government. I believe they deserve protection from the city government that will abuse them AT EVERY TURN. The city government will PREY on PD/FD desire to serve, they will ABUSE PD/FD to no end.

I know there are exceptions, there are always exceptions, but in the main, PD/FD want to help people and make their cities better places to live.

I want good cops and I want my city to use my tax money to get good cops, if good cops cost more then city council needs to put the axe to social programs and other stupid shit.

^^^^^^^^
And maybe there are better options out there.

I even think there’s a need for performance based reviews. Not quotas, but something merit based. Something where the good ones are compensated, and the mediocre self motivate or find other employment.

Non-union state.

Only reason my agency pays what it does?

Because of the salaries that come back from agencies with unions when we do our pay studies.

I’ve been on our pay plan committee since 2015. That is the ONLY motivation. Otherwise we’d be $20k less.

Our benefits have quickly eroded. Nobody really compares vacation days or health insurance plans between agencies. But it’s pretty easy to compare raw salaries. Thankfully we have a lot of corporations in our city and we compare to their benefits, so we’re not completely in the gutter.

For those in trade unions there is a big difference between those and company union shops.

My general experience with trade union guys was positive. They have to perform on the job or they get sent back, and the trade union is better about ensuring their people are capable.

And I had to listen to the UAW guys bitch about "outside contractors doing their work" that they didn't really want to do, but were getting offered 8 hours overtime every day because of the presence of the trade union guys.

That's the scam in union shops and a lot of public sector unions - slow down progress to justify more employees. Every solution to education problems is "smaller classes and more teachers", but I have not seen any actual evidence that it makes any significant difference.

And the worst laziest don't give a shit employees I've ever seen are gov't union offices like the unemployment offices in Detroit area. Their idea of closing at 5 was cutting off everything at like 4 so they could make sure every employee was out the door with the lights off and locking up by 5.

Getting back to police unions and fire departments, there has to be some third party system to ensure impartiality by the political hacks at the top. Someone has to advocate for the cops. The chance of corruption by the hacks is too high. Right now, officers without a union who are accused of brutality can be hung out to dry for political reasons. Look at the officers that were "fired" by the hacks based on civilian cell phone video without any due process recently. The union rules will make sure they get the proper administrative hearing and rehire/backpay when the process is not followed.

Utahn is a right to work state so Union benefits were useless. We started with AFLCIO crooks and left for the FOP. That has been a impressive improvement. The FOP is always there to hep protect officers after a shooting and to fight for wages and better benefits. They aren't out of control either. We don't make demands we simply compete better with other agencies for equipment, pay, training and the like. The AFLCIO demanded we vote democrat. Its Utah so that never happened. Happily the FOP has never demanded anything.

Proud union cop here. We have an unaffiliated union (no big national union that we are a chapter of). It keeps our dues low and insures all of our dues go directly to our organization. We enjoy a good relationship with our department administration and with the city manager, but current issues with the city council really illustrate the need for a union.

I spent my first eight years and change at a very small PD with no union and no civil service protection. We did fine, but I see now that there was at least some luck involved.

Police and Fire unions (collective bargaining) are a good thing in terms of pay and benefits, pensions, working conditions, and arbitrary discipline. Most contracts have a binding arbitration clause relating to discipline. Where the big rub arises is in termination for cause cases, where the termination goes to arbitration. Sometimes this protects an officer who was unfairly disciplined. But. The employer law weasels and the union law weasels choose an arbitrator from a list of certified arbitrators to decide the discipline case after hearing the case. Herein lies the problem. The union does not want an arbitrator who more often sides with management, and vice versa. So they often end up with a weak arbitrator who divides the baby in his decisions. This is how you get a bad employee back. A bad cop comes back into the department and the good cops go, "WTF?". Management gets snake bit by these decisions and becomes timid from the precedent because of the cost. Good cops do not want bad cops in the department. It is in the best interest of everyone in the department to get rid of bad cops and union leadership needs to recognize those cases where they should not be pressing the case. In states where politicians have handed over the keys to the store to powerful unions (especially in the NE) it is next to impossible to get rid of bad cops.

"I hope you can see the difference between the trades unions and public employee unions.
Trade unions are not negotiating against the public."

I see the difference between the difference types of Unions, but my stance does not change.

From my experience working in both Union and Non Union shops, if you want good quality work and trained workers go Union. Now is this the case all the time no, but I would say 80-85% of the time.

Unions for Police and Fire are a no brainer in my opinion because someone has to be there to support the Officers. Like I said in a previous post, there are always going to be bad apples that the Union saves but the number of good officers they save out weighs it.

My opinion has always been that if you are out doing your job you are going to get complaints. Especially if you work in certain shaded areas of a topographic map of the City/County/State that you work.

This is especially true right now with all the Political pandering that is going on by our politicians and them giving the keys to their City/Counties to BLM, NAACP, Antifa etc..

Generally I have been a life-long anti-union person.

I recognize that unions were created to counter major 1900's employer abuses. Today, trade unions have outlived their usefulness now that there is government oversight of the work place.

Like one poster above stated, the need for unions/associations in government today is important (SEIU and non-public safety excepted). The major abuses in the workplace are now in the government sector and more sophisticated. The necessity for employee organizations in the public safety sector is so very obvious given today's political atmosphere. The politicians, mayors, and city council as well as a vast bureaucracy of socially conscious agencies that are out to neuter the police are growing daily. In some of the major cities, with the cooperation of the political police leadership they have.

The individual officers, local, state, or federal for the most part are individually powerless in the face of political lack of fortitude by our elected officials. I am particularly tired of hearing that the vast number of FBI Agents are good and honest law enforcement officers. If the vast majority are, then where are those that step forward in the face of such obvious criminal activity taking place in the upper echelons of their leadership (SAC and above). You can't tell me that none of them know anything.

I have come to the conclusion that today, unions may start to serve a purpose again given the threats against the rank and file of public safety workers.

Thankfully, NJ has aways had a strong union (PBA). I feel bad for those that don’t have it, no way you can protect yourself especially in these anti times.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I even think there’s a need for performance based reviews. Not quotas, but something merit based. Something where the good ones are compensated, and the mediocre self motivate or find other employment.

Some of the local agencies have played around with systems for that. None have lasted very long, for various reasons that I'm not all that clear on.

Typically, it involved a "point system", whereby various types of actions are assigned points. Not only does it give you stats to easily compare for each period, but each patrol officer is also assigned a minimum number of points required each shift, ostensibly to motivate any shitbags into doing some actual work. It's not a quota, because there's no additional points assigned for writing tickets or making arrests. Instead, it'd be something like X number of points for being dispatched to a call, Y number of points for a self-initiated action, Z number of points for assisting another officer or another agency, V number of points for taking a report, etc.

But it was really nice for us for the period that agency had that point system in place. We'd radio for an assist, and that agency's officers would be fighting over who got to come help. Because they'd get points for being dispatched and points for the agency assist, the total of which was almost an entire shift's worth of minimum points. (Plus any additional points earned by other stuff they did during the assist.)

Working in a major city PD without union protection is insane. Most big cities are run by Democraps who hate the police, without a union cops would be fed to the wolves without hesitation.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

So, what do you propose in place of a union to protect me in my place of employment?

Public policy should be set by the voters.
If you want more money, or better working conditions in some way, it's a public policy matter. Convince the public, rather than negotiating against the public.
I'm sorry if that sounds simplistic, but that's how it should work.

Unfortunately, your assessment is simplistic and it fails to address the necessity of enforcing the law for the benefit of all, instead of those with the most influence of politicians. A good example is Chicago. The leftists have had absolute control of the machine that runs the city in no small part because the same people (Democrats) are in control of the local media. If crimes occur under circumstances that demonstrate the demagogues running the city aren't doing their job, the news is either spun, under-reported (as unimportant) or non-reported. What if ethical police officers want to meet their obligations to the public by either bringing the issue to the forefront or simply conducting enforcement efforts that politicians want stopped? How do regular, working class taxpayers receive their fare share of services by law enforcement?

What if there's political intervention of police services that directly endangers taxpayers, such as when local politicians prohibited cops from intervening when Trump rally attendees were targeted by ANTIFA or businesses were targeted by looters associated with the BLM movement? In the simplistic world you advocate, the most ethical cops wouldn't be able to act, because (like in the former USSR) standing up for anything besides strict adherence to state policy (acknowledged or secret) would be dealt with harshly. Public policy should be transparent and law enforcement should be accountable, but neither of those goals can be obtained without having cops that are free to do the right thing according to the rule of law, regardless of who's been elected to set city policy at the time.

quote:

Unfortunately, your assessment is simplistic and it fails to address the necessity of enforcing the law for the benefit of all, instead of those with the most influence of politicians. A good example is Chicago. The leftists have had absolute control of the machine that runs the city in no small part because the same people (Democrats) are in control of the local media. If crimes occur under circumstances that demonstrate the demagogues running the city aren't doing their job, the news is either spun, under-reported (as unimportant) or non-reported. What if ethical police officers want to meet their obligations to the public by either bringing the issue to the forefront or simply conducting enforcement efforts that politicians want stopped?

If I understand your argument correctly officers are 'protected' by the union and able to take action or speak out against corrupt political figures in their city.
But... I don't see any evidence of reduced corruption among elected officials in Chicago (or St. Louis) because of a unionized police department.

What do you think of the arguments made in this article?


Not Public-Spirited
Government-employee unions—including those for police—put the power and interests of their workers above the public interest.

The deeper problem is that unionization and collective bargaining have made it almost impossible to bring about meaningful reform of state and local government, policing included. The consequences are huge, because the inability to reform government means that performance suffers and public trust in key institutions declines.

Collective bargaining is not fundamentally about products or services—whether public safety, education, automobiles, or anything else—but about the power and interests of workers and management. Public-sector unions are in the business of winning better salaries and benefits, protecting job security, and advancing their members’ occupational interests. Organizational incentives, and state law, ensure that union leaders prioritize these amenities.

Police and public schools are the institutions of government with which Americans most frequently engage. Police protect our most vulnerable citizens and allow communities to thrive. Schools offer opportunities for social mobility. There are thousands of heroic and devoted police officers and school teachers. But unionization and collective bargaining have enmeshed these two crucial government functions in red tape that too often protects the inept and abusive.

Collective bargaining in the public-safety and educational sectors strips government executives of the tools they need to supervise and manage their workforces effectively. Police chiefs and school principals struggle to weed out poor performers. A few bad actors can undermine an entire organizational culture.

Upholding the law presents unique challenges, and police can have adversarial relationships with the communities whom they serve. Consequently, police-union contracts contain myriad formal rules and procedures designed to protect police officers from the inevitable complaints—some justified, others not—that arise in the course of duty. Many big-city union contracts limit officer interrogation procedures after alleged wrongdoing, mandate the deletion of disciplinary records, and require cumbersome grievance proceedings.

Language spelling out these procedures often makes up the largest part of any contract—it’s roughly 20 percent of the New York City police officers’ contract, for example. These provisions allow both police unions and individual officers to challenge personnel actions by their superiors. If the matter can’t be settled by appealing up the chain of command, it is sent to binding arbitration. Arbitrators often split the difference and avoid dismissing officers. For instance, in 2018, a Seattle arbitrator reinstated—with back pay—an officer fired for punching a handcuffed, intoxicated woman. The nuisance involved in dealing with grievances, and the prospect that an appeal will reverse the outcome anyway, can dissuade supervisors from initiating discipline procedures against poor performers.

Police officers accused of misconduct are, consequently, rarely disciplined or punished insofar as investigations are long, highly regulated, and allow for frequent appeals. One study found that the worst 5 percent of officers in the Chicago Police Department accounted for a third of all civilian complaints. But few were ever disciplined or removed. Jason Van Dyke, the officer who killed an unarmed 17-year-old Laquan McDonald in 2014, was among the officers with the most civilian complaints. But he remained on active duty.

Teachers also enjoy extensive job protections that make them nearly impossible to fire. State laws and union contracts create a labyrinth of paperwork and processes. In most school districts, over 95 percent of teachers receive satisfactory ratings and get tenure (which means more job protections) after three years on the job. Many principals don’t even bother trying to dismiss bad teachers because of the costs involved. One study found that dismissing a veteran teacher for poor performance takes a minimum of two years; in Los Angeles and San Francisco, it takes at least five years.

https://www.city-journal.org/g...ions-public-interest