I want all labor to be paid appropriately, cops included.
I do not want them protected when they've violated the law, or are grossly negligent in their duties.
Can't unions negotiate for fair wages while also throwing the bad apples to the wolves?
I do not want them protected when they've violated the law, or are grossly negligent in their duties.
Can't unions negotiate for fair wages while also throwing the bad apples to the wolves?
No, not really. Its the nature of the beast that unions need to protect all their member. A noble goal with a noble origin, but it gets pretty perverted in the extreme its been taken to. For example, school union members that are no longer allowed to teach students but cannot be fired (search on cases in both LA and NYC). You would think rationality would prevail but then you run into the other problem.
Union membership totals determine power. More members, more money to lobby, which gives you more influence. There is a reason the California Correctional Peace Officers Association continues to advocate for laws that will put more people in jail.
At this point, for government workers, we as a country would be much better off without government worker's unions.
Maybe there's a smoking gun I've missed. In TX at least, I think police salaries actually are public information. Check it out: http://salaries.texastribune.org/dallas/
Those salaries look, on the whole, pretty modest overall compared to the private sector. The "CEO" of Dallas makes maybe twice what a good programmer in SF might. The median police salary is under $60K. That's a decent living, but it's far from extravagant.
That takes into account Police and Firefighter raises were suspended for a few years: http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2013/11/proposed-3-year-c...
All while the unions and collective bargaining was in place.
Which makes me think that talking about busting unions is a political sideshow to the original complaint.
If you have extreme situations like this, something is badly wrong, but removing all unions isn't the solution. Instead, add more: convince people to join a more moderate union.
But for a significant change in working conditions (which introducing cameras seems to be), then I'd expect the more moderate union to argue this too — if that's what the members want. It might take a lot of negotiation.
Usually a judge has to hear the criminal complaint first and determine if it has merit first. If there is no evidence of the complaint, the judge might decide it has no merit. If it is a false complaint there would be no evidence.
I don't think a union has the power to change how the court system works. They can protect the officer from getting fired, but the officer still has to be tried in court just like anyone else. Although grand juries are not as strict on officers as they are on other people.
I mentioned corporations not once, and this is about transparency in government.
> If you have extreme situations like this, something is badly wrong, but removing all unions isn't the solution. Instead, add more: convince people to join a more moderate union.
I would contend that there is no such thing as a moderate union in this situation. I would be curious if you had any history of "convince people to join a more moderate union"? I am inclined to think rayiner is correct and no incentive exists.
Beyond this, we are there employers and the people who pay their wages. An organization interfering with transparency and accountability does not serve the public good.
Anyway.
At my previous job, in the British public sector, there were three unions who represented the staff, and I joined the one the others in my office had joined. Initially, this was because I appreciated the support a union had given someone in my family against a bad manager. Later, I stayed in the union in support of those with much less skill than me — the union was campaigning against "zero hours" contracts¹.
A year or two ago, the government imposed significant cuts. (Contrary to a lot of posts in this thread, government budget for salaries isn't unlimited.) I found out that my union seemed to be prolonging the negotiations unnecessarily, by being needlessly difficult — submitting 1000-page documents in the last hour of a 3-month consultation, for example, which had no more content than a 5 page document on the first day. Most staff I spoke to were more interested in knowing whether their job was ending, rather than hanging on for an extra month's pay during negotiations. (We already had 1-3 month notice periods.) I left the union, and didn't join another. Several colleagues left, and joined the more reasonable union.
For another example, the RMT is the more extreme union representing London Underground employees, ASLEF is more moderate (there are others, these are the two biggest, and not all staff are in a union).
Quoting from [2], just as an example, "The RMT has attacked a fellow Tube union for failing to call strike action as part of the ongoing Night Tube dispute. The RMT accused ASLEF of being "happy" with alleged assurances that London Underground (LU) would put forward new work rosters for drivers." And just look at the language in the RMT newsletter "only resolute determination will prevail...".
RMT goes on strike much more often, and make a lot of noise about it, but most of the staff in that union are less essential (ticket checking, platform staff, etc) and the trains keep on running. The train drivers generally belong to ASLEF, which is still a powerful union, but rarely tries to defend drunk drivers or similar.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-hour_contract#United_King...
[2] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tube-strikes-rmt-attacks-train-driv...
But why would they do that? What incentive exists for them to expose themselves to possible additional legal problems if they screw up?
Isn't it the local and state governing body's responsibility to represent citizen interests.