Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelbuckbee | Hacker News Reader

One proposed tactic has been that either cops need to hold individual "malpractice" insurance (like doctors) or that settlements need to come out of the union retirement fund.

View on HN

This already happens.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712606977/how-the-insurance-i...

> cops need to hold individual "malpractice" insurance (like doctors) or that settlements need to come out of the union retirement fund

The insurance idea is stupid. It will just end up being bought by the union, removing the individual incentive component, and added as a line item the next time pay negotiations come up.

But underwriters don't necessarily need to insure every officer, and not every officer will be insured the same. If they are deemed too risky, it doesn't matter if the union is backing their premiums or not -- if they don't have insurance, they can't work (or can't do fieldwork or something).

The union could adopt an "all or none" policy with the insurance company, and then if an individual officer is barred by the insurer, the union will be telling all officers (and management) "sorry, insurance won't cover us, can't come in to work until it is sorted."

> underwriters don't necessarily need to insure every officer, and not every officer will be insured the same

They don't need to, but that's not how insurance is sold. Unions collectively buy and negotiate benefits for their members. And a requirement from the union would be, no doubt, universal coverage and pricing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com