Hacker News Reader

Comment by monero-xmr | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> Where I live there is a contingent of hardcore anarchists who spray paint ACAB in the parks and generally act like assholes. No one likes these people

Incidentally, if you strike the 'spray paint ACAB' part from this, the description is pretty apt for the referenced group too.

> But a POLICE UNION??? shocked pikachu face

Yes, I cannot for the life of me imagine why people who make coffee organizing might be supported whereas people who largely have a monopoly on violence against the population might not be.

> Incidentally, if you strike the 'spray paint ACAB' part from this, the description is pretty apt for the referenced group too.

Sometimes you can just substitute it with something like "spray tear gas" and it works as well.

Warehouse workers are at a power disadvantage against their employers. Same with teachers, restaurant employees, etc etc etc. The police on the other hand start out in a position of elevated power and enjoy privileges such as qualified immunity from prosecution.

The two things you’re comparing are not equal, not even close.

How do you figure teachers differ?

Are you asking how teachers differ from the police, or how teacher unions differ from police unions?

I didn't think the former of these needed to be answered at all, and the latter is also relatively self-explanatory.

What makes the power differential between teachers and their employers different from the police and their employers?

The romans have never asked "who watches the teachers?"

But the school systems did, if the growth of administrative positions has anything to say about it.

This is a generic development from the Parkinson's law, nothing teacher specific. :)

Look what happened to them, big mistake.

In fairness, this is linguistic sleight of hand; police unions aren't actually unions.[1]

[1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/why-police-unions-a...

No. This article literally says: I don't like police unions, they vote for Republicana, therefore they are different.

Again, getting distracted by the language. Consider the actual point, which is the comparison to organizations we normally think of as unions.

You define unions as "left orgs". I define unions as "orgs that protect collective rigths of the employees".

They are unions. Stop this nonsense.

It's pretty straightforward. A labor union exists to enage in mediated conflict with the employers of its members. The employers of police are the citizens they're supposed to be serving. From there, it's pretty clear that police unions and citizens are at odds, basically by definition. Since the police are already given wide berth in the law, thanks to things like qualified immunity and civil forfeiture, why do they need additional legal defense in the form of labor unions? In fact they don't, and that's why police unions are almost universally fraternal organizations instead of actual labor unions.

By the same logic anyone employed by the government (which is the vast majority of union workers) should not be allowed to join unions. FDR himself even said as much -

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/aug/14/scott-walk...

A lot of logical leaps and tortured arguments to prevent the police from organizing for their own benefit

Your adjectives don't really refute any arguments, though. Personally I'm ambivalent regarding whether police should have unions, but being derisive about someone's reasoning isn't really a platform.

This is a bad faith argument. Not all government employees have the ability to do violence directly on others in the name of the state.

> A labor union exists to enage in mediated conflict with the employers of its members. The employers of police are the citizens they're supposed to be serving. From there, it's pretty clear that police unions and citizens are at odds, basically by definition.

This quote says nothing about violence, and it's what they were responding to, so no it wasn't a bad faith argument.

The quote is selective, and leaves out the part about qualified immunity, which is absolutely police protection from the consequences of violence.

Shockingly, unions full of people who eagerly serve capital, regularly engage in strike-breaking, and are otherwise disconnected from or actively hostile to the labor movement at large aren't well-liked by advocates of working class solidarity.

Do you like that police unions provide cover for police misconduct? Guess what, progressives don't. Just because something bills itself as a union doesn't mean progressives are compelled to like it.

Also, I consider a union part of the labor movement. The police are not part of a countries productive output, they are not labor.

Because the two are very much unlike each other, despite the word union in title. This really sounds like bad faith facile argument to ignore actual issues at hand.

Hey can you point out which unions consistently protect pedos & wifebeaters, and often even elect them to positions of great authority?

No, police unions dont hire police PR. The PR people are employees paid by taxpayers just like all other cops. We pay to be lied and bullshited to.

Tell me you have no idea what unions are for, without saying it explicitly.

Also why bring in the anarchists? I dont see the connection, feels like a cheap way to attack "the progressives" Just because you feel insulted personally.

By the way nice username, anarchists would appreciate it, cops a bit less.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com