Defund the Police?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

FWIW I don't believe public sector unions should exist since public servants are paid for by the taxpayer. Civil service rules and lawsuits can protect them from wrongful termination.

Private unions in companies are different. Unions get too powerful and stupid then the companies go to Mexico and China (see steel and auto industry). There is then a check and balance.

Not so in public sector unions as in society Cops, fire folks and teachers we got to have and so they should not be allowed to strike or organize IMO.

In any event the Police Unions do share the blame for bad cops getting away with murder (literally) and have helped to create the ruinous "Blue wall of silence."

Want to reform police? Bust and neuter the unions as a first step. Then demilitarize them.

 

[heyjoe]

FWIW I don't believe public sector unions should exist since public servants are paid for by the taxpayer. Civil service rules and lawsuits can protect them from wrongful termination.

Private unions in companies are different. Unions get too powerful and stupid then the companies go to Mexico and China (see steel and auto industry). There is then a check and balance.

Not so in public sector unions as in society Cops, fire folks and teachers we got to have and so they should not be allowed to strike or organize IMO.

In any event the Police Unions do share the blame for bad cops getting away with murder (literally) and have helped to create the ruinous "Blue wall of silence."

Want to reform police? Bust and neuter the unions as a first step. Then demilitarize them.

I know you have said that three times now. Repeating it over and over doesnt make your view or opinion any more valid than it was before. Its all just your political philosophy not a universal truth.

I happen to support the first amendment as well as the second amendment. Freedom of Association. You seem to have a problem with it.

 

[ghbucky]

Here's why public sector unions need to be broken up.

The unions collect dues from the membership (which is taxpayer $$ in the first place) then the union turns around and uses those funds to support political candidates getting into office.

When it comes time for collective bargaining, the unions sit down across the table to 'negotiate' with the candidate that they got elected. What do you think the result is?

So, now you have taxpayer funds funneled into political campaigns that then result in taxpayer money granting raises to union membership. And round and round it goes.

It is a corrupt system that needs to die a very quick death.

 

[Metal god]

At what point in history did law enforcement start having better weapons then the citizens ? Was it the NFA or sooner . I’ve never thought the police should be better armed then the citizens are “allowed” to be . What was the point of Posse comiTatus ? Was it strictly about federal government , I mean I know it was but what was the reasoning for the law ? It seems at least part of it would be that the federal government could acquire an arm the military better then any militia could . So they made sure the federal government couldn’t bring all of its resources to bear on the citizens militias ???

Example of LEO being exempt , here in CA just about every new gun law/restriction has an exception for law enforcement. One of the laws I dislike the most is the firearms safe act . Which created a roster of aproved handguns that are deemed safe by passing certain safety test ( drop test , external safeties , mag disconnects etc ) They grandfathered a bunch in but this was years ago . Back when Glock gen 3 was new . Any newer glocks must pass the new test to be aproved . Wait there’s more , they base it off the model number and not the design . Meaning if glock comes out with a gen 3 with a new color . That is considered a new gun even though it’s the exact same gun that’s aproved just purple instead of black so it’s deemed unsafe for CA . Unless it passes the new test which 90% of all manufacturers don’t design their guns to pass California law they are designed to be legal in the 49 other states . Which means several manufacturers don’t even sell handguns in California . No Colts only a couple Ruger’s and only certain models of Glocks , 1st gen XD etc because they don’t want to make two completely different designs just so they can sell in California .

All these guns that are not approved are considered unsafe for us citizens to own but LEO are exempt and can buy any handgun on the market . Wait these guns are UNSAFE to be in CA yet they let the police carry them in public every day ???

CA has a new law in committee right now that is going to require micro stamping to be an aproved safety test and every new gun aproved for the list of allowable handguns in CA , 3 previously approved guns must come off the list .

 

[ghbucky]

If I'm not mistaken, cops are now carrying full auto M4s.

 

[heyjoe]

Here's why public sector unions need to be broken up.

The unions collect dues from the membership (which is taxpayer $$ in the first place) then the union turns around and uses those funds to support political candidates getting into office.

When it comes time for collective bargaining, the unions sit down across the table to 'negotiate' with the candidate that they got elected. What do you think the result is?

So, now you have taxpayer funds funneled into political campaigns that then result in taxpayer money granting raises to union membership. And round and round it goes.

It is a corrupt system that needs to die a very quick death.

So when you perform work and get paid for what you do, even after the money passes from your company to you and its in your bank account, its still the companies money?

Once a public employee gets paid its their money not the taxpayers money anymore. They can spend it as they see fit.

Your logic is flawed.

 

[44 AMP]

Don't confuse the concept of unions and collective bargaining with the exploitation of the system as currently practiced.

It could be done better. It should be done better, but sadly when there is money involved, so is human greed.

 

[PocketCamera]

Unread August 20, 2020, 07:32 PM #129
Mainah
Senior Member

Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 925
We are world leaders in terms of incarcerations: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...0-inhabitants/

We are outsourcing corrections to the private sector, so this is now a profit center. If the folks who want to defund the police could do a better job of articulating this problem I think we might be able to have a real conversation.

I saw a local officer pull his cruiser over the other day and jump out to play football with some kids on the street. I think this is a policy issue that got perverted into a debate about police.

Quote:
Who would you then have go against the well-armed international drug cartels who, in today's world, have no problem with killing cops? Do we keep a separate military/National Guard/State Police unit for that action?
The cartels wouldn't have the funds to create their own armies if the demand here for their drugs wasn't so gigantic. Ignoring that part of the issue while engaging in an arms race with them won't end well.

incarceration based on laws. Like back in the 1980s when they passed laws with mandatory terms on crack cocaine possession and dealing. People new that if they had it or sold it, they would get mandatory jail terms. The people who got arrested had no respect for the consequences, just a respect that they could buy 5 ounces of crack for x and go to a different city and sell it for x+40%..

the fact that alot of blacks and hispanics went to jail over mandatory jail terms for crack cocaine possession was a result of refusing to follow the law, NOT racism as they like to claim. Alot of whites went to jail, but i have a feeling white guys caught with a mandatory 2 year prison sentence in their pocket were willing to name the dealer to get a reduced sentence from the prosecution side. That "squealing" defeats the "street cred" for the gang life stylers... who have been doing decades in jail for possession.

The problem started in the 1960s with several things happening.

the ACLU getting involved with Miranda rights, "requirements" that each police officer had to meet in order for ANY evidence to be admissable in court.

did you know that state game wardens/DNR officers have more rights of search and seizure then regular police?

then you have the Onion Field incident in California, then toss in the mandatory hiring of females, reduction in size and physical ability requirements for police, toss in over time mandatory college educations to do what in 1970 took a mere 6 month training program..

you get social workers with guns and powers of arrest. what do you expect when you give a PHD with no actual ability to understand anything but their political education from the unions?

No one screams when an elderly white woman is tasered for not gettign out of a vehicle fast enough. An elderly white male farmer was pulled off his tractor DURING A PARADE and tasered by police for not moving fast enough..

no one complained, no one rioted.

but when a black guy resists arrest, takes a taser from a cop and tries to run, and gets shot for it, whole cities are put to the torch.

explain that to me?for almost 40 years black and hispanic gang bangers have been killing each other for shoes to go buy drugs with, or because "they drove on MY street while wearing the wrong gang hat style. so i gotta go kill them"

the black population has done NOTHING to deal with that issue, its a common joke that when a black or hispanic gang commits a crime in their own neighborhood, like a triple homicide at high noon in front of 70 witness, every witness was somehow in the bathroom and saw nothing.. yet those 70 people blame the white people and the police for not arresting the criminals who done the killing..

 

[ghbucky]

So when you perform work and get paid for what you do, even after the money passes from your company to you and its in your bank account, its still the companies money?

Once a public employee gets paid its their money not the taxpayers money anymore. They can spend it as they see fit.

Your logic is flawed.

So, taxpayers are on the hook to have their money fund political candidates that then give more taxpayer money away?

And my logic is flawed?

 

[Targa]

If I'm not mistaken, cops are now carrying full auto M4s.

Yes, you are mistaken. They are semi auto’s and the catalyst that pushed law enforcement to carry long guns were events like the north Hollywood bank shootout in 97’.

 

[heyjoe]

So, taxpayers are on the hook to have their money fund political candidates that then give more taxpayer money away?

And my logic is flawed?

Yes your logic is flawed. It is not taxpayer money anymore once the employee is paid. Period.

 

[Metal god]

Yes your logic is flawed. It is not taxpayer money anymore once the employee is paid. Period.

Although true , there has to be some irony that the union bargain's to get more tax payer money for the officers which results in the union getting more money from those same officers . If I recall most if not all unions don't have a policy to pay what you can . There is a set amount you must pay to be apart of the union correct ? Therefore the more money they get you the more money you will pay or are able to pay . I'm not sure either one of you're guys arguments are flawed . YMMV

 

[ghbucky]

What isn't open to logical discussion is the fact that public unions screw the taxpayers.

Anyone that denies this has a vested interest in continuing that system.

 

[Metal god]

What isn't open to logical discussion is the fact that public unions screw the taxpayers.

Although I believe I've agreed with most of what you've been saying , I don't agree with that quote . The union is negotiating with someone/thing . That someone/thing must agree to the proposal in order to have a contract . The tax payers are screwed by there representatives not the union .

 

[44 AMP]

If I recall most if not all unions don't have a policy to pay what you can . There is a set amount you must pay to be apart of the union correct ?

The Union I was in for over 30 years wasn't a police union, (different line of work entirely) and dues were 2 hours wages per month. If your pay increased the union got more $ but it was still 2 hours wages per month.

Interestingly, you didn't have to belong to the union to work there, BUT you still paid the "agency fee" which was, 2 hrs wages per month. (and yes it went to the union) the difference was that if you went agency fee, you didn't get a vote in union elections and the union was not obligated to defend you in any dispute. If you were a member, they were, and did.

The tax payers are screwed by their representatives not the union .

You got it! If the employer is the govt, and there is a CONTRACT (meaning both sides agreed on it) then any "screwing" of the taxpayers is the result of taxpayer paid people (in govt) agreeing to screw the taxpayers.

One of the big issues I have with unions is them being involved in politics. And while I realize this has been going on for as long as we've had unions, I don't think its a good thing, and its a bad thing when unions move beyond "locals" and into "internationals".

My union always told me to vote Democrat, despite the fact that the local (state) Dems were working hard to put me out of a job. And, despite the fact that I didn't agree with that, or any of their other positions, the union spent member (my) money supporting them, because the International union said to do it. The problem is the "big" unions have chosen a political side, and ignore member's wishes when they are different. But that's a different topic, so lets leave it there...

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Public Sector Unions and Private Company Unions are vastly different and the difference is obvious to even a casual observer.

With Public Sector Unions I (the taxpayer) am on the hook for their cost.

I am not on the hook for Private Union costs as I can opt out.

There is no such choice with public sector unions with cops, fire and teachers. I have to pay regardless. I can't opt out.

If private sector unions negotiate deals that make their respective industries more expensive to operate, and thus their products more expensive, consumers have the right to buy less, or to go elsewhere to get what they want. This is what happened to the Steel and Auto industries. When dealing with the private sector, unions generally have some incentive not to overreach to the point where their employer goes out of business. No such check with Public Sector Unions

Unions protect incompetent and criminal employees and drive up the price of labor unrelated to benefit received. They exist ONLY to protect their members and NOT the public at large. They have no place in our government.

Police Unions have enabled a ruinous code of conduct in many police departments that pressure good officers to endure bad and even criminal officers in their midst.

Police union neutering is part of what Police reform MUST have to be successful.

In addition the qualified immunity also needs to be redone and reduced.

We just have to face this and make these changes thoughtfully or the mobs will make them worse.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Yes your logic is flawed. It is not taxpayer money anymore once the employee is paid. Period.

But it was forced (at the point of a gun) from the taxpayer to the public servant so yes it is taxpayer money. Plus, until recently with the Janus decision even NON-UNION employees had to pay into the kitty and the individual union member has no choice where that money is spent on political contributions.

This is a gross conflict of interest and moral hazard for public sector unions to give money to political candidates that then decide their pay. Pretty basic stuff.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The tax payers are screwed by their representatives not the union.

Who were elected with contributions from said unions. See how it works?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What isn't open to logical discussion is the fact that public unions screw the taxpayers.

Anyone that denies this has a vested interest in continuing that system.

Without taking a side in the argument, I'll just throw out that any topic is (or should be) open to logical discussion. The way logical discussion works is: one side presents an argument, then the other side attempts to dismantle or refute the opening argument using ... logic, and facts. Then the opening side gets to rebut the counter-argument, and then the counter-argument gets to rebut the rebuttal.

It's called a "debate," and to state to any position is not open to debate is IMHO saying that freedom of speech and freedom of thought no longer apply in the United States. Your position is that public unions "screw the taxpayers." You didn't offer a scintilla of evidence to support this position, yet you state categorically that this position is correct and not susceptible to any dissent based on logic.

Sorry. I have no love for public unions, but your approach here is deeply flawed. You might start by explaining how it is that (in your opinion) public unions screw the taxpayers.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

how it is that (in your opinion) public unions screw the taxpayers.

When government employees negotiate added salary and benefits (with those officials who their union dues helped elect), those who are not directly employed by the government—which is to say, the vast majority of taxpayers—can't really opt out. So one of three things has to happen: 1) Taxes are raised to pay for the added compensation costs. 2) Services are cut in order to pay for the additional compensation. 3) The additional compensation isn't ever paid—a situation that usually comes with, at minimum, some sort of minor political drama, if not a serious showdown. This is why the power of public sector unions is such a big deal: When they negotiate better benefits, the majority of taxpayers usually end up forced to bear the cost, somehow, whether they want to or not. With private sector unions, that's not necessarily the case.