• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The need to abolish Police unions

Fishking said:
Unions end up being motivated to protect themselves and grow, no matter what. They will protect even bad workers because if they can protect the bad ones than then the less bad will also be save, and so on. Now, for a business this means a less productive workforce, but in the case of police, it means people getting killed when they shouldn't have.

To answer your question more succinctly, it would help bring better quality-control measures to the police force.
Click to expand...

You can best 'bring better quality-control measures to the police force' by paying more and attracting better people. You pay security-guard wages, you get security-guard people.
See, in a capitalism you get paid according to the value of what you produce. In some cases thast's an easy calculation, but in cases like police and teachers, not so easy. Who puts the value on what they produce? Elected officials and bureaucrats. People with a vested interest in keeping the wages low. The results of that are in the newspapers every day.
Those unions are needed, not because of the people in the union but because of the people in charge of them.
 
Grand Mal said:
You can best 'bring better quality-control measures to the police force' by paying more and attracting better people. You pay security-guard wages, you get security-guard people.
See, in a capitalism you get paid according to the value of what you produce. In some cases thast's an easy calculation, but in cases like police and teachers, not so easy. Who puts the value on what they produce? Elected officials and bureaucrats. People with a vested interest in keeping the wages low. The results of that are in the newspapers every day.
Those unions are needed, not because of the people in the union but because of the people in charge of them.
Click to expand...

Police get paid pretty good, and have very good benefits and compensation packages. My buddy was a Baltimore City LEO and he'd make over 100K. I mean, they get paid better than our military, have as good of medical coverage, better benefits package and retirement, yet our military doesn't have a union.

But again, Unions exist to protect and grown the union. This results in them protecting, and keeping, the worst of them because if they can protect the worst than the rest of them are safe.
 
Their wages aren't determined by their value. Their wages are determined by supply and demand. There's a huge candidate pool of good teachers and cops at market. There's no need to skew the market artificially by unions.

Public unions don't need to exist and shouldn't exist. They bargain over public money to the detriment of the public.


Grand Mal said:
You can best 'bring better quality-control measures to the police force' by paying more and attracting better people. You pay security-guard wages, you get security-guard people.
See, in a capitalism you get paid according to the value of what you produce. In some cases thast's an easy calculation, but in cases like police and teachers, not so easy. Who puts the value on what they produce? Elected officials and bureaucrats. People with a vested interest in keeping the wages low. The results of that are in the newspapers every day.
Those unions are needed, not because of the people in the union but because of the people in charge of them.
Click to expand...
 
holbritter said:
No, they represent the employees of the government. State, local and federal. How does it screw the public?
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read the article? Obviously no, if you had you would know that police unions have put hundreds of cops back on the job who have committed felonious crimes against the citizens. Why is this happening? Because the unions support the GOVERNMENT WORKERS and do not give a damn about the safety of the public. Why do the elected officials not do something to protect the citizens? Because the criminal protecting unions own the elected officials outright and control who gets elected and who does not.

Bottom line, if you want to continue with a third world corrupt system that victimizes the public then keep the unions, if you want government that represents the interests of the public then abolish the unions. It is that simple.
 
jdog said:
Did you bother to read the article? Obviously no, if you had you would know that police unions have put hundreds of cops back on the job who have committed felonious crimes against the citizens. Why is this happening? Because the unions support the GOVERNMENT WORKERS and do not give a damn about the safety of the public. Why do the elected officials not do something to protect the citizens? Because the criminal protecting unions own the elected officials outright and control who gets elected and who does not.

Bottom line, if you want to continue with a third world corrupt system that victimizes the public then keep the unions, if you want government that represents the interests of the public then abolish the unions. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

No, it's not that simple. What do you think there is just one Union for all government employees? You have no idea what you're talking about. The cops have their own Union and that Union has nothing to do with other unions. So to say abolish them all is ridiculous.
 
jdog said:
Exactly! The public unions OWN the elected officials who sell their souls to them to get the campaign contributions to get elected. They bend the public over and tag team them. There are only two sides the government and the public, and the public is getting hosed.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between public and private unions in this regard? The union vote is one of the identifiable voting blocks in the states, regardless of whether it's public or private sector. If this is your primary concern, you'll need to outlaw all forms of lobbying... I mean, I guess I get your concern about in influence groups have over government, I just don't understand how you think the police union or any other public sector union is in a different league...
 
holbritter said:
No, it's not that simple. What do you think there is just one Union for all government employees? You have no idea what you're talking about. The cops have their own Union and that Union has nothing to do with other unions. So to say abolish them all is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Who are you? A lobbyist for public unions? Public unions work in opposition to the good of the public, so you are obviously in favor of putting the government employees above the good of the public.
 
OlNate said:
What is the difference between public and private unions in this regard? The union vote is one of the identifiable voting blocks in the states, regardless of whether it's public or private sector. If this is your primary concern, you'll need to outlaw all forms of lobbying... I mean, I guess I get your concern about in influence groups have over government, I just don't understand how you think the police union or any other public sector union is in a different league...
Click to expand...

There is a very big difference, private unions are opposed by the management and legal teams of the companies and corporations with whom they deal. Public unions are unopposed and are working against the good of the public without the public being represented or protected.
 
jdog said:
Who are you? A lobbyist for public unions? Public unions work in opposition to the good of the public, so you are obviously in favor of putting the government employees above the good of the public.
Click to expand...

No they do not. How do they work in opposition to the good of the public?? That's just nonsense. Aside from the PBA Union, which is what is originally being complained about, how in the world is it? And aren't the employees part of the public as well? They use the same public services, their roads are plowed the same, they go to the same DMV offices, use the same county clerks office and building inspectors.

So tell me how a public Union that represents the DMV clerks and those employees In the places I mentioned are in opposition to the public.
 
jdog said:
There is a very big difference, private unions are opposed by the management and legal teams of the companies and corporations with whom they deal. Public unions are unopposed and are working against the good of the public without the public being represented or protected.
Click to expand...

You don't think the government has legal teams or opposes public unions? Must work very differently down there...
 
holbritter said:
No they do not. How do they work in opposition to the good of the public?? That's just nonsense. Aside from the PBA Union, which is what is originally being complained about, how in the world is it? And aren't the employees part of the public as well? They use the same public services, their roads are plowed the same, they go to the same DMV offices, use the same county clerks office and building inspectors.

So tell me how a public Union that represents the DMV clerks and those employees In the places I mentioned are in opposition to the public.
Click to expand...

Holbritter, clearly if you disagree with the OP, you are in the employ of the public unions, and should excuse yourself from this discussion... :doh
 
holbritter said:
No they do not. How do they work in opposition to the good of the public?? That's just nonsense.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. It is literally 100% true. Who else would public sector unions be against? The public. The public is forced to pay taxes to fund the government. Public sector unions want as much of that as possible.

And aren't the employees part of the public as well?
Click to expand...

No. The topic is unionized government employees vs. everyone else. They have no incentive to keep the taxes and rates that are used to pay them low. They have every incentive to make them as high as possible.

So tell me how a public Union that represents the DMV clerks and those employees In the places I mentioned are in opposition to the public.
Click to expand...

In every inherent way imaginable. The public has the money, and they want it. All of it. Now. In exchange for nothing.
 
Neomalthusian said:
No it isn't. It is literally 100% true. Who else would public sector unions be against? The public. The public is forced to pay taxes to fund the government. Public sector unions want as much of that as possible.



No. The topic is unionized government employees vs. everyone else. They have no incentive to keep the taxes and rates that are used to pay them low. They have every incentive to make them as high as possible.



In every inherent way imaginable. The public has the money, and they want it. All of it. Now. In exchange for nothing.
Click to expand...



I don't believe you are serious. Have a good day.
 
holbritter said:
I don't believe you are serious. Have a good day.
Click to expand...

How can I not be serious? This is right in line with how FDR felt about unionized government, and FDR was our most liberal president.
 
holbritter said:
No they do not. How do they work in opposition to the good of the public?? That's just nonsense. Aside from the PBA Union, which is what is originally being complained about, how in the world is it? And aren't the employees part of the public as well? They use the same public services, their roads are plowed the same, they go to the same DMV offices, use the same county clerks office and building inspectors.

So tell me how a public Union that represents the DMV clerks and those employees In the places I mentioned are in opposition to the public.
Click to expand...

So tell me genius, who exactly is representing the interests of the public in negotiations with the public unions?
 
OlNate said:
You don't think the government has legal teams or opposes public unions? Must work very differently down there...
Click to expand...

The government is OWNED by the public unions... don't you have any clue whatsoever? The most powerful lobby in any State Capitol is the Public Unions.
 
jdog said:
The government is OWNED by the public unions... don't you have any clue whatsoever? The most powerful lobby in any State Capitol is the Public Unions.
Click to expand...

Well that's what I was trying to clarify. Because up here the government regularly fights with the public unions, and very often wins. As I said in the post you quoted, must work very differently down there. But, hey, by all means jump to the conclusion I don't have any clue whatsoever. Just makes me wuv u more, u big ol cuddly teddy bear. :lol:
 
OlNate said:
Well that's what I was trying to clarify. Because up here the government regularly fights with the public unions, and very often wins. As I said in the post you quoted, must work very differently down there. But, hey, by all means jump to the conclusion I don't have any clue whatsoever. Just makes me wuv u more, u big ol cuddly teddy bear. :lol:
Click to expand...

I did not realize you were Canadian, the way it works here is that the "elected officials" who are supposed to be looking out for the best interest of the citizens can only be elected with the financial support of "campaign contributors". The largest campaign contributors are Unions and Corporations who can spend millions putting whom ever they want in office.
So you see, the elected officials are owned by the Unions when it comes to government contracts, pensions, and so forth.
No one represents the good of the public or the State or Municipality. They simply keep raising taxes on the public.
Why do you think we have cities and whole states here now that are financially insolvent because they have promised million dollar retirement packages to public employees. It is a completely corrupt system.
 
jdog said:
I did not realize you were Canadian, the way it works here is that the "elected officials" who are supposed to be looking out for the best interest of the citizens can only be elected with the financial support of "campaign contributors". The largest campaign contributors are Unions and Corporations who can spend millions putting whom ever they want in office.
So you see, the elected officials are owned by the Unions when it comes to government contracts, pensions, and so forth.
No one represents the good of the public or the State or Municipality. They simply keep raising taxes on the public.
Why do you think we have cities and whole states here now that are financially insolvent because they have promised million dollar retirement packages to public employees. It is a completely corrupt system.
Click to expand...

Ok, cool, first of all, thanks for being nice to this poor Canuck.

And that's not that different, at first glance, than how it goes up here. Unions, public or private, can lobby the government, and do represent a significant power because they can influence their members on how to vote - though I'm not sure how much of that is driven by investment or bribery, depending on how you look at it.

I think what was confusing to me before (sorry, it has been a while since I posted on this, and I'm feeling a bit lazy and ADD-ish tonight, so not really feeling like going back and reading everything in this thread), was how public unions are different from private unions, as it seemed there was a distinction being made. However in re-reading it (ok, I re-read it, ya got me), it appears that the distinction is that you think corporations will do a better job of standing up to unions, because they have to turn a profit, while government will simply raise the taxes to accommodate the union's demands. (Am I getting that right?) I see that as being frustrating, but the potential for that exists up here as well, and yet union pandering is a big no no at election time, and something that the incumbent has to deal with huge pressure from the challengers on, so they tend to seek fair balances, if anything is yielded to the unions at all. Doesn't always work out that way, but part of the union's mandate is to protect their members, so I'm thinking they wouldn't have much of a membership if they weren't successful some of the time.

I guess my only question is, how is that things are so different down there? Bigger budgets to buy off government officials, because of bigger memberships down there?
 
OlNate said:
Ok, cool, first of all, thanks for being nice to this poor Canuck.

And that's not that different, at first glance, than how it goes up here. Unions, public or private, can lobby the government, and do represent a significant power because they can influence their members on how to vote - though I'm not sure how much of that is driven by investment or bribery, depending on how you look at it.

I think what was confusing to me before (sorry, it has been a while since I posted on this, and I'm feeling a bit lazy and ADD-ish tonight, so not really feeling like going back and reading everything in this thread), was how public unions are different from private unions, as it seemed there was a distinction being made. However in re-reading it (ok, I re-read it, ya got me), it appears that the distinction is that you think corporations will do a better job of standing up to unions, because they have to turn a profit, while government will simply raise the taxes to accommodate the union's demands. (Am I getting that right?) I see that as being frustrating, but the potential for that exists up here as well, and yet union pandering is a big no no at election time, and something that the incumbent has to deal with huge pressure from the challengers on, so they tend to seek fair balances, if anything is yielded to the unions at all. Doesn't always work out that way, but part of the union's mandate is to protect their members, so I'm thinking they wouldn't have much of a membership if they weren't successful some of the time.

I guess my only question is, how is that things are so different down there? Bigger budgets to buy off government officials, because of bigger memberships down there?
Click to expand...

You have it exactly, I think the only difference is here they passed a law giving corporations the same rights as citizens which they use to say that corporations, (of which unions are also) can spend unlimited amounts on campaign contributions and claim it is their expression of freedom of speech. What it is in reality is legalized bribery which takes power over government away from the people and makes government 100% accountable to the people who pay them which is the corporations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom