Given that the police budget is formed by public allocation and the nature of the job I think that policy absolutely should have the ability to form unions. Being forced to work long shifts in dangerous work environments (whether dangerous to you or others) is pretty unsafe. The issue is that, whether intentionally or not, the public has bargained away some pretty valuable things over the year to the union including employment record availability and retention requirements.
That union needs some serious reform and it isn't going to come from the inside, but there are some really good reasons for police to have good bargaining power.
Honestly, this probably all comes back to the US massively underfunding public services as a general rule - if the policing budget had been slashed like the education budget regularly is then we'd have nothing but vigilantes in the police force.
I take it a step further and reject all public sector unions. Teachers, cops, firemen, dog catchers, you name it.
There’s just too many perverse incentives for politicians to give in to union demands in exchange for buying votes. Unlike the private sector, the ones agreeing to the union demands care little about the long term costs associated since they’re not the ones paying them.
Teachers are alot more likely to be single issue voters over important aspects of their job than parents will be about things they might not even know about, I'd imagine
I don't understand. Unions, private or public, represent a massive special interest voting bloc. Instead of "I will be able to directly raise your pay if you vote for me" it's "I will directly benefit your company/industry if you vote for me".
Why do you think Mitch McConnell cares so much about coal?
The argument that cops are not workers, in a Marxist sense, is because they work to protect the interests of capital, rather than do "productive" work that is useful to the rest of the working class.
It's not a broadly held view, even among communists.
As a worker I appreciate the fact that when I was burgled a decade ago there was someone to call to inform about the burglary.
I also very much appreciate the fact that "having police" (even vaguely, and even ineffective ones) is a pretty good deterrent to (most) random folks murdering other folks[1].
There is a hell of a lot wrong with American policing but they do productive work just like managers (that don't produce anything themselves) and HR and all the other "non-productives" people like to point out. I think it's perfectly fair to question just how much value police (and other "non-productives") are actually producing and a lot of businesses could do with trimming a bit of labour out of middle management - but there are reasons these jobs exist and they can add a lot to team and societal productivity.
1. I don't ascribe to theories on anarchist utopias where if everyone can kill everyone else no one does out of politeness, I've played Rust.
What did informing the cops about the burglary do, precisely?
One specific feature (at least in the US) is that a police report is required for an insurance claim - but there's no fundamental reason this system requires a police report, as opposed to, say, a sworn statement to a clerk of court or a public prosecutor. And even so, that's about getting some form of recompense after the crime happened, not stopping the crime (the burglary still happened to you, did it not?).
Along the same lines, I don't believe that the presence of the police prevents people from killing others. I certainly believe that the presence of the legal system does, by imposing strong penalties against murder. I'd believe that detective / investigative work (which a small fraction of the work the police do now, yes) aids the legal system by making those penalties actually happen. But I think you will find that there are very few potential murders where a cop is around and able to respond (by shooting first, I guess?) in time to prevent the murder from happening.
Even if you think of the favorable portrayal of cops in, say, Law and Order, they're generally investigating a crime that already happened, and it's pretty rare that they end up in a position by the end of the episode to stop a crime in progress and find themselves in a shootout.
> What did informing the cops about the burglary do, precisely?
It mostly just made me feel better - the chances of recovering items after a theft or burglary is nearly nil. However, after having my home invaded by a stranger and my personal belongings rifled through it was quite cathartic to report the crime, give all the information I could to try and make sure the criminals were eventually caught, and help restore my sanity by just seeing a system in place for these issues.
I received no recompense for the crime and, at the time, I wasn't insured, but I was also dirt poor and didn't have much to lose except my privacy.
On the topic of murders I agree that detectives and investigators are the ones that will end up catching murderers and beat/patrol police do very little to apprehend criminals but they do make the system dramatically more visible and do a lot to de-escalate situations[1] from becoming as dangerous. The chances that you will be mid-being-murdered and be rescued by the police are nearly zero - the chances that someone who may have murdered you decides not to do so is more significant and, I think, aided by a visible patrol police force - even if they don't significantly contribute to resolving justice.
So I both agree with you that police are pretty useless when it comes to dealing with crimes after the fact - but disagree with you about their general efficacy. They should exist to de-escalate situations before they become real problems and make visible the rules of society that we should all abide by.
Oh, this is all very much my opinion so I've not got a lot of sources or references to pull on as to how to make police into a force that does that.
1. In this point I'm speaking as a now-Canadian - I don't really feel qualified to speak on the US system as 1) I'm white and 2) I haven't lived there in over a decade. So please do excuse this statement if you (the reader) have personally suffered unreasonable escalation of force.
What a profoundly disconnected notion of what police do. Stopping violence and reckless behavior (e.g. driving drunk) has nothing to do with protecting the interests of capital.
Well I think the issue is that the policing unions form state and national agreements but local governments are left to negotiate on their own. The DOJ (or something at the national level) really needs more oversight when it comes to policing so that we can have collectivized bargaining on both sides. Local councils can't realistically stand up to police unions in a meaningful way since the national charter can drop a ton of money on elections to get troublesome members ousted... Again, another side effect of terrible election finance laws.
The situation with police union contracts in the US is so bad I think it will lead to courts needing to overturn them as they are not in the public interest.
That union needs some serious reform and it isn't going to come from the inside, but there are some really good reasons for police to have good bargaining power.
Honestly, this probably all comes back to the US massively underfunding public services as a general rule - if the policing budget had been slashed like the education budget regularly is then we'd have nothing but vigilantes in the police force.