[bumby]

>Police unions

Public unions seem to be a special case and, while I generally support unions, I can understand the perspective that public unions bring about specific problems.

E.g., a strong bargaining chip for a union is the right to strike. The idea that a public service can strike creates problems. As another example, I witnessed changes in competition and economics force auto unions to compromise for the business to remain solvent; in the public sphere there is not the same competitive pressure.

[h4n1]

Another reason police unions are entirely different, even from other public sector unions, is that the police are used to break strikes. They're structurally antagonistic to every other part of the labour movement.

[bumby]

This is right, but the national guard are often used as well. I alluded to these points in a comment below before noticing that you posted this first.

I would caveat it to say they are used to break illegal strikes, which I think is an important distinction. Their job is to uphold the law, regardless of the side that labor is aligned.

[Geezus-42]

The main problem with the police union (in the US) is that they have been able to repeatedly stop officers who have done horrible things from being fired or even truly punished (paid leave is not punishment).

[FireBeyond]

People often say "there should be a register of police offers nationwide that records officers who were terminated for cause, resigned in lieu of termination, etc."

And there is.

But in the very vast majority of police departments, the CBA with the police union prohibits the use of this register for hiring decisions.

[bumby]

>CBA with the police union prohibits the use of this register

Have they explicitly state why? It seems strange to the uninitiated that more information about the performance of the same job would be considered irrelevant.

[FireBeyond]

I think the union's position is that the register doesn't "discriminate" against officers who were terminated in spite of the union's "disagreement" that it was justified, and those who the union represented but recognized that the termination was valid.

[bumby]

This is the same argument about unions protecting bad employees or low performers. It seems to be an underlying problem of organizational power and not a distinction between public/private unions.

The issues I was pointing out are somewhat different. For example, there are unique problems if a police force tries to strike. In the private sector, there is the opportunity for other organizations to fill that void due to competition within the market. There is no such mechanism for most public services, public unions may have disproportionate power.

[taeric]

Can you explain a check that prevents the same abuse from happening in other settings?

I'm always very wary of the arguments that somehow police are a special industry where unions are bad. I don't really see any logical reasoning put forth to support that. Just evidence on how things have gone. :(

[bumby]

>are a special industry

Public services are a special industry (not unique to just police) so the dynamics of unions are different.

For one, many public services exist because they are critical to the functioning of society. You can tell this is fundamentally special case because the govt carves out special mechanisms to mitigate the risk (see the the current threat of a rail strike). Secondly, the government doesn't allow competition, so there is not the same solvency problem that a private union has to address. This second point exacerbates the first. A private police force can't just come in and out-compete the existing one to show that they can work better or more efficiently.

[taeric]

This still feels like a bit of a stretch. In that I can almost certainly list reasons why a big industry in a city is critical to the functioning of said city. All the more true for all too many cities around here.

[bumby]

Again, the govt restricts the ability for those unions to do things like strike (existing rail union or previous air traffic controller unions as an example). The govt can also threaten nationalization which adds some leverage against either side holding the other hostage. I would argue that is harder to do when the govt is restricting itself. E.g., if the police go on strike, who is going to enforce it? Possible the national guard but that brings about a host of additional issues. Nationalization is no-factor because it's already nationalized. My main point is that these additional nuances make public unions create problems that don't have the same mitigating factors.

[taeric]

But a lot of those problems that you are painting for "public" unions seems to just be one of scale. If $BigCorp were to go on strike in a city, it would similarly cripple many of them.

Now, I grant that state sanctioned monopolies are special items. But the hand waving away of why "corruption" is somehow more likely to happen in unions for certain workforces, just feels off to me. So, back to my original question, why do you not think the same corruption can happen in other settings?

(Note... I hate that this can be seen as an anti-union argument. I am not really intending it as such. I do view all unions as a mini representational government with their own taxing mechanism in dues. As such, I view all unions as prone to corruption as all governments. )