[whamlastxmas]

Police are what shows up when labor strikes. They’re part of the government, not a part of the collective “labor” that is the rest of the working world. As an example, police are part of an association but not a union. They aren’t legally allowed to strike anywhere in the US. They serve the interests of capitalism, which is the other side of the coin of workers’ rights

[datavirtue]

If they aren't allowed to strike why do people keep signing contracts with them?

[malcolmgreaves]

Because the police union covers for cops that break the law.

[93po]

there's lots of other benefits (for cops) for joining, also the general vibe with police work in the US is that if you're not on board, you're going to get harassed and threatened (and rarely assaulted/murdered) until you leave (see: thin blue line)

[alkonaut]

So they have a union, which is not a labor union? fair enough. It seems like a distinction without a difference for the topic.

Some restrictions on strikes usually covers lots of different jobs (e.g. nurses).

[burutthrow1234]

There's an important distinction because a police "union" is in opposition to any other workers and unions. The police are the tools of capital, they break up strikes. The cops aren't going to join you in a sympathy strike.

[brookst]

Indeed. “Cartel” or “guild” would be better terms than police “union”.

[whamlastxmas]

The biggest tool a union has is striking. If you can’t strike you’re not really a union.

[alkonaut]

I don't think that's a useful definition. Laws may require employers from negotiating everything from working hours to safety with unions. Some countries have laws that require unions have voting power in company boards etc.

[snapcaster]

There is a difference though, it's which side they're on

[alkonaut]

When it comes to employee vs employer, they are employed just like everyone else and can have disputes with their employer just like everyone else. They are on their own side. If police want to end single person patrols for safety concerns, or want a minimum number of hours rest between shifts, that's what their union would be for. It doesn't look any different when it's police vs. teachers in that case.

[snapcaster]

This comes of as ahistorical to me (as an american at least). Every significant moment in the US labor movement came down to workers vs. police, it's not like the robber barons were shooting the miners, steelworkers, etc. themselves

[beepbooptheory]

The unspoken thing about cops is that, yes, they surely care about vacation time, working hours, healthcare. And, yes, they are probably just as much victims of liberal economic austerity and such as the broader workforce. And, yes, its even not that much of stretch to call their labor "productive" (in the Marxist sense) considering how much money they extract from the population they are "serving" (only speaking for the U.S. here).

But regardless, even if they are struggling to pay rent or save for their child's college, they are singularly compensated by the one thing almost as valuable as money in our world: bare authority.

But its a bitter reward! Spiritually unhealthy. Forever opposed to everyone around them, specifically trained to think as such. Which is why, imo, we see huge numbers of them suffering from PTSD, committing suicide, engaging in domestic violence...