[alkonaut]

> I'm struggling with what you meant by "it's just a language thing", that is of course true and what I was pointing out. For the purpose of good communication, everything is a language thing and language things are important.

Ok fair enough. In english there is a distinction between just "Union" and "labor union". And under this distinction, a police union would not be a labor union. Language is important.

Moving beyond language though, I can't see where the distinction is important e.g. legally or ethically - which is perhaps why the distinction has disappeared or never existed in some other languages.

It's curious - perhaps related - that in English the difference between "salary" and "wages" also remains and is even relevant in some parts of the market.

[marbletiles]

The distinction can matter because the core purposes of the two are different. A "Labor" union is one that represents one side of the relationship between capital and the workforce: that is, the side that has a portion of the value it creates in its work extracted by the other.

It exists fundamentally in order to be able to collectively negotiate around the amount of that value extracted and attempt to retain more for those who create it. That in doing so it also establishes workers' rights, policies around treatment etc is a nice to have.

The police, as an extension of state power much like the army, are generally understood to be broadly on the "side" of capital (in capitalist states). They are not value-creating, and their "unions" have nothing to negotiate for a share of. This is why you'll more often see them represented as "associations" or "federations", much like civil service, nursing or fire service staff bodies. Their goal is simply to argue for better terms and conditions for their members.

Does the distinction practically matter? In many cases, no. When the interests of capital or the state are at stake, yes: police officers will break up labor union strikes, even when those officers are members of a federation. They are fundamentally not part of the same movement.

[samatman]

> It's curious - perhaps related - that in English the difference between "salary" and "wages" also remains and is even relevant in some parts of the market.

This is a useful distinction, and I'm mildly surprised it doesn't show up in your native language. A salary is fixed compensation for full-time labor: the employee is expected to work during (usually) business hours, in exchange for a contractually-agreed amount of money.

Wages are hourly: the employee works when scheduled, and is paid an agreed amount for each hour they work.

[DiggyJohnson]

By the way I feel the need to share that despite this conversation, somewhere between few and no Americans distinguish between "union" and "labor union". This is the first time I've seen the difference and I believe those who are making this point are downplaying the fact that in common language these are used entirely interchangeably.

Not saying I disagree or agree with their point, but that this rhetorical method of argument by definition doesn't match reality.

[snapcaster]

It's because the police are always on the side of capital

[svieira]

Which of course, isn't true. The Red Guard was a police force in a very real sense as was the NKVD.

[snapcaster]

Article is about US company violating US labor guards so yeah my comment really only applies to the US labor movement. Can't speak to Red Guard don't really know anything about them

[beepbooptheory]

Police are always on the side of the state.