Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by DiggyJohnson 772 days ago
What are they if they're not "labor"? Certainly a police officer considers their upcoming shift as "work". Certainly the police could not function without on-duty officers on patrol and at the precinct?

I hate to be so blunt on this site, but what is the flippin point of these sort of definitional and semantic arguments? What are you trying to gain, other than muddying the waters of conversations. I legitimately don't see how any position, yours or otherwise, benefits from this rhetorical approach.
1 comments
randomdata 772 days ago
> What are you trying to gain, other than muddying the waters of conversations

How does enhanced clarity muddy the waters? Police are not labor, not practically or legally. Likewise, a CEO is not labor either, even though the CEO is apt to be an employee who shows up to work just like anyone else. Having a job that you go to work at is not what defines labor in this context. Considering all people who do work to be the same is what muddies the waters here.

link
DiggyJohnson 772 days ago
How is a police officer like a CEO, and not like a factory line worker? It seems very clear that they are more the latter (labor) than the former (admin).
link
randomdata 772 days ago
> How is a police officer like a CEO, and not like a factory line worker?

Both the police and CEOs are incentivized to protect the interest of capitalists. That is a primary duty of their job. Labor, on the other hand, challenges the interests of capitalists.

> It seems very clear that they are more the latter (labor) than the former (admin).

Clear in what way? Where there are people there are people problems. Indeed, police often have associations to help with people problems, hell even the capitalists sometimes have unions (e.g. farmers), but these are not labor unions. If this is what you are talking about, there is nothing clear about it – it is all quite arbitrary who gets to associate and who doesn't, but is also beyond the topic at hand.

link
DiggyJohnson 770 days ago
Fair enough. We still have significant disagreements but I appreciate this response because I at least now understand your position. Apologies for pressing you on this.
link
randomdata 769 days ago
I have no position. I only take interest in relaying the state of the world. This is how labor is classified in said world. You will notice that in most jurisdictions, police, not considered labor, are not allowed to form true labor unions. In fact, where they are able to associate, the union is usually formally known as a "Police Association", or similar variant, so that it is not confused with a labor union.

I am not sure how you can disagree with the state of the world. Said state may be relayed with error, perhaps, but recognizing an error in transmission isn't disagreement. Besides, if I had a position, it would be in bad faith to share it anyway.

link
DiggyJohnson 768 days ago
Ok, I was trying to be polite. Not everyone has such an academic definition of "labor", and I literally didn't know that police unions weren't categorized like the other public sector unions. In general, saying that police are not "labor" is a position, even if it's the obviously correct one.

Why would it be bad faith to share your position? Also

link