Heads up, Smedley: drummerboy knows all about unions. Him getting you to agree with him should be a relatively easy lift.
Smedley is not worth the bother in this. His head is way too far up there on this issue.
And you're getting a bit creepy.
Still waiting for someone, anyone, to say what they’d do with police unions.
I think everyone or most everyone on here favors police reform given recent events. But I seem to be the only one saying reining in the unions will be necessary for there to be true reform. I guess others think true reform will happen just on the individual cop level? Or maybe it will happen magically?
I think in general teachers unions are a net negative force for society, In terms of protecting their members as their first, second and third priorities, and if any of that runs counter to providing kids the best education, well tough luck, because we gotta get ours. Tenure is an example of that.
I always find this sentiment kind of puzzling because aren't the teachers in Millburn, Mendham and Princeton just as unionized as those in the "failing" inner city districts? Doesn't that fact alone suggest that there are other factors more likely to be causal than unions when talking about "best education"?
If unions aren’t the only reason, or even if they aren’t the #1 reason for public schools underperforming, does that mean it’s not worth looking at?
why waste time "looking at" an issue that isn't correlated with student performance? Race and SES are shown time and again to have some of the highest correlations with student performance. Why not look at those issues instead of the red herring of teachers' unions?
Still waiting for someone, anyone, to say what they’d do with police unions.
I think everyone or most everyone on here favors police reform given recent events. But I seem to be the only one saying reining in the unions will be necessary for there to be true reform. I guess others think true reform will happen just on the individual cop level? Or maybe it will happen magically?
Just on the previous page, cramer, jimbobprice and PVW (through the Ellison quote) expressed support for doing something about police unions. So far, you seem to be the only one comparing them to teachers unions and blaming the left for giving them carte blanche.
Still waiting for someone, anyone, to say what they’d do with police unions.
I think everyone or most everyone on here favors police reform given recent events. But I seem to be the only one saying reining in the unions will be necessary for there to be true reform. I guess others think true reform will happen just on the individual cop level? Or maybe it will happen magically?
Still waiting for someone, anyone, to say what they’d do with police unions.
I think everyone or most everyone on here favors police reform given recent events. But I seem to be the only one saying reining in the unions will be necessary for there to be true reform. I guess others think true reform will happen just on the individual cop level? Or maybe it will happen magically?
Just on the previous page, cramer, jimbobprice and PVW (through the Ellison quote) expressed support for doing something about police unions. So far, you seem to be the only one comparing them to teachers unions and blaming the left for giving them carte blanche.
Perhaps the only one on here as far as the comparison. But not the only one.
This frames it well IMO.
>>But as I learn more about police unions, I bet I’m not the only education denizen who feels like he’s seen this movie before. While teachers unions haven’t been accused of fomenting violence, education reformers have tarred teachers unions for decades with a dog’s breakfast of misdeeds. Contracts negotiated by teachers unions protect teachers accused of misconduct or – more likely – bad teaching. They also prioritize seniority and allow the most experienced teachers to exit at-risk schools, relegating the least advantaged students to the least effective teachers.
What teachers and police unions have in common is commitment bordering on groveling fealty to current members, and to hell with everyone else.<<
This cant hurt. Looks potentially constructive. But at the same time, it looks like this is only an advisory capacity ”to review...and make recommendations”, as opposed to unions, which have binding contracts In their hands. So I suspect when push comes to shove, a union would steamroll a community group like this.
So what do you think should be done with police unions. Anything? Or leave as is?
Collective bargaining. Management has a right to make demands regarding misconduct, hiring and firing. The same is true as to any public sector or private sector Union.
Also, read Minnesota's Attorney-General's position as posted by PVW
Perhaps the only one on here as far as the comparison. But not the only one.
This frames it well IMO.
>>But as I learn more about police unions, I bet I’m not the only education denizen who feels like he’s seen this movie before. While teachers unions haven’t been accused of fomenting violence, education reformers have tarred teachers unions for decades with a dog’s breakfast of misdeeds. Contracts negotiated by teachers unions protect teachers accused of misconduct or – more likely – bad teaching. They also prioritize seniority and allow the most experienced teachers to exit at-risk schools, relegating the least advantaged students to the least effective teachers.
What teachers and police unions have in common is commitment bordering on groveling fealty to current members, and to hell with everyone else.<<
his "evidence" for teachers' union "misdeeds" is an article from 1997. So I'm not inclined to consider him as someone framing the issue well if he can't find evidence from even this century, if not this decade.
This cant hurt. Looks potentially constructive. But at the same time, it looks like this is only an advisory capacity ”to review...and make recommendations”, as opposed to unions, which have binding contracts In their hands. So I suspect when push comes to shove, a union would steamroll a community group like this.
It's not "a community group", if you look further. And I guess you're not familiar with the fact that it's relatively new, and created through the efforts of community groups.
And contracts are between the employees and the employer, so just saying "the union has a binding contract" is meaningless. Contracts are negotiated, and as I wrote, political action in favor of real reforms places those concerns into those negotiations.
Hey, im fine dropping the teachers union part of this discussion, in retrospect i shouldn’t even have made the comparison because it’s at best tangential to this thread, and predictably it’s what some people ran with. Happy to take that up in another thread at another time.
My main point is that police unions to be taken on for true police reform to happen, yet some folks who are most strident and vocal about bad police behavior (which has been most of this thread) get all namby-pamby when it comes to the unions who provide cover for that bad behavior. Ah...well...let’s not go there ok?
Derek chauvin was the subject of internal affairs investigations *17* times as a MPD officer...yet he was an officer in good standing on the day he was called about George Floyd. If anyone think the union and union rules didn’t help sweep those under the rug and help chauvin keep his job , I have a bridge to sell you.
his "evidence" for teachers' union "misdeeds" is an article from 1997. So I'm not inclined to consider him as someone framing the issue well if he can't find evidence from even this century, if not this decade.
Thanks. I thought if I linked this someone it would be criticized as being too old.
It is worth recalling why teachers joined unions and why unions remain important today. Take tenure, for example. The teacher unions didn't invent tenure, despite widespread beliefs to the contrary. Tenure evolved in the 19th century as one of the few perks available to people who were paid low wages, had classes of 70 or 80 or more, and endured terrible working conditions. In late 19th century New York City, for example, there were no teacher unions, but there was already ironclad, de facto teacher tenure. Local school boards controlled the hiring of teachers, and the only way to get a job was to know someone on the local school board, preferably a relative. Once a teacher was hired, she had lifetime tenure in that school, but only in that school. In fact, she could teach in the same school until she retired—without a pension or health benefits—or died.
Hey, im fine dropping the teachers union part of this discussion, in retrospect i shouldn’t even have made the comparison because it’s at best tangential to this thread, and predictably it’s what some people ran with. Happy to take that up in another thread at another time.
My main point is that police unions to be taken on for true police reform to happen, yet some folks who are most strident and vocal about bad police behavior (which has been most of this thread) get all namby-pamby when it comes to unions. Ah...well...let’s not go there ok?
Derek chauvin was the subject of internal affairs investigations *17* times as a MPD officer...yet he was an officer in good standing on the day he was called about George Floyd. If anyone think the union and union rules didn’t help sweep those under the rug and help chauvin keep his job , I have a bridge to sell you.
Has anyone on this thread said that this shouldn't change? Has anyone on this thread argued that for it to change police unions have to be abolished? Who are you arguing with?
Has anyone on this thread said that this shouldn't change? Has anyone on this thread argued that for it to change police unions have to be abolished? Who are you arguing with?
it also assumes facts not in evidence. Do we know that the police brass itself, the police rank and file and the Minneapolis municipal government itself weren't complicit in keeping bad cops on the force? How do we know the union was the driving force behind keeping a cop like Chauvin in good standing? It would be hard to believe it was solely the union with no enabling from other powers that be in Minneapolis.
Has anyone on this thread said that this shouldn't change? Has anyone on this thread argued that for it to change police unions have to be abolished? Who are you arguing with?
With whom is mtierney arguing with when she posts stuff about "emptying the jails" or complains about looters and vandals?
Has anyone on this thread said that this shouldn't change? Has anyone on this thread argued that for it to change police unions have to be abolished? Who are you arguing with?
it also assumes facts not in evidence. Do we know that the police brass itself, the police rank and file and the Minneapolis municipal government itself weren't complicit in keeping bad cops on the force? How do we know the union was the driving force behind keeping a cop like Chauvin in good standing? It would be hard to believe it was solely the union with no enabling from other powers that be in Minneapolis.
"Bob Kroll, the Trump-supporting head of the police union in Minneapolis where Floyd was killed, has become the most recent symbol of obstructionist police unions. Kroll has called the protests a “terrorist” movement and wrote a letter to his members defending the actions of Derek Chauvin, the officer charged with Floyd’s death, and the other officers involved in the arrest, confirming that union lawyers are representing the four officers who were fired. Kroll also took the opportunity to criticise the “lack of support at the top”, stating that elected officials were “minimising the size of our police force and diverting funds to community activist with anti-police agenda”.
Former Minneapolis police chief Janee Harteau responded not only by criticising Kroll for standing up for Chauvin, but to detail the many ways that Kroll and the Minneapolis Police Officers’ Federation’s board had obstructed her attempts at reform. Retweeting a news article that revealed that Chauvin had 18 prior complaints of misconduct, Harteau confirmed that the union was her biggest obstacle in making lasting changes within the Minneapolis police department. She said Kroll’s letter was “another example of why unions and arbitrators must be held accountable and support the discipline decisions of police leadership”.
"Bob Kroll, the Trump-supporting head of the police union in Minneapolis where Floyd was killed, has become the most recent symbol of obstructionist police unions. Kroll has called the protests a “terrorist” movement and wrote a letter to his members defending the actions of Derek Chauvin, the officer charged with Floyd’s death, and the other officers involved in the arrest, confirming that union lawyers are representing the four officers who were fired. Kroll also took the opportunity to criticise the “lack of support at the top”, stating that elected officials were “minimising the size of our police force and diverting funds to community activist with anti-police agenda”.
Former Minneapolis police chief Janee Harteau responded not only by criticising Kroll for standing up for Chauvin, but to detail the many ways that Kroll and the Minneapolis Police Officers’ Federation’s board had obstructed her attempts at reform. Retweeting a news article that revealed that Chauvin had 18 prior complaints of misconduct, Harteau confirmed that the union was her biggest obstacle in making lasting changes within the Minneapolis police department. She said Kroll’s letter was “another example of why unions and arbitrators must be held accountable and support the discipline decisions of police leadership”.
the problem was the contract negotiated by the union. Who agreed to the union's terms? Contracts are not unilaterally enacted by the union. Seems like there were others at fault in Minneapolis in addition to the union who are now pointing fingers in only one direction.
It wouldn’t be unheard of. In Minneapolis and other cities, fired officers are regularly reinstated to their jobs after a police union intervenes. Last week, Mayor Jacob Frey described Kroll’s union, the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis, as one of the biggest impediments to disciplining cops who use excessive force. “The elephant in the room with regard to police reform is the police union,” he told the New York Times. The mayor described the union’s current contract with the city as a “nearly impenetrable barrier” to disciplining officers for racism and other misconduct, partly because of the protections it gives them after a firing. Often, he said, “we do not have the ability to get rid of many of these officers that we know have done wrong in the past.”
That contract expired in January and is now up for negotiation, meaning that Minneapolis has an opportunity to reform how officers are treated after they injure or kill someone, and to rethink what other protections they get on the job. Putting even more pressure on the negotiations—and adding to the uncertainty—a veto-proof majority of the city council on Sunday promised to work toward defunding and dismantling the current police department, something no other major city has yet pledged to do.
Hey, im fine dropping the teachers union part of this discussion, in retrospect i shouldn’t even have made the comparison because it’s at best tangential to this thread, and predictably it’s what some people ran with. Happy to take that up in another thread at another time.
My main point is that police unions to be taken on for true police reform to happen, yet some folks who are most strident and vocal about bad police behavior (which has been most of this thread) get all namby-pamby when it comes to unions. Ah...well...let’s not go there ok?
Derek chauvin was the subject of internal affairs investigations *17* times as a MPD officer...yet he was an officer in good standing on the day he was called about George Floyd. If anyone think the union and union rules didn’t help sweep those under the rug and help chauvin keep his job , I have a bridge to sell you.
Has anyone on this thread said that this shouldn't change? Has anyone on this thread argued that for it to change police unions have to be abolished? Who are you arguing with?
the problem was the contract negotiated by the union. Who agreed to the union's terms? Contracts are not unilaterally enacted by the union. Seems like there were others at fault in Minneapolis in addition to the union who are now pointing fingers in only one direction.
That's why the Minneapolis Police Chief announced that he was suspending negotiations on the union contract. Labor law experts say that will likely result in a court battle.
Minneapolis city council members are trying to get the removal of the MPD from the city charter on the ballot for November.
"The Charter currently stipulates that the council must provide a police force of 0.0017 officers per resident of the city.
It would be replaced on the Charter with the creation of a "new Charter Department to provide for community safety and violence prevention."
By removing the MPD requirements from the City's Charter, it seems to be laying the groundwork for the councilors' eventual plans to disband the department in the wake of George Floyd's killing, and replace it with an as-yet alternative public safety strategy."
One argument I've seen is to "unbundle the police", basically not use the cops for everything but instead have actual social workers deal with social issues, traffic enforcement not be done by people with guns, etc, and shrink the use of people with guns down to the actual situations where it makes sense.
I'd love to see that. I think it's crazy how we assume that most situations are best handled by someone who has a gun as standard equipment.
"Bob Kroll, the Trump-supporting head of the police union in Minneapolis where Floyd was killed, has become the most recent symbol of obstructionist police unions. Kroll has called the protests a “terrorist” movement and wrote a letter to his members defending the actions of Derek Chauvin, the officer charged with Floyd’s death, and the other officers involved in the arrest, confirming that union lawyers are representing the four officers who were fired. Kroll also took the opportunity to criticise the “lack of support at the top”, stating that elected officials were “minimising the size of our police force and diverting funds to community activist with anti-police agenda”.
Former Minneapolis police chief Janee Harteau responded not only by criticising Kroll for standing up for Chauvin, but to detail the many ways that Kroll and the Minneapolis Police Officers’ Federation’s board had obstructed her attempts at reform. Retweeting a news article that revealed that Chauvin had 18 prior complaints of misconduct, Harteau confirmed that the union was her biggest obstacle in making lasting changes within the Minneapolis police department. She said Kroll’s letter was “another example of why unions and arbitrators must be held accountable and support the discipline decisions of police leadership”.
the problem was the contract negotiated by the union. Who agreed to the union's terms? Contracts are not unilaterally enacted by the union. Seems like there were others at fault in Minneapolis in addition to the union who are now pointing fingers in only one direction.
this makes it sound like the mpd current contract is a one-off and the problem is limited to that city and the folks who hammered out that specific deal. But on the contrary, isn’t it logical to assume that big-city PDs have fairly standard issue union contracts? I’d be shocked if pretty much the same protections and processes (or lack thereof) that kept Chauvin on the MPD force aren’t in place in Sacramento, tampa and San Antonio.
So the assessment of and change in police union contracts need to be broad and nationwide.
this makes it sound like the mpd current contract is a one-off and the problem is limited to that city and the folks who hammered out that specific deal. But on the contrary, isn’t it logical to assume that big-city PDs have fairly standard issue union contracts? I’d be shocked if pretty much the same protections and processes (or lack thereof) that kept Chauvin on the MPD force aren’t in place in Sacramento, tampa and San Antonio.
So the assessment of and change in police union contracts need to be broad and nationwide.
all that is likely true. But it also means city governments themselves were complicit in extending these type of contracts for decades. The notion that unions steamrolled city officials who wanted reform is dubious. There are a lot of people culpable for police abuses.
One argument I've seen is to "unbundle the police", basically not use the cops for everything but instead have actual social workers deal with social issues, traffic enforcement not be done by people with guns, etc, and shrink the use of people with guns down to the actual situations where it makes sense.
I'd love to see that. I think it's crazy how we assume that most situations are best handled by someone who has a gun as standard equipment.
the past couple of weeks, I've been thinking about why armed police still carry out traffic stops at all. With HD dashcams recording license plate numbers, and GPS calculating speed, why do the police need to pull someone over for a speeding offense? Just mail the citation the way they do with the speed cameras. same for any other moving violation that isn't an immediate safety concern. How many of these incidents start with a traffic stop (often on some bogus pretext like "tail light was out"). Not only are traffic stops risky for the public, they're risky for cops. How often do we read about a cop getting hit by a car standing on the shoulder writing someone a ticket?
the past couple of weeks, I've been thinking about why armed police still carry out traffic stops at all. With HD dashcams recording license plate numbers, and GPS calculating speed, why do the police need to pull someone over for a speeding offense? Just mail the citation the way they do with the speed cameras. same for any other moving violation that isn't an immediate safety concern. How many of these incidents start with a traffic stop (often on some bogus pretext like "tail light was out"). Not only are traffic stops risky for the public, they're risky for cops. How often do we read about a cop getting hit by a car standing on the shoulder writing someone a ticket?
Don't they pull us over for speeding to stop us from speeding?
the past couple of weeks, I've been thinking about why armed police still carry out traffic stops at all. With HD dashcams recording license plate numbers, and GPS calculating speed, why do the police need to pull someone over for a speeding offense? Just mail the citation the way they do with the speed cameras. same for any other moving violation that isn't an immediate safety concern. How many of these incidents start with a traffic stop (often on some bogus pretext like "tail light was out"). Not only are traffic stops risky for the public, they're risky for cops. How often do we read about a cop getting hit by a car standing on the shoulder writing someone a ticket?
Don't they pull us over for speeding to stop us from speeding?
Too often, traffic stops are pretextual. It's also a problem that fines are often a revenue source for local governments. What would traffic enforcement actually geared toward traffic safety look like? Probably fewer cops, with more focus on actual dangerous driving. Cops shouldn't be pulling people over for broken tail lights, expired registration, etc -- just send the citation in the mail, as ml1 said. Have the cops focus on egregious speeders, people blowing through stop signs, that type of thing.
What do you think of Ellison's view?