zlacker

Don't you think it's curious that only the police are allowed to have these super-effective unions with literal stay-out-of-jail clauses in their contracts - while Amazon workers who want proper toilet breaks will simply be fired?

Does that answer your question?

>>TheOth+(OP)
Police unions shouldn't exist. It would be like having a union of military soldiers. Imagine if the US military had a union that refused to defend the country unless every soldier got immunity from war crimes and high 6 figure salaries. That is effectively what the police unions have done to this country.

>>TheOth+(OP)
Maybe not as extreme but teacher's union is pretty bad about protecting members when accused/convicted of abuse. In any case, I was pointing out "reassigning to desk job" might be largely out of the hands of sergeants, and not just cronyism or racism.

>>TheOth+(OP)
That's about public v. private unions, not really about cops v. everyone else.

Companies can fairly easily break a union. After call, why does Ford need a Detroit plant when they can use Mexico.

But governments are lead by politicians who get money from unions. Union supports leader, leader pays union, union supports leader. No incentive to keep costs down at all. It's actually better for politicians to have strong public unions.

Teachers unions make it pretty much impossible to fire someone. You pretty much need to molest a child in places with a union (after you make tenure).

>>illumi+t7
does this argument not apply to all or most public sector employees? what if a teachers' union demanded high salaries and protection against being fired for poor performance (or worse)?

>>rhino3+Cd
>But governments are lead by politicians who get money from unions. Union supports leader, leader pays union, union supports leader. No incentive to keep costs down at all.

Hence the US states' and cities' unfunded pension debt crisis. Only solution to it in democracies is for non government employees to actively participate in local elections.