zlacker

> A lot of people are talking about changing the laws so that officers aren't protected by qualified immunity or unions, but as far as I understand, one of the main problems is prosecutors.

It's all connected. The police unions push back hard against reforms in the prosecutors' office that might subject them to more scrutiny.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapo...

> In St. Louis, when Kim Gardner was elected the top prosecutor four years ago, she set out to rein in the city’s high rate of police violence. But after she proposed a unit within the prosecutor’s office that would independently investigate misconduct, she ran into the powerful local police union.

> The union pressured lawmakers to set aside the proposal, which many supported but then never brought to a vote. Around the same time, a lawyer for the union waged a legal fight to limit the ability of the prosecutor’s office to investigate police misconduct. The following year, a leader of the union said Ms. Gardner should be removed “by force or by choice.”

>>ardy42+(OP)
I think police unions is the one instance where union busting or just plainly making unions illegal would be justified.

>>corty+ck
I don't think making police unions illegal is the solution, unions play an important role in preventing the employer from taking advantage of employees. What we need to do is limit the scope of unions. Unions making sure their members have decent pay, benefits, safe working conditions, etc - GREAT! Unions protecting corrupt, abusive, dangerous members from facing punishment - BAD! This is true for any profession.