How to think about police unions re: supporting organized labor?
June 11, 2020 7:27 AM Subscribe
Like many MeFites, I'm generally supportive of organized labor and think that unions in the US should be much stronger than they are. Also like many MeFites, I think that police unions are a public menace and should be disbanded. Is there a good structural way to think about this? What makes the PBA different?
I want to be clear that I'm not concern trolling here - if there's no good answer for this, I'm happy to continue supporting organized labor and making an exception for the police. But I'm curious if anyone has figured out a coherent way to think about this. Is there something inherent about a police union that makes it different? Is it possible to have a police union that isn't inherently malignant? What would that look like? Or, on the other hand, has the behavior of police unions made anyone rethink their stance on organized labor generally?
I want to be clear that I'm not concern trolling here - if there's no good answer for this, I'm happy to continue supporting organized labor and making an exception for the police. But I'm curious if anyone has figured out a coherent way to think about this. Is there something inherent about a police union that makes it different? Is it possible to have a police union that isn't inherently malignant? What would that look like? Or, on the other hand, has the behavior of police unions made anyone rethink their stance on organized labor generally?
I found the explanation from this article on the ways in which police unions are not like traditional labour unions helpful:
"Break the power of police unions. Police unions make it nearly impossible to fire bad cops and incentivize protecting them to protect the power of the union. A police union is not a labor union; police officers are powerful state agents, not exploited workers."
posted by terretu at 7:34 AM on June 11, 2020 [24 favorites]
"Break the power of police unions. Police unions make it nearly impossible to fire bad cops and incentivize protecting them to protect the power of the union. A police union is not a labor union; police officers are powerful state agents, not exploited workers."
posted by terretu at 7:34 AM on June 11, 2020 [24 favorites]
Is it possible to have a police union that isn't inherently malignant?
The general proposal is that there should be a similar union like the firefighters that police receive identical benefits to.
What makes the PBA different?
They have guns, a license to use violence, and have been granted financial immunity for misdeeds. That's a unique situation and as such requires a unique solution.
posted by Candleman at 7:34 AM on June 11, 2020 [5 favorites]
The general proposal is that there should be a similar union like the firefighters that police receive identical benefits to.
What makes the PBA different?
They have guns, a license to use violence, and have been granted financial immunity for misdeeds. That's a unique situation and as such requires a unique solution.
posted by Candleman at 7:34 AM on June 11, 2020 [5 favorites]
Public sector unions in general require a bit of mental gymnastics for me, a labor supporter. The purpose of unions is to give workers a voice in the conditions under which they work, regardless of the nature of that work. If you do not believe that workers have a valid or accurate view of their own labor conditions (and I would agree with you that the existence of the phrase "Blue Lives Matter" proves this for me) then unions cannot possibly serve their intended role.
To me it boils down to the validity i ascribe to each organized effort - teachers unions say they shouldnt have to buy their own materials and cops unions say they should be able to murder without consequence.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 7:34 AM on June 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
To me it boils down to the validity i ascribe to each organized effort - teachers unions say they shouldnt have to buy their own materials and cops unions say they should be able to murder without consequence.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 7:34 AM on June 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
The traditional justification for this inconsistency is that police are class traitors — workers paid to defend capital by all means necessary. You can translate this into more polite terms if you wish.
posted by The Toad at 7:52 AM on June 11, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by The Toad at 7:52 AM on June 11, 2020 [13 favorites]
I think of the police union as another union of capital
Police unions are unions in name only, and like this statement succinctly puts it, are literally the direct antagonists of labor.
To think of it another way, police "unions" are merely the name given to the organized gang that is in the employ of the capitalist class - and not employed as a directly oppositional force to profit (as is in the case of workers and their wages) but as capital's lackeys that ensures private profit continues to grow unabated.
The police exists to disrupt strikes and left-wing protests, infiltrate and dismantle liberatory movements, enact violence to uphold white supremacy, and protect the endless expansion of private property - all efforts that are antithetical to the goals of the broadly construed left.
They are a "union" inasmuch as a banking cartel is a "union" of capitalists, or the Contras were a "union" of right-wing mercenaries. In the grand tradition of reactionaries they have simply taken the language of the left and applied it to their own loathsome organization.
(OK I'm gonna invoke Godwin's law here, but whatever.) To put it another way, it really helped me to think about police unions being to unions what National Socialism is to socialism.
posted by joechip at 8:07 AM on June 11, 2020 [10 favorites]
Police unions are unions in name only, and like this statement succinctly puts it, are literally the direct antagonists of labor.
To think of it another way, police "unions" are merely the name given to the organized gang that is in the employ of the capitalist class - and not employed as a directly oppositional force to profit (as is in the case of workers and their wages) but as capital's lackeys that ensures private profit continues to grow unabated.
The police exists to disrupt strikes and left-wing protests, infiltrate and dismantle liberatory movements, enact violence to uphold white supremacy, and protect the endless expansion of private property - all efforts that are antithetical to the goals of the broadly construed left.
They are a "union" inasmuch as a banking cartel is a "union" of capitalists, or the Contras were a "union" of right-wing mercenaries. In the grand tradition of reactionaries they have simply taken the language of the left and applied it to their own loathsome organization.
(OK I'm gonna invoke Godwin's law here, but whatever.) To put it another way, it really helped me to think about police unions being to unions what National Socialism is to socialism.
posted by joechip at 8:07 AM on June 11, 2020 [10 favorites]
I am struggling with this too. I am a member of several unions, and I firmly believe that union membership is an important feature of a robust middle class workforce.
The issue seems to be that police unions protect their members at all costs, including when their members are clearly acting badly. This is not the role of a union. The union should advocate for fair representation in disciplinary matters, but it should not go out of its way to shield bad actors. I have had this argument with members of my own union. Some people feel that their union should do everything in its power to defend them, even when they act egregiously. This is wrong. Defending bad actors puts a stain on the union "brand" and makes the public less sympathetic to the broader union cause.
I do not believe that we need to eliminate the right for police to unionize. I do believe that we need to pressure police unions to stop defending bad actors and bad behavior.
posted by soy_renfield at 8:08 AM on June 11, 2020 [11 favorites]
The issue seems to be that police unions protect their members at all costs, including when their members are clearly acting badly. This is not the role of a union. The union should advocate for fair representation in disciplinary matters, but it should not go out of its way to shield bad actors. I have had this argument with members of my own union. Some people feel that their union should do everything in its power to defend them, even when they act egregiously. This is wrong. Defending bad actors puts a stain on the union "brand" and makes the public less sympathetic to the broader union cause.
I do not believe that we need to eliminate the right for police to unionize. I do believe that we need to pressure police unions to stop defending bad actors and bad behavior.
posted by soy_renfield at 8:08 AM on June 11, 2020 [11 favorites]
Best answer:
posted by Winnie the Proust at 8:08 AM on June 11, 2020 [26 favorites]
I want to be clear: I am about as pro-union as a person can be. The Police Federation should not be thought of as a union. They do not affiliate with the AFL-CIO. They don’t walk picket lines in solidarity. How do I know? Because I do and I’ve never seen them on a line. Not once.The full thread is worth a read.
Steve Fletcher - Minneapolis Ward 3 City Counselor
posted by Winnie the Proust at 8:08 AM on June 11, 2020 [26 favorites]
Other unions can't defend their workers from criminal charges. That's where the unions ultimately cross the line, because protecting repercussions when employees hurt others and other criminal acts isn't about working conditions. It's not about fair wages. It's not about transparency. There is some arguement to be made that police unions can't, but the fact is that cops aren't going to jail, aren't being procucuted, aren't having repercussions for criminal behavior, and the "union" are involved in advocating for the conditions that lead to this.
Others have said the same thing in other ways.
posted by AlexiaSky at 8:09 AM on June 11, 2020 [3 favorites]
Others have said the same thing in other ways.
posted by AlexiaSky at 8:09 AM on June 11, 2020 [3 favorites]
Best answer: Police unions were born of resistance to discipline for brutality. Do they belong in the labor movement?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:19 AM on June 11, 2020
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:19 AM on June 11, 2020
Unions exist to give workers a voice on the other side of the table. They are basically the defense attorney vs the employers prosecutor say in a case of should I fire this person for doing something wrong In the case of the police Union they are all on the same "side" of the table & we the public are the ones on the other side. The union is technically doing what it was created to do, protecting it's members, it's just that it's easier for it to protect it's members if it works with management in this case as they both have the same goal. Also this union has way more power than most as it can protect against criminal charges, something no union should be able to do.
posted by wwax at 8:29 AM on June 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by wwax at 8:29 AM on June 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Planet Money did an episode that partially addresses this, which hits on some of the points raised above (e.g.., police negotiating for legal protections from wrong doing/use of force and violence and not just protection from being fired).
posted by damayanti at 8:47 AM on June 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by damayanti at 8:47 AM on June 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
According to the IWW, cops are not workers. Cops break up strikes, picket lines, protect capital above all. Cops, bankers, lawyers, are all anathema to class solidarity.
They are not unions - they are cabals. Just b/c they have weaseled their associations into the labor movement doesn't mean we shouldn't kick them out.
posted by RajahKing at 8:53 AM on June 11, 2020 [7 favorites]
They are not unions - they are cabals. Just b/c they have weaseled their associations into the labor movement doesn't mean we shouldn't kick them out.
posted by RajahKing at 8:53 AM on June 11, 2020 [7 favorites]
I just came here to reference the Planet Money podcast damayanti just shared. One thing that struck me from that was (and this is kind of saying the same thing as others on this thread though maybe in a slightly different way) that as a public union, when the state or city government is negotiating with the police union, the politicians' incentive is to keep the costs down to keep spending and taxes down to improve their chances of reelection, so the government often ends up negotiating around non-pay related things like immunity for police officers or keeping disciplinary records secret, etc. to avoid that. So the difference between a police union and other unions is the things that are on the table to negotiate around that are less money-related, which have implications for public safety and acts of violence against minorities.
posted by knownfossils at 8:57 AM on June 11, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by knownfossils at 8:57 AM on June 11, 2020 [3 favorites]
Is there a good structural way to think about this?
Tools are tools, it's how they're used that matters.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:37 AM on June 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
Tools are tools, it's how they're used that matters.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:37 AM on June 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Labor historian Erik Loomis recently wrote a short but thoughtful blog post about this, which I mostly jibe with.
posted by General Malaise at 10:26 AM on June 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by General Malaise at 10:26 AM on June 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm a fan of labor historian Erik Loomis (Out of Sight, History of America in Then Strikes), who just posted on this matter at Lawyers, Guns, and Money with extensive quoting from Harold Meyerson, whose essay might also be interesting. He gives a kind of counterpoint to much of what's been said in this thread.
Among other things, Loomis points out that non-unionized cops in the past were just as brutal, and argues that we should put more pressure on public officials to not simply accede to every demand for impunity made by police unions--that the problem has been also been a failure of "management"--local and state governments--who have often been perfectly happy to give police unions everything they wanted.
posted by col_pogo at 10:34 AM on June 11, 2020 [4 favorites]
Among other things, Loomis points out that non-unionized cops in the past were just as brutal, and argues that we should put more pressure on public officials to not simply accede to every demand for impunity made by police unions--that the problem has been also been a failure of "management"--local and state governments--who have often been perfectly happy to give police unions everything they wanted.
posted by col_pogo at 10:34 AM on June 11, 2020 [4 favorites]
Best answer: The MLK Labor Council is discussing this exact question.
“People are right to wonder why the police union views its role as protecting officers who’ve engaged in misconduct rather than seeing their role as helping to ensure that the public is treated with dignity, respect and fairness,” Levinson said. “That’s what the rest of the labor movement is about: how to improve the lives of the broadest cross-section of community as possible.”
https://crosscut.com/2020/06/labor-council-seattle-police-union-address-racism-or-get-out
posted by Arctostaphylos at 10:41 AM on June 11, 2020
“People are right to wonder why the police union views its role as protecting officers who’ve engaged in misconduct rather than seeing their role as helping to ensure that the public is treated with dignity, respect and fairness,” Levinson said. “That’s what the rest of the labor movement is about: how to improve the lives of the broadest cross-section of community as possible.”
https://crosscut.com/2020/06/labor-council-seattle-police-union-address-racism-or-get-out
posted by Arctostaphylos at 10:41 AM on June 11, 2020
Public sector unions in general require a bit of mental gymnastics for me, a labor supporter.
As a member of AFSCME, I can promise you that many public sector workers and jobs require the protection a union offers.
posted by Rykey at 11:33 AM on June 11, 2020 [12 favorites]
As a member of AFSCME, I can promise you that many public sector workers and jobs require the protection a union offers.
posted by Rykey at 11:33 AM on June 11, 2020 [12 favorites]
Here's a way I feel about it: unions are a powerful force, and when they're working effectively they improve the lives of the people who belong to them. Cops qua cops should not have their lives improved, because the job "cop" harms society and should not be rewarded. I don't think it really needs to be much more complicated than that: unions are a tool of power and it's okay to want to disempower people who are trying to kill you.
posted by dusty potato at 11:51 AM on June 11, 2020
posted by dusty potato at 11:51 AM on June 11, 2020
(Here's a thought experiment: how does the idea of a CEO union feel? A serial killers' union? Do these feel like they require a complex moral calculus to pinpoint why they're a bad idea, or can we facially dismiss their value?)
posted by dusty potato at 11:54 AM on June 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by dusty potato at 11:54 AM on June 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
Seconding Rykey. In the United States, arguments specifically against public sector unions are a frequent conservative/right wing talking point/tactic, and it’s important not to go down that road.
The problem with police unions is not that they’re public sector unions; the problem is that they do not and have never supported solidarity with other workers and unions, and are often used to enforce management control over workers, even when it is counter to collective agreements.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:02 PM on June 11, 2020 [6 favorites]
The problem with police unions is not that they’re public sector unions; the problem is that they do not and have never supported solidarity with other workers and unions, and are often used to enforce management control over workers, even when it is counter to collective agreements.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:02 PM on June 11, 2020 [6 favorites]
I believe everyone has a right to be represented by a labor union, but police unions specifically clearly aren't working and are deeply damaging to our society. When it comes to legitimate advocacy for their rights as workers, I don't see any reason why police couldn't be well represented by membership in AFSCME, for example. Let police join and be represented by more general-purpose public-sector unions: despite what they may think, there's nothing so unique about their jobs that requires a distinct type of representation than that of, say, office or construction workers employed by the public.
posted by biogeo at 12:31 PM on June 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by biogeo at 12:31 PM on June 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Unionist against police unions here!
There are lots of rank and file union members organizing against cop unions right now! Check out Union Members for #JusticeForGeorgeFloyd for some discussion of this on a larger public forum (most happening in private forums) and my favorite recent pro-union, anti cop article on the topic.
Legislatively, I believe we should focus on other ways of holding police accountable (end qualified immunity, keep a public registry of cops who have complaints about them, etc), because legislation aimed at cop unions is likely to hurt other public sector organizing.
But as unionists we can kick cop unions out of our local labor councils and our internationals (there is a campaign to get the cops out of AFL-CIO right now that they are struggling to answer to)
We can also lend our voice when cities and counties are signing their contracts with police and sheriffs departments to demand a public process and a discipline agreement that stops shielding cops who murder and maim.
posted by latkes at 12:44 PM on June 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
There are lots of rank and file union members organizing against cop unions right now! Check out Union Members for #JusticeForGeorgeFloyd for some discussion of this on a larger public forum (most happening in private forums) and my favorite recent pro-union, anti cop article on the topic.
Legislatively, I believe we should focus on other ways of holding police accountable (end qualified immunity, keep a public registry of cops who have complaints about them, etc), because legislation aimed at cop unions is likely to hurt other public sector organizing.
But as unionists we can kick cop unions out of our local labor councils and our internationals (there is a campaign to get the cops out of AFL-CIO right now that they are struggling to answer to)
We can also lend our voice when cities and counties are signing their contracts with police and sheriffs departments to demand a public process and a discipline agreement that stops shielding cops who murder and maim.
posted by latkes at 12:44 PM on June 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
Best answer: The argument that has convinced me police unions are different puts it in terms of power. The purpose of unions is to provide checks and balances on power as it exists in the workplace. Unions protect workers against abuses by the managers who have power over their lives and livelihoods, especially in the US where if you get fired you lose access to healthcare. Police, on the other hand, have nothing but power. They are empowered to execute the law. More importantly, they carry deadly weapons, so they have power over the lives of others in the most direct and literal way possible.
posted by capricorn at 1:28 PM on June 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by capricorn at 1:28 PM on June 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
Let's say a nurse had been a member of a nurse's union for fifteen years, and it turned out (via very credible evidence) that she was somehow killing her patients on purpose with poison or some such.
Let's say there was a beloved kindergarten teacher who had been in the union for ten years, and they were then caught on video harming and abusing a child intentionally in a classroom (use whatever terrible imagery you want).
What do you think their unions would do? Would they protect the murderous nurse and abusive teacher at all costs? Would they fight to keep the nurse in the hospital and the teacher in the school, working with future victims? Would they write a contract that said that a teacher who was accused of beating a child could not be interviewed about that or held accountable, that they had immunity? Would other nurses and teachers vote into union leadership peers who advocated for these kinds of policies? No, because nurses and teachers don't want to harm their patients and students.
A friend of mine was a manager who had an employee in the union who was apparently faking his time sheets or somehow stealing from the company in a way that became very obvious. The union made sure he had a fair hearing, but they were not interested in keeping him employed at the company because the union wanted good workers who weren't cheating or stealing.
The police unions are using the structure of organized labor, but maybe it would be easier if you think of them as being more like the mafia or a gang? They are co-opting the labor movement for their own corrupt benefit and so none will be held accountable.
posted by bluedaisy at 5:40 PM on June 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
Let's say there was a beloved kindergarten teacher who had been in the union for ten years, and they were then caught on video harming and abusing a child intentionally in a classroom (use whatever terrible imagery you want).
What do you think their unions would do? Would they protect the murderous nurse and abusive teacher at all costs? Would they fight to keep the nurse in the hospital and the teacher in the school, working with future victims? Would they write a contract that said that a teacher who was accused of beating a child could not be interviewed about that or held accountable, that they had immunity? Would other nurses and teachers vote into union leadership peers who advocated for these kinds of policies? No, because nurses and teachers don't want to harm their patients and students.
A friend of mine was a manager who had an employee in the union who was apparently faking his time sheets or somehow stealing from the company in a way that became very obvious. The union made sure he had a fair hearing, but they were not interested in keeping him employed at the company because the union wanted good workers who weren't cheating or stealing.
The police unions are using the structure of organized labor, but maybe it would be easier if you think of them as being more like the mafia or a gang? They are co-opting the labor movement for their own corrupt benefit and so none will be held accountable.
posted by bluedaisy at 5:40 PM on June 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
Thirding the Eric Loomis blog - the comments on it are worthwhile too.
The labor movement in the U.S. is weaker than ever and anything that allows unions to be further damaged/vilified - materially or just discursively, public or private sector - is a big red flag for me.
I think there are other ways to fix the problem of the carceral state & police violence - decriminalizing a fuck ton of 'offenses' that don't actually harm society, taking away military weapons, reallocating more resources for healthcare & education, etc.
posted by CancerSucks at 10:18 PM on June 11, 2020
The labor movement in the U.S. is weaker than ever and anything that allows unions to be further damaged/vilified - materially or just discursively, public or private sector - is a big red flag for me.
I think there are other ways to fix the problem of the carceral state & police violence - decriminalizing a fuck ton of 'offenses' that don't actually harm society, taking away military weapons, reallocating more resources for healthcare & education, etc.
posted by CancerSucks at 10:18 PM on June 11, 2020
I have also read socialists argue that public employees do not have the right to unionize, because that union would, by definition, be an institution that opposes the public interest. However this is not a great principle to apply to a deliberately weakened public sector controlled by capitalists like it is in USA.
posted by MiraK at 7:35 AM on June 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by MiraK at 7:35 AM on June 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
Just want to say that we should separate a discussion of public sector unions broadly from police unions in specific. Public sector workers are the most unionized sector in the US (due to a concerted and successful anti-union campaign against private sector organizing) but there is now a very terrible and active effort to destroy public sector unions too (hello Janus decision) and we shouldn't be tricked by it.
Here's a brief article with some background on public sector organizing.
posted by latkes at 11:03 AM on June 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
Here's a brief article with some background on public sector organizing.
posted by latkes at 11:03 AM on June 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
Planet Money has a program about the link between police unions and police brutality (and distinguishing police unions from other unions) airing as I type.
posted by *s at 7:22 AM on June 13, 2020
posted by *s at 7:22 AM on June 13, 2020
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by corb at 7:33 AM on June 11, 2020 [36 favorites]