|
Pohl posted:He is so wrong, it doesn't matter. Police unions will literally barricade a courthouse and prevent an officer from being put on trial. Prison guard unions sank bills in the California legislature to relieve horrific prison conditions and mandatory minimums which had actually attracted sufficient support from delegates. Public employee unions are a cancer, this is an area where you must make a choice between leftist economics and liberal ideas about freedom and equality. Choosing leftist economics would be incorrect.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
Enid Coleslaw posted:If you have problems with cops then maybe try not doing crimes? I haven't even spoken to a police officer since the last time I was arrested. Every innocent person ever questioned or arrested or hosed over by the cops just punched you in the face. It wouldn't be a problem if they weren't so predatory. If you could trust them, cops would be awesome. Here, watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Pohl fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Police unions will literally barricade a courthouse and prevent an officer from being put on trial. Prison guard unions sank bills in the California legislature to relieve horrific prison conditions and mandatory minimums which had actually attracted sufficient support from delegates. Those sound like systemic issues, not union issues. If they block a courthouse, have another law enforcement agency arrest them. This doesn't happen, not because they are unionized, but because they are police! The California prison guard union is really bad, I won't defend it; it is however, a systemic issue, not an issue with public unions. It is about the way we treat our criminal justice system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:All public sector unions should be illegal because they exist solely to thwart the will of the voters and break the law Maybe in your head. You read any of the many recent articles about how, as measured by policy influence, the US is already a plutocracy? How can you be assuming capital's a non-factor regarding public unions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Those sound like systemic issues, not union issues. Aren't these the kind of situations that the national guard is for? If your enforces are dabbling with warlord-ism who would you turn to? I can't imagine the FBI would do anything, nor any other three letter agency, heck if anything I'd think they'd support them. Is there any other protection for civilians besides some flavor of military?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Police unions will literally barricade a courthouse and prevent an officer from being put on trial. Prison guard unions sank bills in the California legislature to relieve horrific prison conditions and mandatory minimums which had actually attracted sufficient support from delegates. Isn't the problem that police and prison unions are unique because they use force on citizens with impunity? They can behave lawlessly, and since they are the ones responsible for apprehending lawbreakers, they go unpunished. Then, they use the terms of their contracts to get out of even losing their jobs. If a DOT worker or something breaks the law, you can use the police to hold them accountable to the law. If their union contract keeps them from losing their job, it's not nearly as serious a problem because at least they are accountable to the law. Not every barrier to the will of voters is unjust or undemocratic. If voters want to strip away the negotiated protections of public employee unions, that doesn't mean we should let them. Voters would vote to strip people of a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Those sound like systemic issues, not union issues. I would be all for the FBI's role of investigating local police abuse being expanded aggressively. Great idea. Now, when the unionized Chicago cops start shooting back at the FBI agents, you are going to stand with me and demand that we not back down from this plan, right? Accretionist posted:Maybe in your head. You read any of the many recent articles about how, as measured by policy influence, the US is already a plutocracy? How can you be assuming capital's a non-factor regarding public unions? Oh I didn't know that your Scientifically Accurate Plutometer had proven that allowing police to sodomize blacks with impunity is the only thing standing between the U.S. and a Hunger Games-esque dystopia (p > 0.05). That does change things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Not every barrier to voter accountability is unjust or undemocratic. If voters want to strip away the negotiated protections of public employee unions, that doesn't mean we should let them. Voters would vote to strip people of a lot of things. By definition it is undemocratic. We correctly choose to prevent certain things, enshrined in Constitutional amendments, from the democratic process -- no majority should be able to vote to make it illegal for certain racial groups to vote or ban gay people from getting married, and no majority can abridge the freedom of speech, or to bear arms, or so forth. There is no legitimate way that "allowing police to do whatever they want" or a specific benefits package for teachers falls under this umbrella. Factually, it does not (it is not in the Constitution). Morally, treating police behavior as outside the democratic process is abhorrent. On a more mundane level, things like how much resources a state wants to devote to education or health care are exactly the sorts of things we are supposed to be voting on. Public employee unions are an attempt to take EVERYTHING outside the democratic process and turn it into a union boss and a politician, the latter of whom owes nothing to anyone outside the union and isn't playing with his own money, "negotiating" a corrupt bargain. That is how we arrived at the situation we are in with police and prison guards, not to mention why in California a judge recently ruled that teachers unions are a form of racial discrimination, since they have enshrined a system that creates failing schools in majority-black areas. meat sweats fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:I would be all for the FBI's role of investigating local police abuse being expanded aggressively. Great idea. Now, when the unionized Chicago cops start shooting back at the FBI agents, you are going to stand with me and demand that we not back down from this plan, right? Yes? Why do you have to ask? The police need to be policed. The reason they aren't is not because of Unions, it is because of a stupid brotherhood of law enforcement that protects them. As I said, it is s systemic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Oh I didn't know that your Scientifically Accurate Plutometer had proven that allowing police to sodomize blacks with impunity is the only thing standing between the U.S. and a Hunger Games-esque dystopia (p > 0.05). That does change things. A scourge of which we shall never be free until so long as teachers and postal workers are unionized Let no man call himself free until the corporations hold all the cards Edit: You know what? Let's just stop talking about Police Reform. Let's talk about how the first step to ending police abuse is smashing teachers unions and smashing the Post Office.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Athaalin posted:Aren't these the kind of situations that the national guard is for? If your enforces are dabbling with warlord-ism who would you turn to? I can't imagine the FBI would do anything, nor any other three letter agency, heck if anything I'd think they'd support them. Is there any other protection for civilians besides some flavor of military? In that case the local Sheriff office should step up and do something. The National Guard is not needed. This is only true until there is a Federal investigation and order demanding that something is done, then the National Guard might be used.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:By definition it is undemocratic. We correctly choose to prevent certain things, enshrined in Constitutional amendments, from the democratic process -- no majority should be able to vote to make it illegal for certain racial groups to vote or ban gay people from getting married, and no majority can abridge the freedom of speech, or to bear arms, or so forth. There is no legitimate way that "allowing police to do whatever they want" or a specific benefits package for teachers falls under this umbrella. Factually, it does not (it is not in the Constitution). Morally, treating police behavior as outside the democratic process is abhorrent. On a more mundane level, things like how much resources a state wants to devote to education or health care are exactly the sorts of things we are supposed to be voting on. Public employee unions are an attempt to take EVERYTHING outside the democratic process and turn it into a union boss and a politician, the latter of whom owes nothing to anyone outside the union and isn't playing with his own money, "negotiating" a corrupt bargain. That is how we arrived at the situation we are in with police and prison guards, not to mention why in California a judge recently ruled that teachers unions are a form of racial discrimination, since they have enshrined a system that creates failing schools in majority-black areas. So you're in favor of severely cutting teacher salaries and benefits, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Yes? Why do you have to ask? The police need to be policed. The reason they aren't is not because of Unions, it is because of a stupid brotherhood of law enforcement that protects them. As I said, it is s systemic. Ah, the problem isn't the policemen's union, the problem is the brotherhood of law enforcement. That clears it up. MeramJert posted:So you're in favor of severely cutting teacher salaries and benefits, correct? I'm in favor of not letting teachers declare they have no intention of complying with the law in those states where electorates have chosen to cut salaries and benefits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:A scourge of which we shall never be free until so long as teachers and postal workers are unionized If you're going to talk about how only "plutocrats" think an organization that perpetrates violent, racist abuse and covers it up/lies about it on literally a daily basis is a Bad Thing, then we're going to have to have this discussion, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Edit: Ahh, gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:I'm in favor of not letting teachers declare they have no intention of complying with the law in those states where electorates have chosen to cut salaries and benefits. So, yes? Also, what do you think happens when the education budget is significantly cut? You think the teachers union prevents that from affecting the teachers or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Police unions are the ultimate example of how a collectivist society can still be FYGM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Ah, the problem isn't the policemen's union, the problem is the brotherhood of law enforcement. That clears it up. If you can't understand the difference, maybe you shouldn't be having this conversation? The difference is vast and for you to even compare them, well, you really don't understand what you are talking about. computer parts posted:Police unions are the ultimate example of how a collectivist society can still be FYGM. What Collectivist society are you talking about, because I don't see one around here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:If you're just going to admit that symbolic gestures in support of "union power" are more important to you than civil liberties and racial equality, then you are part of the problem. Public employee unions have existed since the 80's in many areas. Have we seen a massive uptick in police brutality since then? No, we have not. Texas, Georgia, Virginia, North and South Carolina do not allow public sector unions to bargain collectively. Are these states paragons of police conduct? No, they are not. Do we similar police brutality issues in European countries with public employee unions? No, we do not. Unions aren't the problem here. quote:That is how we arrived at the situation we are in with police and prison guards, not to mention why in California a judge recently ruled that teachers unions are a form of racial discrimination, since they have enshrined a system that creates failing schools in majority-black areas. Majority Latino areas, and the court ruled that state laws about seniority and firing were discriminatory, not unions themselves. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:So, yes? The teachers go on strike until the budget is restored to the level they demand, irrespective of what the voters or their elected representatives have democratically chosen. I admire your strategy of "accuse everyone who wants police abuse curtailed of hating teachers"; it's bound to be effective. Not particularly good in terms of what it says about your morality, though. I'm sure everyone who had a nightstick rammed up his rear end by a bored cop and the millions of people who live in fear every day because mafia thugs in blue roam the streets looking to pick a fight appreciate that Mrs. Appleworth is restricted to a 6.5 hour workday. Really helps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Public employee unions have existed since the 80's in many areas. Have we seen a massive uptick in police brutality since then? No, we have not. Texas, Georgia, Virginia, North and South Carolina do not allow public sector unions to bargain collectively. Are these states paragons of police conduct? No, they are not. Do we similar police brutality issues in European countries with public employee unions? No, we do not. Unions aren't the problem here. If you actually believe that police aren't getting worse or that there is no abuse in Glorious Utopian Paradise Europe, you're even more out of touch with reality than the people who think that protecting union membership is more important than protecting civil liberties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Pohl posted:What Collectivist society are you talking about, because I don't see one around here. A hypothetical collectivist society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A hypothetical collectivist society. A collectivist society wouldn't need unions, so whatever point you were trying to make means nothing. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:By definition it is undemocratic. We correctly choose to prevent certain things, enshrined in Constitutional amendments, from the democratic process -- no majority should be able to vote to make it illegal for certain racial groups to vote or ban gay people from getting married, and no majority can abridge the freedom of speech, or to bear arms, or so forth. Yeah. quote:There is no legitimate way that "allowing police to do whatever they want" [falls under this umbrella] Yeah... quote:or a specific benefits package for teachers falls under this umbrella. Factually, it does not (it is not in the Constitution). Huh!? There's something in the constitution that prevents employees from negotiating pay packages? quote:Morally, treating police behavior as outside the democratic process is abhorrent. On a more mundane level, things like how much resources a state wants to devote to education or health care are exactly the sorts of things we are supposed to be voting on. Public employee unions are an attempt to take EVERYTHING outside the democratic process and turn it into a union boss and a politician, the latter of whom owes nothing to anyone outside the union and isn't playing with his own money, "negotiating" a corrupt bargain. That is how we arrived at the situation we are in with police and prison guards, not to mention why in California a judge recently ruled that teachers unions are a form of racial discrimination, since they have enshrined a system that creates failing schools in majority-black areas. But again you're missing the critical distinction between law enforcement and any other kind of public employee. Teachers don't operate with impunity like police, because police enforce laws. Teachers can't commit fraud or theft or rape and get away with it because they are a teacher. Teachers can be held accountable. Hell school districts can be held accountable; if a school district is found to have violated McKinney-Vento, you can bet your rear end they will be held accountable. Even police departments can be held accountable by the DoJ. The problem with police unions is that municipalities let them negotiate their review and termination process. Again, not as big a deal with teachers, because teachers aren't supposed to shoot anybody as a part of their job. e: wait, is this just a straight up libertarian argument?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:If you actually believe that police aren't getting worse or that there is no abuse in Glorious Utopian Paradise Europe, you're even more out of touch with reality than the people who think that protecting union membership is more important than protecting civil liberties. I actually think that police haven't gotten any worse in the states and countries which allow collective bargaining compared to the ones that don't, and I think that public sector unions protect a very important constitutional right-- the right to due process for their members.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Pohl posted:A collectivist society wouldn't need unions, so whatever point you were trying to make means nothing. Police Unions:Society::Hypothetical Collectivist Society:Rest of World. If you're too obtuse to understand that, let me know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Huh!? There's something in the constitution that prevents employees from negotiating pay packages? There is no guarantee that they must do so or have a *right* to do so, therefore it is legitimate for a vote to remove or affect this ability. quote:But again you're missing the critical distinction between law enforcement and any other kind of public employee. Teachers don't operate with impunity like police, because police enforce laws. Teachers can't commit fraud or theft or rape and get away with it because they are a teacher. Right, the police are worse because of exactly the reasons you stated. But fighting for the blanket "public employee unions are good" principle because people like teachers is going to make the police problem impossible to solve, because the police, who are worse, are also a public employee union and their union status is intimately tied to the reason they are worse. That's my point. SedanChair posted:e: wait, is this just a straight up libertarian argument? Is "unions are good" a straight up Communist argument? Come on. "Oh no, someone said something that might agree with the boogeyman people! That must mean they are wrong!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:I would be all for the FBI's role of investigating local police abuse being expanded aggressively. Great idea. Now, when the unionized Chicago cops start shooting back at the FBI agents, you are going to stand with me and demand that we not back down from this plan, right? Sounds reasonable to me. I'm all for taking care of things nonviolently but if a criminal organization can't be taken down peacefully then that's the price we have to pay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Don't feed the Republicans for Christ's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Throwdini posted:Don't feed the Republicans for Christ's sake. Yes, anyone who disagrees with you about anything is a libertarian-republican-neoconservative-neoliberal-zionist-plutocrat vampire. Especially people who are saying that cops are bad and should not be trusted because they abuse minorities (classic Republican sloganeering!) or that the FBI should have more power (notorious libertarian belief!) Keep using these thought-terminating cliches to avoid addressing the contradictions in your own value system, it will get you far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Yeah conservatives never shed crocodile tears about racism to support their bullshit policies, abortion protesters never say that legalizing abortion has killed more minorities than any genocide, Fox News never said that all unions are bad because 19th-century union leaders were racist (hey!), Likkudniks never say that not wanting to wipe Palestine from the face of the earth makes you a Nazi, etc etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Police Unions:Society::Hypothetical Collectivist Society:Rest of World. So what exactly did your post mean, since you told me it was hypothetical? Don't come down on me for not understanding what you mean when you aren't being specific. Make a post that actually articulates what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
I think it'd be a good idea for no-knock raids to require executive authorization. Make the mayor or governor put their signature on the warrant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Why is "police should stop abusing people, drugs should be legal, there should be fewer people in prison, and racism is bad" a "bullshit policy" supported by "conservatives?" Sounds a lot better than most conservative policies I'm familiar with. What do "Likudniks" have to do with this? That's kind of an inflammatory thing to inject into this thread about domestic American policies. Seems like there's a lot of thrashing around here from people who don't want to admit that a choice must be made between blanket support of public employee unions and civil liberties-oriented support of police reform. Anyone who wants one iota of improvement away from the militarized, aggressive, racist police is accused of being all sorts of things -- my goodness, a conservative libertarian likudnik who hates teachers and is literally the Koch Brothers! Typical police-apologist rhetoric, if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Is "unions are good" a straight up Communist argument? Come on. "Oh no, someone said something that might agree with the boogeyman people! That must mean they are wrong!" I didn't mean it like that. I mean, are you arguing that voters should just vote away all infrastructure and safety nets? I'm not asking if they have the right to do it, I'm asking if it's a good idea. Because you seem to think following the tax-aversive whims of the American voter is somehow the solution to mistreatment of minorities by the government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Why is "police should stop abusing people, drugs should be legal, there should be fewer people in prison, and racism is bad" a "bullshit policy" supported by "conservatives?" It's your transparent attempt at packaging neoliberalism in terms salient to the left. "Destroying the unions? It's about stopping ~child-rapist cops~ and nothing else! Nothing else!" Or, in other words: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Yes, anyone who disagrees with you about anything is a libertarian-republican-neoconservative-neoliberal-zionist-plutocrat vampire. I'd use the term class traitor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Never mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I didn't mean it like that. I mean, are you arguing that voters should just vote away all infrastructure and safety nets? Short answer, no. quote:I'm not asking if they have the right to do it, I'm asking if it's a good idea. You should focus on this distinction more. quote:Because you seem to think following the tax-aversive whims of the American voter is somehow the solution to mistreatment of minorities by the government. I'm demonstrating that this is in fact the case in some respects, no matter how poorly it may sit with you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
Accretionist posted:It's your transparent attempt at packaging neoliberalism in terms salient to the left. "Destroying the unions? It's about stopping ~child-rapist cops~ and nothing else! Nothing else!" The left doesn't care about cop abuses. This is a liberal issue in which leftist rhetoric has been mobilized in favor of a fascist police state agenda. My whole point is: leftism is incompatible with liberalism in this arena. You must make a choice. Do not choose "unions always good!" over protecting people from rampaging cops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:57
|
|