Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 323: Peaceful Transition of Topics

(+) Yeah! (+)

Okay. *presses palms together*

Can you please explain what EXACTLY would be different if police unions were abolished, with the knowledge that every member of the police unions would still be employed and serving the same role on the force before and after that abolishment.

Like, in a normal union, I understand that abolishing that union divides up the population that previously would have been part of said union. You take a united force against the management and you then turn them into the people STILL pissed at the management, and those that want to kiss ass to the management (and maybe hate having to chip in union dues).

With the police union, every level of the police is complicit in what's going on. There's no "management" that the police are against, except the "civvies", and if you're already viewing the civilian population as your adversary, then the problems run a lot deeper than just having a union, because the police brotherhood is itself the union.

---

We can't just go from A to B is my point.

If you abolish the union but have nothing else in place, the system isn't going to change.

Unless you have something already setup when you abolish the current union, the way things are setup now, the system will just rebuild to the status quo.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

you support the war on terror.

your bitching about "extremism" has 0% value.

You don't support fighting against terrorism? What is your pre-occupation with the War on Terror?

---

Inviso posted...

Okay. *presses palms together*

Can you please explain what EXACTLY would be different if police unions were abolished, with the knowledge that every member of the police unions would still be employed and serving the same role on the force before and after that abolishment.

Like, in a normal union, I understand that abolishing that union divides up the population that previously would have been part of said union. You take a united force against the management and you then turn them into the people STILL pissed at the management, and those that want to kiss ass to the management (and maybe hate having to chip in union dues).

With the police union, every level of the police is complicit in what's going on. There's no "management" that the police are against, except the "civvies", and if you're already viewing the civilian population as your adversary, then the problems run a lot deeper than just having a union, because the police brotherhood is itself the union.

Police can't use tons of taxpayer money to lobby for lawmakers.

Hence, lawmakers aren't put in place because the police union uses their power to put them there.

Because there is no organization working against them and nobody they have to rely on when they make decisions, they can actually put in place laws that help the citizens and not the police.

And they don't have an organization putting together contracts and "negotiating" for things like well if you put body cams on them, then they deserve this much more time off if they need to be investigated.

---

Hey, we're back to transparent election bribes: https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1309242403551940608

Trump says he's going to send $200 cards to Medicare recipients.

The backstory (included in the thread) is kinda wild too. I don't think we talked about it when it first came around because there's just so much happening, but last week it came out that the administration and pharmaceutical companies actually nearly reached a deal where the industry would spend $150bn to help with the price of prescription drugs... but then the White House blew the whole deal up when they further insisted that the drug companies mail $100 cards to seniors before the election and they balked because it was so fucking brazenly political. So we lost an opportunity for something that might have been somewhat positive because he couldn't send out these "Trump cards."

Now it looks like he's just going to go ahead and do it anyway, just now its taxpayer money paying for it... and the administration claims the money is coming from savings from a Trump initiative... that isn't even in effect... so they're just fucking lying about the money. So transparently corrupt. (And just a payment to those pharmaceutical companies since without a deal in place to make them actually change their practices this is just a one-time gift card with the current insane prices)

---

You know what Calvin Coolidge did when the Boston police went on strike?

He fired every one of them and called in the Massachusetts State Guard to keep order until replacements could be hired.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

We can't just go from A to B is my point.

If you abolish the union but have nothing else in place, the system isn't going to change.

Unless you want to get rid of all lawmakers lobbied for by the police union overnight, that's literally not possible.

But getting rid of the police union opens up for lawmakers who aren't beholden to the police union to come in and start making changes.

Like what is this argument? "you need immediate change." Like what? Do you not know how politics work?

---

Corrik7 posted...

You don't support fighting against terrorism? What is your pre-occupation with the War on Terror?

i certainly don't support fighting against terrorism in the way GWB decided to do it, no, and the idea that it has been solely about fighting against terrorism is lolworthy. where were those weapons of mass destruction?

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Police can't use tons of taxpayer money to lobby for lawmakers.

Hence, lawmakers aren't put in place because the police union uses their power to put them there.

Because there is no organization working against them and nobody they have to rely on when they make decisions, they can actually put in place laws that help the citizens and not the police.

And they don't have an organization putting together contracts and "negotiating" for things like well if you put body cams on them, then they deserve this much more time off if they need to be investigated.

I guess I'm really not understanding what makes you think that police unions as organizations are different from the police as an overarching entity. Why are the police unions able to use taxpayer money to lobby in the first place, and how would that change if they were abolished? If the unions can do that, why couldn't the police just do the same thing, without the "union" title attached?

---

Just making sure that everyone here understands that the only way you abolish police unions forever is to ban all public employees unions.

---

We went about the war on terror really badly. You can't make war against an idea and expect to win. Ideas are really strong and basically impossible to kill. Terror is a primal emotion felt by humans.......if we spent 100% of our GDP on the military and technology 10 times as advanced as we do, we wouldn't stand a chance of defeating an emotion in war.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i certainly don't support fighting against terrorism in the way GWB decided to do it, no, and the idea that it has been solely about fighting against terrorism is lolworthy. where were those weapons of mass destruction?

You tell me. Letting inspectors in to do their jobs could have cleared a lot of those suspicions, per the UN mandate which authorized use of force with failure to heed.

Anyways, how do you support fighting against terrorism? Every president is a war criminal by your standards right?

---

Inviso posted...

I guess I'm really not understanding what makes you think that police unions as organizations are different from the police as an overarching entity. Why are the police unions able to use taxpayer money to lobby in the first place, and how would that change if they were abolished? If the unions can do that, why couldn't the police just do the same thing, without the "union" title attached?

Because it would be a conflict. The police union is an organization outside of the police, funded by taxpayers.

They can give support for a candidate, but they cannot give taxpayer money, which is allotted to the police department alone, to lobby for lawmakers. And if they did, that would be a huge cut out of their own budget to keep the police department operating. The union is allowed to do that because they are a separate entity fighting for police and have their own separate budget meant to fight for police rights in any way they can.

---

1. Don't call it the "war on terror."
2. Don't invade Iraq.
3. If you must invade Iraq, either make it a US territory or divide it into 3 countries.
4. Don't torture people.

---

hockeydude15 posted...

Just making sure that everyone here understands that the only way you abolish police unions forever is to ban all public employees unions.

Police unions are not public employee unions.

---

red sox 777 posted...

1. Don't call it the "war on terror."
2. Don't invade Iraq.
3. If you must invade Iraq, either make it a US territory or divide it into 3 countries.
4. Don't torture people.

Surely the War on Terror encompasses way more than just Iraq to you right?

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Because it would be a conflict. The police union is an organization outside of the police, funded by taxpayers.

They can give support for a candidate, but they cannot give taxpayer money, which is allotted to the police department alone, to lobby for lawmakers. And if they did, that would be a huge cut out of their own budget to keep the police department operating. The union is allowed to do that because they are a separate entity fighting for police and have their own separate budget meant to fight for police rights in any way they can.

Okay, this actually explains things a bit more. Now, where exactly are police unions getting all this taxpayer money from? I only have experience with your more standard unions, in which you pay fees and dues to the union as part of your membership, which funds them. So why exactly are police unions getting taxpayer money?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Surely the War on Terror encompasses way more than just Iraq to you right?

Sure, but you asked what Lasa would do differently. I think the Iraq part was where we made the most errors.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

The police union is an organization outside of the police, funded by taxpayers.

Why do you keep saying this? The unions are funded by their cut from the wages.

Like I think most cops are Teamsters. My union at a plastic company was literally the Teamsters.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Sure, but you asked what Lasa would do differently. I think the Iraq part was where we made the most errors.

I believe he is considering the entire thing as wrong moreso. I was asking you if your only gripes were the Iraq part. If so, you would be primarily in acceptance of it.

---

Tag the topic properly.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Why do you keep saying this? The unions are funded by their cut from the wages.

Like I think most cops are Teamsters. My union at a plastic company was literally the Teamsters.

And the police get their wages paid for by taxpayers.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I believe he is considering the entire thing as wrong moreso. I was asking you if your only gripes were the Iraq part. If so, you would be primarily in acceptance of it.

Well, 2 of my 4 points aren't really about Iraq.

---

Eddv posted...

Tag the topic properly.

Can you really not stop yourself from clicking on one topic because he forgot to tag it

Do you have that little self control

---

Just tag the fucking topic properly.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

And the police get their wages paid for by taxpayers.

Okay, now I'm confused again, because this would still be the case even if unions were abolished, and there would still be nothing stopping the same thing from occurring under the banner of the thin blue line, as it were.

---

Eddv posted...

Just tag the fucking topic properly.

I see the answer is a resounding "Yes."

---

I say don't tag this one just for funsies.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

And the police get their wages paid for by taxpayers.

Are you also for abolishing teachers unions?

Inviso posted...

Okay, now I'm confused again, because this would still be the case even if unions were abolished, and there would still be nothing stopping the same thing from occurring under the banner of the thin blue line, as it were.

No, because their money can't be used to lobby. That's the difference.

For instance, the police union in NY I believe last year spent over $1 million in lobbying. Police aren't allowed to use it for that purpose because they're paid by the taxpayer to only use that on the department.

Police unions are an entirely separate entity that aren't beholden to that. So if $1 million isn't spent putting people in office that will help out police, then they don't need to try making police unions happy to keep that support.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

Are you also for abolishing teachers unions?

No.

Are you in favor of a union that ensures no accountability for a group of people meant to protect the people that pay for it?

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I say don't tag this one just for funsies.

wow we really are an anarchist jurisdiction now

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Are you in favor of a union that ensures no accountability for a group of people meant to protect the people that pay for it?

No but taxpayer funding has nothing to do with this.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

No, because their money can't be used to lobby. That's the difference.

For instance, the police union in NY I believe last year spent over $1 million in lobbying. Police aren't allowed to use it for that purpose because they're paid by the taxpayer to only use that on the department.

Police unions are an entirely separate entity that aren't beholden to that. So if $1 million isn't spent putting people in office that will help out police, then they don't need to try making police unions happy to keep that support.

What I mean is...

Police unions are funded by dues and membership fees paid out from the police themselves.

Without the union, the police would have that extra money in the tank.

What is stopping them, without the union, from just pooling money together for the same results?

Admittedly, it makes doing such a thing more difficult, but the underlying problem is police culture, not the union itself. Without correcting the culture, the police can always just keep doing similar versions of the same shit, even if you remove the "union" nameplate.

---

So then you don't support police unions being around. Perfect. Glad we can agree on this red.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

And the police get their wages paid for by taxpayers.

This means literally nothing. The taxpayers do not pay the union. The police choose to. They could choose not to. It is their money then. If I pay you $100 to mow my lawn, and you go and overdose on it. I didn't pay for you to overdose. You did. I paid you to mow my lawn. Taxpayers pay the police their wages. They choose to use their wages how they want. It would be like if a police officer decides to get a porn subscription and you going omg taxpayers are paying for porn like this is outrageous. It's their money.

Like, literally stop saying it. It's completely wrong and makes you look uninformed. Bro, like for real!


---

Corrik7 posted...

Letting inspectors in to do their jobs could have cleared a lot of those suspicions

those "suspicions" had no basis in reality so the idea that there was a "job" that inspectors had to do is fucking stupid.

Anyways, how do you support fighting against terrorism?

i mean, there's not one adequate way to fight against terrorism in general so that question is impossible to answer.

if we're talking about terrorism in the middle east, that's also very complex and i don't know the perfect solution, but there's plenty of ways to do it that are not GWB's "LET'S KILL AND TORTURE THE FUCK OUT OF PEOPLE" approach. there's been plenty of stuff written and said about it. jill stein has some pretty interesting ideas about it. i'm sure you don't give a shit about what she thinks, though, as she's an EXTREMIST FAR LEFT CRAZY (unlike bush, who obviously handled the war on terror flawlessly).

---

I think the question here is if police get any specific legal benefit from being a union versus, say, forming a PAC to do the same lobbying. I'm sure they do (and unions definitely have better PR than PACs), but I don't know what they are.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

So then you don't support police unions being around. Perfect. Glad we can agree on this red.

You apparently don't support teachers unions being around because the funding comes from taxpayers.

Which they then use to lobby and instill into political campaigns.

Again, it's a big issue of you needing to be careful with your rhetoric because some things you seem to be against apply to far more than police unions.

(my own union has been recruiting people to make robocalls recently).

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I think the question here is if police get any specific legal benefit from being a union versus, say, forming a PAC to do the same lobbying. I'm sure they do (and unions definitely have better PR than PACs), but I don't know what they are.

I'm not going to stand by or research this by any means, but considering how scummy and under the table PACs can be, I'd wager they are slightly more transparent. If I had to bet on it, anyway.

Inviso posted...

What I mean is...

Police unions are funded by dues and membership fees paid out from the police themselves.

Without the union, the police would have that extra money in the tank.

What is stopping them, without the union, from just pooling money together for the same results?

Admittedly, it makes doing such a thing more difficult, but the underlying problem is police culture, not the union itself. Without correcting the culture, the police can always just keep doing similar versions of the same shit, even if you remove the "union" nameplate.

There are laws keeping anyone paid for by taxpayers to use money for lobbying, which is why they funnel the money into a union to lobby for it. They literally cannot use the money to lobby without a union.

---

Hey red, how do you feel about things like local labor unions (union unions?) expelling police unions from membership and pressuring national groups like AFL-CIO to do the same?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Hey red, how do you feel about things like local labor unions (union unions?) expelling police unions from membership and pressuring national groups like AFL-CIO to do the same?

Again, fuck current police union structure. It's basically police entering into a CBA with themselves.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

There are laws keeping anyone paid for by taxpayers to use money for lobbying, which is why they funnel the money into a union to lobby for it. They literally cannot use the money to lobby without a union.

That makes sense. What about HDT's PAC suggestion? Is that still a possible loophole?

---

also

Corrik7 posted...

Every president is a war criminal by your standards right?

i'm not so familiar with US presidents that i can be 100% certain about this but... probably.

not sure why every time we have this debate, you use this argument as if it's an amazing gotcha. you think i actually like bill clinton and obama or something?

---

Leafeon13N posted...

You apparently don't support teachers unions being around because the funding comes from taxpayers.

Which they then use to lobby and instill into political campaigns.

Again, it's a big issue of you needing to be careful with your rhetoric because some things you seem to be against apply to far more than police unions.

(my own union has been recruiting people to make robocalls recently).

I don't give a fuck about rhetoric when police unions have been protecting police officers from accountability for scummy shit and literally murdering people.

You are having trouble comprehending that I do not want police unions because they protect police when they literally murder people and allow them to face no accountability from it. That's it. It's that simple.

If an organization is going to keep people who are supposed to protect us and allow them to take lives with impunity, they should not exist.

Teachers are not murdering people and then get to take a vacation and a small fine at worst from it. Police are. This is the difference.

Edit: Like who fucking cares about rhetoric when there's an organization fighting hard to keep letting police get away with murder. Stop trying to make this about anything other than the police union itself.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Teachers are not murdering people and then get to take a vacation and a small fine at worst from it. Police are. This is the difference

And this isnt going to change without changing the law and fundamentally changing the system.

But if you take dangerous anti union talk that can rightfully be applied to other unions, your argument isn't going to hold any water.

The fact you don't give a shit because the stakes are higher is not a valid argument.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Stop trying to make this about anything other than the police union itself.

The police are bad, yes. You are attributing this to aspects of the union that apply to other unions. I will not support such rhetoric.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

also

i'm not so familiar with US presidents that i can be 100% certain about this but... probably.

not sure why every time we have this debate, you use this argument as if it's an amazing gotcha. you think i actually like bill clinton and obama or something?

If you were US president, would you be a war criminal?

If your argument is like that of St. Just in the French Revolution (a king must reign or die), then the crime is not anything a president or king does but rather that he is a president/king.

---