While this is definitely needed, I don’t think it’s a starting point.
IMO, a good place to start is instituting policies requiring LEOs/PDs carry liability insurance. Similar to doctors and other medical practices (in the US). An officer is found guilty or misconduct or violating a citizen’s right? Penalties are taken out of their insurance and their premium increases. Can’t afford the premium? Guess who’s looking for a new job?
The way I see, the pigs can keep their criminal immunity, but civil matters will have a more direct financial incentive for them to behave like they have morals.
Police have unions (They function as professional organizations, but legally they are labor unions) largely to block legal changes like this. To defeat them, you’d need to somehow pass legislation on the state and federal level that mortally undermines the power of all labor unions in the USA. This would have knock-on effects for all US workers, as unions fight for and uphold labor protections that benefit those outside their ranks. For instance, two day weekends and 40 hour work weeks.
It seems clear to me that ending QE - Which is merely a judicial policy, it’s not even law - Is by far the more potent, simple, and safe avenue of attack. But I’m interested in your thoughts on the above proverbial gun that police unions hold to the head of every US laborer.
No, you can have selective limits, tied to how much risk the job imposes on the surroundings (like universal regulation on any job requiring being armed). Unions are supposed to be about worker power against the employer, not against society.
Well unfortunately in the case of US police unions, it’s an anti-labor force using a labor organization as a disingenuous hedge against accountability. And also at the end of the day a police union resisting insurance requirements for it’s members actually is a case of workers (Class traitors, but workers all the same) organizing against their employer.
Maybe start with the training. It’s ridiculously short in the US compared to European countries where the training takes usually multiple years, before you’re allowed to go on your own
I mean, if it works, it works. We’ve addressed a lot of societal problems via liability-based approaches. ADA ramps and disability access come to mind. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s often a lot more tractable than trying to change the culture of an entire industry or profession. Activists spent decades trying to persuade architects and building owners to make their spaces accessible. But they simply didn’t want to change. Designing public buildings with ramps and elevators can have real drawbacks, both practically and aesthetically, and the building industry didn’t want to change. Congress could have made it illegal to not have ramps, a misdemeanor or felony, but who is legally responsible for a non compliant school? And does this sound like a law police would spend a lot of time enforcing? Are they going to devote resources to cracking down on inaccessible buildings?
In the end, it was simply easier to empower disabled people to be their own advocates. Let them sue building owners who won’t make their structures accessible. No need to convince a prosecutor or bureaucrat that disability access is worth their time. The people most affected can lead the charge instead.
Overall, the approach has worked quite well. While not perfect, it has radically changed the degree of accessibility for disabled people to public buildings and spaces.
How would you strip police unions of their pensions without also destroying the savings of every other labor union in the US? Dissolving labor rights is not the right way to fight an anti-labor force, it’s very “fighting fire with fire”.
When did I say get rid of labor rights? Show me, I really don’t understand how you got that from what I said.
I said end police pensions (because they are choking city budgets), require better/more training, and pay them more. If we’re not going to get rid of police we should at least hold them to a higher standard and make the job more desirable. As it is it’s just a job for washed out bullies to go beat up minorities.
Calling for a reduction or end to poorly thought out pensions is not the same as destroying labor rights. It’s a different form of compensation. You are beingvery myopic about this
Police pensions are protected by police unions. Abolishing police pensions would almost certainly require kneecapping their labor rights. Sorry, I realize now that I left explanation of this logic step out of my first comment. What I am essentially asking is, how would you undermine police unions without also undermining all unions, and thereby all labor?
Here’s something crazy: they could negotiate an end to pensions. You’re the one using the word “abolish.” Not me. I said “end.” That’s a very open-ended word.
I also do not agree that the fate of all labor unions rests with the fate of police unions. That is a very convenient excuse to never enter a tough negotiation or compromise. Police unions enjoy all kinds of benefits that other unions do not as it is - I don’t see that shit trickling down to other ones, so why would the inverse apply?
This has definitely been attempted, in fact I would reckon that the majority of police contract negotiations begin on the topic of pensions as it is one of or possibly the largest cost associated with running a police agency. But as no union worth it’s salt would ever budge on the one thing that is most important to it’s members - Teachers, longshoremen, delivery people, factory workers, none of them have ever given up pensions because it would be wildly against their primary interest - It hasn’t happened yet. What would you do differently to convince police unions to abandon their retirement plan (Or replace it with something that can be deducted from or penalized conditionally)?
As somebody who has actually worked in municipal government, I can tell you that these conversations are dead on arrival because police unions start refusing to police the moment it’s even uttered. It’s a Trump card they don’t mind playing in the slightest and it needs to stop.
There cannot be any major changes until there are major revisions to or the total elimination of police pensions.
Start by removing Qualified Immunity.
While this is definitely needed, I don’t think it’s a starting point.
IMO, a good place to start is instituting policies requiring LEOs/PDs carry liability insurance. Similar to doctors and other medical practices (in the US). An officer is found guilty or misconduct or violating a citizen’s right? Penalties are taken out of their insurance and their premium increases. Can’t afford the premium? Guess who’s looking for a new job?
The way I see, the pigs can keep their criminal immunity, but civil matters will have a more direct financial incentive for them to behave like they have morals.
Police have unions (They function as professional organizations, but legally they are labor unions) largely to block legal changes like this. To defeat them, you’d need to somehow pass legislation on the state and federal level that mortally undermines the power of all labor unions in the USA. This would have knock-on effects for all US workers, as unions fight for and uphold labor protections that benefit those outside their ranks. For instance, two day weekends and 40 hour work weeks.
It seems clear to me that ending QE - Which is merely a judicial policy, it’s not even law - Is by far the more potent, simple, and safe avenue of attack. But I’m interested in your thoughts on the above proverbial gun that police unions hold to the head of every US laborer.
No, you can have selective limits, tied to how much risk the job imposes on the surroundings (like universal regulation on any job requiring being armed). Unions are supposed to be about worker power against the employer, not against society.
Well unfortunately in the case of US police unions, it’s an anti-labor force using a labor organization as a disingenuous hedge against accountability. And also at the end of the day a police union resisting insurance requirements for it’s members actually is a case of workers (Class traitors, but workers all the same) organizing against their employer.
That’s another “market economy” solution.
Maybe start with the training. It’s ridiculously short in the US compared to European countries where the training takes usually multiple years, before you’re allowed to go on your own
Longer training isn’t going to help, they need better training
Fight police with capitalism!
I mean, if it works, it works. We’ve addressed a lot of societal problems via liability-based approaches. ADA ramps and disability access come to mind. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s often a lot more tractable than trying to change the culture of an entire industry or profession. Activists spent decades trying to persuade architects and building owners to make their spaces accessible. But they simply didn’t want to change. Designing public buildings with ramps and elevators can have real drawbacks, both practically and aesthetically, and the building industry didn’t want to change. Congress could have made it illegal to not have ramps, a misdemeanor or felony, but who is legally responsible for a non compliant school? And does this sound like a law police would spend a lot of time enforcing? Are they going to devote resources to cracking down on inaccessible buildings?
In the end, it was simply easier to empower disabled people to be their own advocates. Let them sue building owners who won’t make their structures accessible. No need to convince a prosecutor or bureaucrat that disability access is worth their time. The people most affected can lead the charge instead.
Overall, the approach has worked quite well. While not perfect, it has radically changed the degree of accessibility for disabled people to public buildings and spaces.
Makes sense. Make them a liability that not even the most corrupt officials wouldn’t want to help because it’d be too costly.
Get rid of pensions, pay them more, and require a full year of training.
How would you strip police unions of their pensions without also destroying the savings of every other labor union in the US? Dissolving labor rights is not the right way to fight an anti-labor force, it’s very “fighting fire with fire”.
When did I say get rid of labor rights? Show me, I really don’t understand how you got that from what I said.
I said end police pensions (because they are choking city budgets), require better/more training, and pay them more. If we’re not going to get rid of police we should at least hold them to a higher standard and make the job more desirable. As it is it’s just a job for washed out bullies to go beat up minorities.
Calling for a reduction or end to poorly thought out pensions is not the same as destroying labor rights. It’s a different form of compensation. You are beingvery myopic about this
Police pensions are protected by police unions. Abolishing police pensions would almost certainly require kneecapping their labor rights. Sorry, I realize now that I left explanation of this logic step out of my first comment. What I am essentially asking is, how would you undermine police unions without also undermining all unions, and thereby all labor?
Here’s something crazy: they could negotiate an end to pensions. You’re the one using the word “abolish.” Not me. I said “end.” That’s a very open-ended word.
I also do not agree that the fate of all labor unions rests with the fate of police unions. That is a very convenient excuse to never enter a tough negotiation or compromise. Police unions enjoy all kinds of benefits that other unions do not as it is - I don’t see that shit trickling down to other ones, so why would the inverse apply?
This has definitely been attempted, in fact I would reckon that the majority of police contract negotiations begin on the topic of pensions as it is one of or possibly the largest cost associated with running a police agency. But as no union worth it’s salt would ever budge on the one thing that is most important to it’s members - Teachers, longshoremen, delivery people, factory workers, none of them have ever given up pensions because it would be wildly against their primary interest - It hasn’t happened yet. What would you do differently to convince police unions to abandon their retirement plan (Or replace it with something that can be deducted from or penalized conditionally)?
As somebody who has actually worked in municipal government, I can tell you that these conversations are dead on arrival because police unions start refusing to police the moment it’s even uttered. It’s a Trump card they don’t mind playing in the slightest and it needs to stop.
There cannot be any major changes until there are major revisions to or the total elimination of police pensions.