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.
So how would you do that? I’m reading conflicting opinions from your comments. One comment back your entire point was that you can negotiate with police unions to end pensions (Strong disagree from me). Now it sounds like you’re saying that you cannot negotiate ending police pensions as they will soft strike and stonewall (I do agree with this, they already react this way to much softer demands). I literally thought you were a new commenter just now until I read your username.
So how exactly would you do it? How would you convince police to end their pension programs, ostensibly in exchange for greater accountability for bad behavior?
I’m saying how it historically is been and how we need to stop letting terrorists police unions dictate the terms out the gate or threaten to not do their fucking jobs. You can infer. You’re not stupid, that’s clear
It’s a difficult hostage situation that can be solved. But not if you admit defeat before even trying
Hey, don’t underestimate my stupidity! :P But from your avoidance, I do think I understand what you’re suggesting. It’s righteous, but I don’t think it’s viable. Certainly not from a civil society standpoint. Cops are often sad angry people, they often have a lot less to lose than most active and engaged community members.
I really do think that getting more judges to reject QE is a better path, less ability for cops to retaliate and far fewer institutional hurdles to surmount. No risk to existing labor rights for workers in other sectors. And there is already the precedent of several judges speaking out against QE and deciding not to adhere to it. There is also the precedent of most other common law countries not adhering to QE.
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.
So how would you do that? I’m reading conflicting opinions from your comments. One comment back your entire point was that you can negotiate with police unions to end pensions (Strong disagree from me). Now it sounds like you’re saying that you cannot negotiate ending police pensions as they will soft strike and stonewall (I do agree with this, they already react this way to much softer demands). I literally thought you were a new commenter just now until I read your username.
So how exactly would you do it? How would you convince police to end their pension programs, ostensibly in exchange for greater accountability for bad behavior?
I’m saying how it historically is been and how we need to stop letting
terroristspolice unions dictate the terms out the gate or threaten to not do their fucking jobs. You can infer. You’re not stupid, that’s clearIt’s a difficult hostage situation that can be solved. But not if you admit defeat before even trying
Hey, don’t underestimate my stupidity! :P But from your avoidance, I do think I understand what you’re suggesting. It’s righteous, but I don’t think it’s viable. Certainly not from a civil society standpoint. Cops are often sad angry people, they often have a lot less to lose than most active and engaged community members.
I really do think that getting more judges to reject QE is a better path, less ability for cops to retaliate and far fewer institutional hurdles to surmount. No risk to existing labor rights for workers in other sectors. And there is already the precedent of several judges speaking out against QE and deciding not to adhere to it. There is also the precedent of most other common law countries not adhering to QE.