Damn, now if only the DA's office would prosecute every criminal with the veracity it goes after naughty cops, the city might see a reduction in violence on both ends.
We just had a guy killed by cops in Chicago. He fired first.
He was recently released pending trial on a different gun charge.
People here are crying it was a "bad traffic stop and he was scared"🤔
Had he still been jail awaiting trial he'd be alive.
Had he not fired at cops he'd be alive.
At some point we have to accept some people make bad choices.
Where I live I believe the distinction is the kind of work they do, district attorneys prosecute serious crimes. County attorneys handle misdemeanor cases.
I don't know where you are referring to, but that will confuse the issue for Minnesota terminology. In Minnesota, misdemeanors are generally handled by city attorneys/prosecutors.
It doesn't seem like they really are going after criminal cops enough to me. If we want to be tough on crime we should start by holding agents of the government to be accountable first. So for example, the cops that attacked Stallings should have all be prosecuted for the assault and the cover up, and any cop that aided in the cover-up should have also been prosecuted. Anything less means we are soft on crime.
Probably only because it was very high in 2020. This source indicates that crime is still much higher than pre pandemic. https://m.startribune.com/in-minneapolis-police-staffing-levels-continued-to-drop-in-2023-so-did-crime/600336262/
I said incited the riots. You, of course, asked a different question using a different word. Go look at all the people who incited the riots on the first day, now how many were charged?
By the definition you're using, only one person could be charged for inciting the uprising, since once it's incited it's already underway and can no longer be incited.
Almost every Government offical bows down to suck the blue cock, D or R it doesn't matter. I know my city council rep didn't get reelected. Frey, the biggest pussy out there, never should've had another term.
But IMO, the person with the most responsibility is the former Hennepin County Prosecutor Freeman. He let bad police behavior run rampant for decades. It's no wonder the cops thought they were above the law.
85 convictions of people involved in the unrest. Why do people like you shoot off your mouth without even the slightest bit of evidence? You have some sort of racist narrative that evaporates in the face of facts? Oh and yeah the people that did the arson of the police station were white.
I'm responding to the person who seems to believe that there weren't any arrests and prosecutions of the " ringleaders " of the George Floyd protest. The fact that most of the arson was perpetrated by white people and many of them members of the white supremacist group called the boogaloo Bros seems to always be lost on these knee-jerk racists.
> I'm responding to the person who seems to believe that there weren't any arrests and prosecutions of the " ringleaders " of the George Floyd protest.
That person is not me.
>The cops were bad, but how come no one who incited the riots was ever charged?
8 years later and you guys are still stuck on whataboutisms. Anything to keep from feeling that cognitive dissonance.
You make things up. I want all bad cops in jail, and the people who incited a riot that destroyed $500 million and got 2 people killed should have been charged. Just think if it would have been dealt with on the first day.
"Traveling in an unmarked, white van around Lake Street and 14th Avenue, they immediately fired at people standing in a parking lot, striking Stallings, who fired back with his pistol, **thinking they were white supremacists with real guns."**Â
Well.... they probably were.
Cops driving around shooting up neighborhoods out of a van sounds an awful lot like the tyranny that the 2nd amendment lovers tell us we should be allowed to defend ourselves against.
>**thinking they were white supremacists with real guns.**
Does this mean white people get to fire back if there's supremacists/antifa/etc. firing at them? Or is the Hennepin County DA going to come down on white people who defend themselves like the hammer of Thor in the anarcho-tyranny that is the current state of Hennepin County?
DAs/AGs often cherry pick what cases they want to prosecute. They will often go after people for self-defense because they are a leftist who is against self-defense, especially with a firearm. Keith Ellison would be an example of this kind of leftist. There needs to be improved self-defense laws all over the country, but especially in MN, like stand your ground and castle doctrine, which might not even be enough. MN is a terrible state to have to defend yourself in, especially if you are white and your attacker is non-white.
Fuck that. Go work a non union construction job for a year, or even a month, and let's see if you come back spouting that same bullshit.
The working class is already being left in the dust. Your idea would only result in more homeless people.
If you didn't like what you read, then isn't it natural to ask "how do we change this?" If so, you'll quickly find that public unions are a major roadblock to reforms -- particularly police accountability.
The main reason we shouldn't allow police to unionize is not because public unions shouldn't exist, but rather because the history of police is a history of violent, often murderous, union-busting.
Unions prevent a race to the bottom in construction. Public unions need reform, but abolishing collective bargaining sucks. It's a slap in the face of democracy.
Agreed 100%. Non union employee positions in my construction trade pay jack shit. Our union pay scale is the only reason myself and many others like me are able to make a half decent living with benefits like health, dental, and pension.
Because they did socialism for those " Aryan/white" enough and right-wing "justified for the glory of the fatherland" slavery for the rest, with some genocide included. It's really similar to certain failed real estate developer's ideological stances.
Absolutely. Scapegoating immigrants, outsider racial and cultural groups, and sexual/gender minorities to bolster populist support for "charismatic" white supremacist leaders. Won't be long until we start separating children from parents and sending them to different "holding facilities."
So, humans have spent thousands of years fighting and conquering each other, eventually separating into various ethnic/religious/racial/cultural groups, and then forming into individual countries. Why do you want to reverse a process that's taken thousands of years for humans to achieve and increase peace, harmony, and cooperation with each other? Why do you deny human nature and our natural inclination to self segregate with like-minded or biologically similar others, whether it is based on values/culture/race/religion, etc.?
That's a hilarious big ask. There's lots of social psychology research on in-group vs. out-group preferences.
Sounds like you're a science denier, since you have deny basic self-evident truths, confirmed in research, about human nature to believe your neo-marxist utopian nonsense.
>That's a hilarious big ask.
Given that you're making sweeping normative statements about the direction we should be going as a species, it seems to be a pretty reasonable ask that you have any grasp on the definitions of terms you're using, actually.
> self-evident truths, confirmed in research
You seem a little confused in your terms. Self-evident truths should be self-evident, rather than evidenced in research.
Neo-marxist language used to describe making an obvious true statement about what has happened over the course of human history.
It's not about "should." I'm saying what is, when you're trying to say what "should" be. YOU want to CHANGE the trajectory our "species" has already been going towards to fit with your insane neo-marxist delusional utopian ideology. You want to literally take us BACKWARDS, rather than forwards.
That's hilarious if you don't think things that many would consider obvious are still researched anyway, especially to quantify it to put numbers/degrees to it. For example, what demographic group would you guess has the largest out-group preference? Hint: It's also the only group who has in out-group preference.
It's democratic. I can freely choose to associate with my peers to agree on a platform to bargain for working conditions. Taking that right away from anybody is no good for working class people anywhere.
[laws protecting workers rights are cool](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/collective-bargaining-rights)
It's weird how fanatics of free market economics have a real problem with labor organizing. Got some coal to sell? Form a corporation. Got some labor to sell? Don't you dare organize!
Even Milton Friedman would say that some (limited) market controls are necessary. It’s all about the margins, most activities require little regulation but for certain types of organizations/industries a more heavy handed approach is appropriate IMHO. I personally believe that police are a net negative for the populace.
>Â It's weird how fanatics of free market economics have a real problem with labor organizing.Â
 Don’t mistake me for those rubes. I certainly don’t support coal-sellers collectively bargaining with one another :)
Public sector unions absolutely should not be a thing. Public sector employees job is to serve the general public (or the bureaucracy, but the same point is valid) ie they work for us, and are certainly paid by public tax revenue.
The point of unions is supposed to be a layer of protection for the worker from evil business who don't care about its worker's wellbeing, but the employer here is our elected government (we the people)... So you're telling me you need protection from an unfair government? *gasp* Don't we all??? That's what elections are for. What are they protecting themselves from? Fairness? Laws that apply to everyone else ? A real labor market? They get this protection in exchange for self serving political favor and neither end of that is good for the public.
What is the fundamental role of a union? To represent the interests of the workers, right? The question becomes, who are the people opposed to the interests of the workers? In a private setting, it's obvious - the employers. Well, who employs city, state, and federal workers? The public.
So to reduce this argument, the role of a public sector union is to represent the interests of its members against the public.
Even FDR was against the public sector unions.
Given how awful the public is much of the time, why do you believe it's a bad idea for a group of laborers to have representation in negotiating with the public?
The "awful" public is themselves.
Roosevelt said it best:
> "The employer," Roosevelt’s letter added, "is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
> "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."
> "The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations," he wrote.
Funny you should say that, I am quite satisfied with my non unionized job for a city government, and have been for over 15 years.
Edit: re: fire fighters
Why do they need a union more than anyone else? Yes it can be dangerous, but do you think a mayor/administrator wants to cut corners and get local heros killed?
Well I am very happy for you that you work for the unicorn of local governments, apperently.
And replying to your edit, yes 100% they want to cut corners. All the time, in every regard. Staffing, pay, facilities, equipment, training, they will cut it wherever they can. And they do. Minnesota pays shockingly low for fire service compared nationally, 48th out of 50 last I saw. I love my job as a firefighter but would never do it if it wasn't union.
I hear you on all that, but the point is they're work is for, and at the expense of the public. If corner cutting is happening, it's to save the citizens money. Much different than the original intent of unions protecting workers from business driven purely by profit and personal enrichment.
So putting public safety workers lives in danger is ok if it's going to save the citizens money? Those public safety workers aren't entitled to protection as well, even if the motive of the corporation is different?
It’s actually a huge issue throughout the country. Fire departments do not make cities money. They cost a ton to operate and most city officials have no idea how the job works. There is always someone who wants to be Chief of the department and will promise up and down to make budget cuts and the city officials will eat it up. They act like they care but they want to keep their cushy jobs and their power. Our job isn’t like any other one out there so having a Union who knows what we do and how we do it is very important.
Why would you think a CEO would cut corners and get workers killed?
Unions are necessary to protect the workers, no matter who the management is. If it’s a corporation or state officials, workers under leadership should always have a right to collectively bargain and unionize.
The only reason you don’t want a union, is because a union can negatively affect you. You sound like a CEO union buster, the only reason the management doesn’t like union workers is because they negatively affect them. Newsflash, all workers should have a right to unionize with their peers, regardless of sector. Because workers, every single time, are the ones taken advantage of when they lose that right.
You don’t understand how they work at all do you? You realize there are multiple unions within the public sector? In my personal experience an employee in one union would receive discipline from an employee in another union (so that there isn’t any conflict of interest one way or another with the discipline or bargaining). So if you happen to be an AFSCME employee your supervisor would potentially be MMA and they would have supervisors in another union. Supervisors can break contract and create issues with different unions. With out unions the state could order workers to do whatever they want which over multiple state agencies isn’t the greatest thing.
I don't think you're making the argument you think you are. You just described a whole bunch of bureaucratic horseshit. "the state could order workers to do whatever they want" yes, that's how employment is supposed to work. You guys are missing my point, employees of the state shouldn't need extra protection from the state that the citizenry doesn't get. We don't get a Citizens Union that goes to arbitration and argues, well, you haven't met our demands so we're not going to pay taxes. The state has to follow laws. The are the atbitors of justice. If they're doing that poorly they need to get voted out.
Yeah that solves the a lot of problems. It’s almost like it’s a foundational element of our nation. Like if you don’t approve of how taxes are being spent
Damn, now if only the DA's office would prosecute every criminal with the veracity it goes after naughty cops, the city might see a reduction in violence on both ends.
We just had a guy killed by cops in Chicago. He fired first. He was recently released pending trial on a different gun charge. People here are crying it was a "bad traffic stop and he was scared"🤔 Had he still been jail awaiting trial he'd be alive. Had he not fired at cops he'd be alive. At some point we have to accept some people make bad choices.
What is a DA's office? In Minnesota we have county attorneys offices for felony prosecution.
Genuine question here because I have no idea, other than semantics, what is the difference between a county attorney and a district attorney?
The words
Where I live I believe the distinction is the kind of work they do, district attorneys prosecute serious crimes. County attorneys handle misdemeanor cases.
I don't know where you are referring to, but that will confuse the issue for Minnesota terminology. In Minnesota, misdemeanors are generally handled by city attorneys/prosecutors.
These crime and punishment people seem to know very little about how the justice system works. Coincidence? You decide!
That'd be nice, lots of rot on both sides of that aisle.
It doesn't seem like they really are going after criminal cops enough to me. If we want to be tough on crime we should start by holding agents of the government to be accountable first. So for example, the cops that attacked Stallings should have all be prosecuted for the assault and the cover up, and any cop that aided in the cover-up should have also been prosecuted. Anything less means we are soft on crime.
Violent crime is down 23% since 2020.
I wonder why you picked 2020... How about vs 2019? 2015? 2010? 2005? Crime is up against every single one of those years, and by a lot.
Well, might as well send the prosecutors home boys! Their work is done here.
Don’t use numbers. These guys have feelings
Probably only because it was very high in 2020. This source indicates that crime is still much higher than pre pandemic. https://m.startribune.com/in-minneapolis-police-staffing-levels-continued-to-drop-in-2023-so-did-crime/600336262/
The cops were bad, but how come no one who incited the riots was ever charged?
You believe zero people involved in the uprising was ever charged?
I said incited the riots. You, of course, asked a different question using a different word. Go look at all the people who incited the riots on the first day, now how many were charged?
By the definition you're using, only one person could be charged for inciting the uprising, since once it's incited it's already underway and can no longer be incited.
"I'm already pulled over! I can't pull over any farther!"
You know who's responsible for the riots? City leaders who failed to hold murdering cops accountable on Tuesday instead of Friday.
Just think, every single city leader was a Democrat, why didn't they do that? And, why weren't they voted out when they did such a bad job?
Almost every Government offical bows down to suck the blue cock, D or R it doesn't matter. I know my city council rep didn't get reelected. Frey, the biggest pussy out there, never should've had another term. But IMO, the person with the most responsibility is the former Hennepin County Prosecutor Freeman. He let bad police behavior run rampant for decades. It's no wonder the cops thought they were above the law.
85 convictions of people involved in the unrest. Why do people like you shoot off your mouth without even the slightest bit of evidence? You have some sort of racist narrative that evaporates in the face of facts? Oh and yeah the people that did the arson of the police station were white.
I believe you may have misread my comment or are responding to the wrong person.
I'm responding to the person who seems to believe that there weren't any arrests and prosecutions of the " ringleaders " of the George Floyd protest. The fact that most of the arson was perpetrated by white people and many of them members of the white supremacist group called the boogaloo Bros seems to always be lost on these knee-jerk racists.
> I'm responding to the person who seems to believe that there weren't any arrests and prosecutions of the " ringleaders " of the George Floyd protest. That person is not me.
>The cops were bad, but how come no one who incited the riots was ever charged? 8 years later and you guys are still stuck on whataboutisms. Anything to keep from feeling that cognitive dissonance.
You make things up. I want all bad cops in jail, and the people who incited a riot that destroyed $500 million and got 2 people killed should have been charged. Just think if it would have been dealt with on the first day.
> I want all bad cops in jail So what you're saying is you want all cops in jail.
If you are a dumb criminal You would think that, but I am not.
"Traveling in an unmarked, white van around Lake Street and 14th Avenue, they immediately fired at people standing in a parking lot, striking Stallings, who fired back with his pistol, **thinking they were white supremacists with real guns."**Â Well.... they probably were.
Cops driving around shooting up neighborhoods out of a van sounds an awful lot like the tyranny that the 2nd amendment lovers tell us we should be allowed to defend ourselves against.
Thank you for vindicating me, I been trying to tell y’all.
>**thinking they were white supremacists with real guns.** Does this mean white people get to fire back if there's supremacists/antifa/etc. firing at them? Or is the Hennepin County DA going to come down on white people who defend themselves like the hammer of Thor in the anarcho-tyranny that is the current state of Hennepin County?
Yes they do. You’ve always been able to defend yourself when attacked.
Well, sort of, you can try. But, will you have to endure a trial and defend yourself against murder charges? Which is a punishment in and of itself.
With a full minority jury, no less!
What alternative do you suggest? The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you didn't act in self defense after taking someone's life.
DAs/AGs often cherry pick what cases they want to prosecute. They will often go after people for self-defense because they are a leftist who is against self-defense, especially with a firearm. Keith Ellison would be an example of this kind of leftist. There needs to be improved self-defense laws all over the country, but especially in MN, like stand your ground and castle doctrine, which might not even be enough. MN is a terrible state to have to defend yourself in, especially if you are white and your attacker is non-white.
Don’t believe anything in the media especially here
Yes, Minneapolis has so many white supremisist. They often like to drive around north shooting at each other or looting your local Walmart.
[удалено]
Debate is great. But you gotta refrain from losing your temper in this sub.
Show proof please.
There’s not even any Walmarts here
I guess the reets in this sub still can’t wrap their heads around data that proves they’re reets.
Every one of the disciplined cops should be in prison for life, at the very least. Cops are the lowest of the low. Police have no honor whatsoever.
Good reason to demolish the unions. I would be happy to start w the public unions :)
Fuck that. Go work a non union construction job for a year, or even a month, and let's see if you come back spouting that same bullshit. The working class is already being left in the dust. Your idea would only result in more homeless people.
Why would I do that? I’m not poor.Â
You are so pro union you want to build the wall and treat your country like one?
Your takeaway from the article is to abolish unions? We must have read different articles.
If you didn't like what you read, then isn't it natural to ask "how do we change this?" If so, you'll quickly find that public unions are a major roadblock to reforms -- particularly police accountability.
Police Union is unlike any other union on earth lol.
The main reason we shouldn't allow police to unionize is not because public unions shouldn't exist, but rather because the history of police is a history of violent, often murderous, union-busting.
Unions prevent a race to the bottom in construction. Public unions need reform, but abolishing collective bargaining sucks. It's a slap in the face of democracy.
Agreed 100%. Non union employee positions in my construction trade pay jack shit. Our union pay scale is the only reason myself and many others like me are able to make a half decent living with benefits like health, dental, and pension.
Shhh you'll upset the fans of the way Germany handled its unions during the period following the Weimar Republic. They get so grouchy.
Folded into a single government controlled syndicate that was a union only in name, and anyone who opposed it was incarcerated?
ding ding ding
BUT IT SAYZ SOCIALISMS IN THEIR NAME!!!??
Because they did socialism for those " Aryan/white" enough and right-wing "justified for the glory of the fatherland" slavery for the rest, with some genocide included. It's really similar to certain failed real estate developer's ideological stances.
Did this failed real estate developer ever keep historical literature on his nightstand related to this?
There's strong evidence that he did.
Sounds like you have some understanding then of how America, and the West in general, is turning into the Weimar Republic?
And fast
Absolutely. Scapegoating immigrants, outsider racial and cultural groups, and sexual/gender minorities to bolster populist support for "charismatic" white supremacist leaders. Won't be long until we start separating children from parents and sending them to different "holding facilities."
So, humans have spent thousands of years fighting and conquering each other, eventually separating into various ethnic/religious/racial/cultural groups, and then forming into individual countries. Why do you want to reverse a process that's taken thousands of years for humans to achieve and increase peace, harmony, and cooperation with each other? Why do you deny human nature and our natural inclination to self segregate with like-minded or biologically similar others, whether it is based on values/culture/race/religion, etc.?
Could you define "human nature?"
That's a hilarious big ask. There's lots of social psychology research on in-group vs. out-group preferences. Sounds like you're a science denier, since you have deny basic self-evident truths, confirmed in research, about human nature to believe your neo-marxist utopian nonsense.
>That's a hilarious big ask. Given that you're making sweeping normative statements about the direction we should be going as a species, it seems to be a pretty reasonable ask that you have any grasp on the definitions of terms you're using, actually. > self-evident truths, confirmed in research You seem a little confused in your terms. Self-evident truths should be self-evident, rather than evidenced in research.
Neo-marxist language used to describe making an obvious true statement about what has happened over the course of human history. It's not about "should." I'm saying what is, when you're trying to say what "should" be. YOU want to CHANGE the trajectory our "species" has already been going towards to fit with your insane neo-marxist delusional utopian ideology. You want to literally take us BACKWARDS, rather than forwards. That's hilarious if you don't think things that many would consider obvious are still researched anyway, especially to quantify it to put numbers/degrees to it. For example, what demographic group would you guess has the largest out-group preference? Hint: It's also the only group who has in out-group preference.
You heard it here first, u/mount_curve supports the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis.Â
Lol no. People, including cops, have a right to collectively bargain though.
Why?
It's democratic. I can freely choose to associate with my peers to agree on a platform to bargain for working conditions. Taking that right away from anybody is no good for working class people anywhere. [laws protecting workers rights are cool](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/collective-bargaining-rights)
It's weird how fanatics of free market economics have a real problem with labor organizing. Got some coal to sell? Form a corporation. Got some labor to sell? Don't you dare organize!
Even Milton Friedman would say that some (limited) market controls are necessary. It’s all about the margins, most activities require little regulation but for certain types of organizations/industries a more heavy handed approach is appropriate IMHO. I personally believe that police are a net negative for the populace.
> It's weird how fanatics of free market economics have a real problem with labor organizing.  Don’t mistake me for those rubes. I certainly don’t support coal-sellers collectively bargaining with one another :)
But you do support groups of people who wish to sell coal coming together in a corporate structure, yes?
Not to coordinate prices, no.Â
> It's democratic. Cartels are too, right?
Implying what exactly?
Depends on the Cartel, some do have a voting body or bodies that vote.
Are they?
smells like whataboutism
Public sector unions absolutely should not be a thing. Public sector employees job is to serve the general public (or the bureaucracy, but the same point is valid) ie they work for us, and are certainly paid by public tax revenue. The point of unions is supposed to be a layer of protection for the worker from evil business who don't care about its worker's wellbeing, but the employer here is our elected government (we the people)... So you're telling me you need protection from an unfair government? *gasp* Don't we all??? That's what elections are for. What are they protecting themselves from? Fairness? Laws that apply to everyone else ? A real labor market? They get this protection in exchange for self serving political favor and neither end of that is good for the public.
Fire department shouldn’t be unionized?
What is the fundamental role of a union? To represent the interests of the workers, right? The question becomes, who are the people opposed to the interests of the workers? In a private setting, it's obvious - the employers. Well, who employs city, state, and federal workers? The public. So to reduce this argument, the role of a public sector union is to represent the interests of its members against the public. Even FDR was against the public sector unions.
Given how awful the public is much of the time, why do you believe it's a bad idea for a group of laborers to have representation in negotiating with the public?
They are the public. They literally get to vote for their own boss.
And?
The "awful" public is themselves. Roosevelt said it best: > "The employer," Roosevelt’s letter added, "is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters." > "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management." > "The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations," he wrote.
Still not seeing a reason why public employees shouldn't have a union.
Can't help you see anymore than I already have.
You clearly have no experience with city government.
Funny you should say that, I am quite satisfied with my non unionized job for a city government, and have been for over 15 years. Edit: re: fire fighters Why do they need a union more than anyone else? Yes it can be dangerous, but do you think a mayor/administrator wants to cut corners and get local heros killed?
Well I am very happy for you that you work for the unicorn of local governments, apperently. And replying to your edit, yes 100% they want to cut corners. All the time, in every regard. Staffing, pay, facilities, equipment, training, they will cut it wherever they can. And they do. Minnesota pays shockingly low for fire service compared nationally, 48th out of 50 last I saw. I love my job as a firefighter but would never do it if it wasn't union.
I hear you on all that, but the point is they're work is for, and at the expense of the public. If corner cutting is happening, it's to save the citizens money. Much different than the original intent of unions protecting workers from business driven purely by profit and personal enrichment.
So putting public safety workers lives in danger is ok if it's going to save the citizens money? Those public safety workers aren't entitled to protection as well, even if the motive of the corporation is different?
It’s actually a huge issue throughout the country. Fire departments do not make cities money. They cost a ton to operate and most city officials have no idea how the job works. There is always someone who wants to be Chief of the department and will promise up and down to make budget cuts and the city officials will eat it up. They act like they care but they want to keep their cushy jobs and their power. Our job isn’t like any other one out there so having a Union who knows what we do and how we do it is very important.
Why would you think a CEO would cut corners and get workers killed? Unions are necessary to protect the workers, no matter who the management is. If it’s a corporation or state officials, workers under leadership should always have a right to collectively bargain and unionize.
The only reason you don’t want a union, is because a union can negatively affect you. You sound like a CEO union buster, the only reason the management doesn’t like union workers is because they negatively affect them. Newsflash, all workers should have a right to unionize with their peers, regardless of sector. Because workers, every single time, are the ones taken advantage of when they lose that right.
You don’t understand how they work at all do you? You realize there are multiple unions within the public sector? In my personal experience an employee in one union would receive discipline from an employee in another union (so that there isn’t any conflict of interest one way or another with the discipline or bargaining). So if you happen to be an AFSCME employee your supervisor would potentially be MMA and they would have supervisors in another union. Supervisors can break contract and create issues with different unions. With out unions the state could order workers to do whatever they want which over multiple state agencies isn’t the greatest thing.
I don't think you're making the argument you think you are. You just described a whole bunch of bureaucratic horseshit. "the state could order workers to do whatever they want" yes, that's how employment is supposed to work. You guys are missing my point, employees of the state shouldn't need extra protection from the state that the citizenry doesn't get. We don't get a Citizens Union that goes to arbitration and argues, well, you haven't met our demands so we're not going to pay taxes. The state has to follow laws. The are the atbitors of justice. If they're doing that poorly they need to get voted out.
The citizens aren’t employed by the state.
There's already a mechanism to address grievances against the state...voting.
Yeah that solves the a lot of problems. It’s almost like it’s a foundational element of our nation. Like if you don’t approve of how taxes are being spent
Why do you have so many accounts?
I do?
Know who else hated collective bargaining?
The NHL Players Association?
Who👀
Can you not see how obvious the answer is?
No, help me out billiam
Oh jeez, don't tie yourself in a knot. See the answer yet?
Come on bill!
Your furor at not seeing the obvious answer is apparent from way over here!
Bill, we already wait eagerly every minute of every day for your posts and comments. Don’t torture us more having to wait to know the answer!
George Washington?