Many business policies are negotiated by union & business, and some using "tripartism" - usually union & business & government. I'd like to see more involvement of other interest groups - more of a corporativism model. That would allow other segments of society to contribute to the policies of business and government.
Unions are not evil, they are simply people following their own incentives. Indeed the same can be said for the vast majority of humans and inflammatory language like that does nothing to further understanding of their points of view.
As for "punishment", are you serious? What punishment? By whom? Under which terms?
Personally I'd advocate for my work disciplinary interactions to be private between me and my employer, as I suspect would most people. The police have a public interest counter argument to that otherwise rational expectation. So what's the middle ground? Can there be generalised stats released whilst maintaining privacy? Perhaps privacy simply cannot be maintained in this instance (for example my professional body would publish the results of disciplinary hearings to the public record I believe).
Accepting that you don't like the result I find it hard to believe you can't see that there's a conversation to be had and that both negotiating parties had a case to make.
Welp, not going to lie here, I do feel like someone's personal disciplinary records should not be public. Unless that person is a public servant. Which a cop is. I'm not certain under which terms the punishment should be. When you protect an entire group from persecution from their crimes, what is that punishment?
If you are a cop then you should have no expectation of privacy. That is the tradeoff for getting to walk around with a gun and the authority of state sanctioned killing. If you dont like it, dont be a cop. There can be no middle ground.
6 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 28.8 ms ] threadAs for "punishment", are you serious? What punishment? By whom? Under which terms?
Personally I'd advocate for my work disciplinary interactions to be private between me and my employer, as I suspect would most people. The police have a public interest counter argument to that otherwise rational expectation. So what's the middle ground? Can there be generalised stats released whilst maintaining privacy? Perhaps privacy simply cannot be maintained in this instance (for example my professional body would publish the results of disciplinary hearings to the public record I believe).
Accepting that you don't like the result I find it hard to believe you can't see that there's a conversation to be had and that both negotiating parties had a case to make.
This is the problem right here. These contracts shouldn't need to be leaked, because they shouldn't be secret in the first place.