You can drop the word "police" from the title. And then drop the rest of the title too. This is just what unions do. That's what they were created for.
Police unions then must be unusual in wanting to create extra work for their members. I mean that they constantly pursue additional powers and responsibilities.
Sorry, I didn’t see “don’t correct blatant misinformation” in the guidelines. I suppose that applies to the other 2 replies to the same comment, and their children, or am I being singled out for a reason?
When blatant misinformation is part of a flamebait or trollish comment, not feeding takes priority over correcting. Otherwise trolling would work.
I don't remember why I replied to your comment and not the others. It may have been that the reply was less substantive and more flamey. It may also have been that I didn't see the others. I certainly wasn't singling you out.
Yeah, this is why teachers are always murdering their students and slashing the tires of parents. This is why casino workers are always mugging patrons and stealing their chips.
Unions were created to equalize the negotiating positions of both parties when establishing the terms of labor contracts, or rather, to give laborers a position more equal to that or management. There are plenty of unions who don't then use this power to enable and protect the anti-social behavior of their members.
Also, different lines of work select for workers inclined to different social pathologies. Police work tends to appeal to people who are comfortable using force to dominate their neighbors; who are comfortable in an authoritarian relationship to others where some issue commands and others obey without question. This selects for different anti-social tendencies than you're likely to see among garment industry workers, say, or agricultural laborers.
The standard conservative position is that police unions are good. So are you saying you disagree?
Or is it that you agree police unions are good, but know you don't have good arguments for that view, and so are trying to divert the discussion away from police unions and over to unions as such?
My own view is that calling unions all good or all bad is simply mistaken. They are a mix, and the proportion depends greatly on the case. I see police unions as one of the cases way over on the bad side. Do you disagree?
Man, you sure put a whole bunch of words in my mouth.
All I'm saying is that unions are created in order to block change that they perceive to be in opposition to their interests. This applies to wages, automation and other things. This is literally what unions were and are created for. Police or otherwise.
Are they good or bad? Depends. If you're in law enforcement, your employer is the government and you probably don't have a lot of choices of employer besides the government, so I'd say in that sector, it's a good thing to have. And the opposite for tech, where competition for workers drives wages and benefits up, and unions would only get in the way of that, and drain resources for their fancy offices.
And last, not everybody lives in the US. I happen to live in a country whose growth and prosperity is directly hindered by unions who spend lavishly on offices and cars for their officials, but do very little for the rank and file, while stifling innovation, of course.
The reason I pushed so hard on you is this is an article about how police unions are bad for the society, and you are trying to steer the discussion away from that topic to the general question of unions as such.
This is not ideological flamebait, this is historical truth.
18th-19th century trade unions, of which this union is a modern descendent, can be directly linked to Luddism and other forms of anti-progress mentality. Examples also abound throughout the 20th century and today.
Something can be both true and ideological flamebait. For example, if you embed a shallow and obvious truth in a snarky comment on an inflammatory topic, you've posted flamebait.
What you're saying in your reply about unions being Luddite is obviously not a simple "historical truth". That's highly debatable, and it sounds like you're bringing it up as part of a generic argument about unions which is not particularly on topic here.
18 comments
[ 615 ms ] story [ 687 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don't remember why I replied to your comment and not the others. It may have been that the reply was less substantive and more flamey. It may also have been that I didn't see the others. I certainly wasn't singling you out.
Unions were created to equalize the negotiating positions of both parties when establishing the terms of labor contracts, or rather, to give laborers a position more equal to that or management. There are plenty of unions who don't then use this power to enable and protect the anti-social behavior of their members.
Also, different lines of work select for workers inclined to different social pathologies. Police work tends to appeal to people who are comfortable using force to dominate their neighbors; who are comfortable in an authoritarian relationship to others where some issue commands and others obey without question. This selects for different anti-social tendencies than you're likely to see among garment industry workers, say, or agricultural laborers.
Or is it that you agree police unions are good, but know you don't have good arguments for that view, and so are trying to divert the discussion away from police unions and over to unions as such?
My own view is that calling unions all good or all bad is simply mistaken. They are a mix, and the proportion depends greatly on the case. I see police unions as one of the cases way over on the bad side. Do you disagree?
Are they good or bad? Depends. If you're in law enforcement, your employer is the government and you probably don't have a lot of choices of employer besides the government, so I'd say in that sector, it's a good thing to have. And the opposite for tech, where competition for workers drives wages and benefits up, and unions would only get in the way of that, and drain resources for their fancy offices.
And last, not everybody lives in the US. I happen to live in a country whose growth and prosperity is directly hindered by unions who spend lavishly on offices and cars for their officials, but do very little for the rank and file, while stifling innovation, of course.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
18th-19th century trade unions, of which this union is a modern descendent, can be directly linked to Luddism and other forms of anti-progress mentality. Examples also abound throughout the 20th century and today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union#History
What you're saying in your reply about unions being Luddite is obviously not a simple "historical truth". That's highly debatable, and it sounds like you're bringing it up as part of a generic argument about unions which is not particularly on topic here.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...