The Blue Wall of Silence Is Starting to Crack

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Ah, the all caps on words --- forgive me, I'm an old guy and I realize that some people are particularly sensitive about capital letters.

Is that an appeal for sympathy?

You had no cause to request me to "dial down the tone" merely because I politely thanked rogue06 for his comments.

You need to stop using the tactic of do as I say not as I do. It gives the impression you are a hypocrite.

[Sparko]

He has never told us the name of his favourite auntie either. Your point?

You are the one jumping to conclusions based on what he didn't say.

[Cow Poke]

AND, for clarification, when I say you are ignorant of this - I mean that in the classic sense.

I'm not saying you are stupid (I know that's not true) but you really really really seem to have no grasp at all on how unions work in our country.

You are as "ignorant" of unions in our country as I am of how they work in your country.

[Cow Poke]

So, can we PLEASE (emphasis not shouting :)) focus on actual substance and stop the "you're a dummy - no, YOU'RE a dummy" routine?

Thanks

[Cow Poke]

You might look to your own behaviour and your regular use of capitals [usually associated with shouting at your correspondent].

Ah, the all caps on words --- forgive me, I'm an old guy and I realize that some people are particularly sensitive about capital letters.
Please feel free to see that as simply emphasizing words, not shouting.
I don't shout.

And I am absolutely doing better on responding to you with substance, and not getting baited into your derail attempts.

Back on topic, please? (and please consider my obsessive compulsive capitalization as emphasis, not shouting)

Thanks

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Would it be possible to dial down the 'tone' just a tad?

You might look to your own behaviour and your regular use of capitals [usually associated with shouting at your correspondent].

[Cow Poke]

"TONS" is hyperbole and and you misuse words.

That is your defect.

Attempt to start yet another round of "in the weeds" detected and rejected.

Yes I did read your sources, one of which I also found.

Perhaps you could post anything that supports your idea that a national police union would be a good idea?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Ah, so you finally went and looked at the thread? (I seriously doubt you read the sources)
But the "TONS" of information to which I refer include NUMEROUS posts in THIS thread explaining in great detail the problems with police unions.

"TONS" is hyperbole and and you misuse words.

That is your defect.

Yes I did read your sources, one of which I also found.

[Cow Poke]

A national union to which all police officers had the right to join would prevent these various unions operating [even though of those present organisations have members across the nation]

That's not how unions operate in the US. I am trying to be much more civil, but I honestly think you don't have the foggiest idea how unions work here.

I wrote at post #281 “I would not curtail the unions but I would prefer to see a national union established for all police officers”. In other words I would not want to see the diminished or reduced because, for the protection of employees, unions have to exist. However, some clearly need a thorough overhaul and legislation would probably be required to remove the risk of corrupt practices.

Again, you don't understand -- right now, for example, Democrats control all three branches of government. Unions, for all practical purposes, are an extension of the Democratic party.
The Democrats do everything they can to expand unions, because unions are one of their biggest contributors.

At post #288 you wrote:

“Get rid of the unions - MUCH easier to deal with corruption, as your OP explains”.

Look, I'm not going to allow you to keep dragging this into the weeds -- so lemme be clear --- Get rid of the PROBLEM unions, which pretty much is every one in big city police departments.

In point of fact the OP did not recommend getting rid of the unions, Egan wrote that “We need to curb the power of police unions, the biggest protectors of the blue wall.” Curbing the unions is not "getting rid of" the unions.

Cool --- but that's a pipe dream, because, as long as the Democrats are in power, unions will find a way to protect bad cops.

You are suggesting a closed shop.

False. I'm simply dealing with reality. In a police department, there will be extreme pressure for ALL cops to be in the union. That's just how it works.

Not all officers currently belong to a union. Why should that change with one national trade/labour union ?

It is a standard procedure for employees and employers to negotiate wages, hours, holidays and so on.

Dealt with that already.

In an ideal world where a worker could leave one job and move straight into another that was better paid and with better benefits your "Police Department" would most likely not exist because there would probably be very little incentive to work for that organisation when better pay and conditions could be found elsewhere.

Again, you have no idea how this works in reality. It already happens across this country. Smaller departments hire officers, the officer gets some experience, he/she then looks for greener pastures in either private security, or one of the MANY agencies out there --- Homeland Security, FBI, Sheriff's department, State Police....

That's how it works.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are recommending a national police union, where evidence suggests unions tend toward corruption.

A national union to which all police officers had the right to join would prevent these various unions operating [even though of those present organisations have members across the nation]

False -- You have not stated it that way before.

I wrote at post #281 “I would not curtail the unions but I would prefer to see a national union established for all police officers”. In other words I would not want to see the diminished or reduced because, for the protection of employees, unions have to exist. However, some clearly need a thorough overhaul and legislation would probably be required to remove the risk of corrupt practices.

My position is that they should be curtailed, reined in. I'm not proposing they be totally abolished.

At post #288 you wrote:

“Get rid of the unions - MUCH easier to deal with corruption, as your OP explains”.

In point of fact the OP did not recommend getting rid of the unions, Egan wrote that “We need to curb the power of police unions, the biggest protectors of the blue wall.” Curbing the unions is not "getting rid of" the unions.

So, forcing police departments to be part of a national union is a really really really stinking-out-loud dumb idea.

You are suggesting a closed shop. Not all officers currently belong to a union. Why should that change with one national trade/labour union ?

"Collective Bargaining" is the very WORST part of the police unions.

It is a standard procedure for employees and employers to negotiate wages, hours, holidays and so on.

The LEGAL part would be....
Police Department offers to hire police officers for X pay and Y benefits.
Applicant applies, showing agreement to those terms.
If employee is unhappy with the terms, he/she can apply at another department (or other job) with better pay and benefits.
THAT is the legal means.

In an ideal world where a worker could leave one job and move straight into another that was better paid and with better benefits your "Police Department" would most likely not exist because there would probably be very little incentive to work for that organisation when better pay and conditions could be found elsewhere.

[Cow Poke]

Or "run"

Anything she can glom onto in order to distract attention from the discussion and bring it down to her level of constant bickering over minutia

Yeah, I'm going to do my best to try to avoid her little pitfalls and derails, and keep her on topic.

I see no way possible to defend this notion of a "national police union", given that one of the biggest - if not THE biggest - problems with police departments involve unions.

She DOES seem, however, to be attempting to figure out how to come to the right conclusion while not accepting anything we have said.

[rogue06]

Ah, so you finally went and looked at the thread? (I seriously doubt you read the sources)
But the "TONS" of information to which I refer include NUMEROUS posts in THIS thread explaining in great detail the problems with police unions.

You tend to ignore the substantive stuff and go for the stuff where you can start a battle - like on the word "usurp".

How bout let's stay out of the weeds and focus on the issues, eh?

Or "run"

Anything she can glom onto in order to distract attention from the discussion and bring it down to her level of constant bickering over minutia

[Cow Poke]

...And I'll add that national unions tend to operate like government, but without the accountability....

Silly me! The government tends to operate without accountability, too, so they are more alike than I had thought!

They collect money from those they are supposed to represent, and spend it however they wish.
The unions, however, do a much better job of defending the 'rights' of their dues-payers than the government does defending the rights of their citizens.

[Cow Poke]

In your thread "Police Labor Unions and La Costa Nostra" you have cited three articles and a link to the US Justice Department's page on the Fiat-Chrysler Association and UAW corruption scandal. That hardly constitutes "TONS of information".

Ah, so you finally went and looked at the thread? (I seriously doubt you read the sources)
But the "TONS" of information to which I refer include NUMEROUS posts in THIS thread explaining in great detail the problems with police unions.

You tend to ignore the substantive stuff and go for the stuff where you can start a battle - like on the word "usurp".

How bout let's stay out of the weeds and focus on the issues, eh?

[Cow Poke]

Thank you for the above but I did not ask you for general opinions.

What has a national trades/labour union of police to do with "Big Government solutions"?

Would it be possible to dial down the 'tone' just a tad?
I actually addressed this for my beloved brudder.

And I'll add that national unions tend to operate like government, but without the accountability.
Hence, the Department of Justice needing to keep an eye on them, and do battle with them when necessary.

Further, public sector unions notoriously fund DEMOCRAT candidates and causes, as the DEMOCRATS do everything they can to grow public sector unions.

They are, for all intents and purposes, "joined at the hip".

So, to answer your question - What has a national trades/labour union of police to do with "Big Government solutions"?
They are pretty much one-in-the-same.