Reply #78: fwiw, i LOVE unions

[paulsby]

and i love my union. i'm just not unrealistic about what their job is - advocacy for members NOT for the common good.

NO union advocates for the common good. it's not their job.

teachers unions would not be doing their JOB if they advocated based on what is best (even if they had the expertise to know what was best) for students.

their job, and they do it quite well, is to advocate for teachers.

any time my dept. tries to place additional restrrictions on cops, job requirements, etc. the union fights that. is that sometimes bad for the citizens we serve? of course.

let me give you two examples. physical fitness and mental fitness. personally, i support mandatory yearly physicals for cops (basic fitness test) and yearly mental health evaluations. and such tests would CLEARLY benefit citizens. physically unfit officers (i've read the DOJ stats) are much more likely to 1) use excessive force 2) abuse sick leave 3) require a higher level of force (because they can't physically handle themselves as well) etc. etc. if you get robbed and the guy takes off on foot, the 300 lb overweight cop aint gonna catch em. that's bad. mentally unfit officers are much more likely to use excessive force, commit suicide, abuse sick leave, commit ethical violation, etc. etc. but our union would NEVER agree to either type of test.

and the dept. probably wouldn't want the physical tests, because if an officer came in subpar, they'd be forced to PAY the officer on duty time to workout. dept's are often dollar foolish and pennywise.

simply put, any requirement (physical, mental etc.) is going to be fought by the union because it means officers will have to meet a higher standard, some people will lose their jobs, etc. no union is going to agree with that. despite the fact that it would greatly benefit the citizenry.

that's the nature of unions.