Police unions bite Democrats

December 5, 2020 (see addition at bottom)

The Democratic Party has a dilemma when it comes to police reform. They are champions of collective bargaining at the same time police unions are the main obstacle to reform. From The Washington Post, June 3, 2020:

The purpose of policing is to promote public safety and uphold the rule of law so that individuals and communities can thrive. The purpose of police unions, however, is to win members better salaries and benefits and to protect their job security — specifically by pushing for safeguards against investigation, discipline and dismissal. These protections can make it difficult for police chiefs to manage their forces effectively and can allow a few bad officers to act with impunity, poisoning an entire organizational culture in the process.

From The Washington Post, June 7, 2020:

“There are so many terms and conditions in the collective bargaining agreements that insulate police from accountability and transparency,” said Jody Armour, a law professor at the University of Southern California. “Can we know who the bad police are? Are there public records? A lot of times, that is squelched in collective bargaining.”

From the New York Times, June 8, 2020:

Over the past five years, as demands for reform have mounted in the aftermath of police violence in cities like Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and now Minneapolis, police unions have emerged as one of the most significant roadblocks to change. The greater the political pressure for reform, the more defiant the unions often are in resisting it — with few city officials, including liberal leaders, able to overcome their opposition.
They aggressively protect the rights of members accused of misconduct, often in arbitration hearings that they have battled to keep behind closed doors. And they have also been remarkably effective at fending off broader change, using their political clout and influence to derail efforts to increase accountability.

From the Business Insider, November 7, 2020:

A report from the US Conference of Mayors this August said that police unions' political power has led to collective bargaining agreements that curtail independent investigations into alleged police abuse, purge or otherwise obscure disciplinary records, and resist attempts to better train officers in de-escalation tactics. Mayors are telling us flatly: We'd like to help, but the unions have contracts.

Judging by their political endorsements, police unions have no use for the Democratic Party or progressive ideals. The nation's largest police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, "unanimously" voted to endorse Trump. (press release) Does that mean that not one FOP member in the whole country wanted Biden? So it seems. "The endorsement decision was made through canvassing the more than 355,000 FOP members throughout the country."

Trump was also endorsed by the National Association of Police Organizations.

Off-duty police were part of the Capitol mob

Michigan's largest police union is the corrupt Police Officers Association of Michigan, seven of whose executives are paid over $100,000 and whose PAC is funded with what remains of donations solicited from senior citizens by a telemarketer that keeps 83%. POAM endorsed Trump because he is against limiting qualified immunity for police officers, against any form of “defunding” or “re-imaging” police and supports the sharing of surplus military equipment with police.

Endorsing a Republican is one thing, but endorsing Trump is an affront to Democratic values. If it means they admire a guy accused by 26 women of sexual misconduct, including rape, should a woman trust a cop with her safety? With Trump's attitude toward minority and LGBTQ rights, should an urban community expect to be treated fairly?

In the case of police unions, collective bargaining has come back to bite Democrats in the ass.

Collective bargaining has made police unions much too powerful. One sign of that is police funerals. They tell the world that blue lives matter much more than any others. Any officer who gets killed in the line of duty, even if it is due to something as unheroic as a traffic accident or running off the road while chasing a speeder, gets a funeral fit for a head of state. Typically, they involve bagpipers, a riderless horse, a helicopter flyover (7 helicopters for really big heroes), a U.S. flag suspended between two hook-and-ladder trucks, and a procession of hundreds of uniformed officers in squad cars and on motorcycles. Here's the one for the cop who crashed chasing a speeder:

Can we really spare the huge number of law enforcement personnel that attend these day-long events? Who pays for the fuel for the police cars, motorcycles, hook-and-ladder trucks and helicopters? What if the equipment is needed that day for - I don't know - protecting the public?

Police also get other special benefits, such as a $370,376 death benefit from the federal government if killed in the line of duty. Members of the military who get killed in action get only $100,000.

Their job is harder and more dangerous than other public employees, but police are still public servants. Their boss is the community they serve, and that community should have final say over all aspects of their job without interference from a union.

********************************************************************************************

Le Roy Barnett of Grand Ledge responded to the above story by sending me a letter to the editor he sent to the Lansing State Journal in January 2017. It was in response to a January 27, 2017 story about Trump withholding funds from sanctuary cities. This is the part of the story he commented on:

The complete story is here. This is what Mr. Barnett said:

There was a fascinating article in LSJ's edition of 1-27-17. It was about President Trump's proposal to cut off all federal funds to approximately 300 municipalities in the U.S. that have declared themselves sanctuary cities for protecting undocumented immigrants from deportation.

The story notes that the Fraternal Order of Police was opposed to such a draconian act until it discovered that monies would be withheld from everyone in these cities EXCEPT the police. Once the union learned that a waiver would be made for its people, it endorsed Trump's idea of stopping federal dollars from going to all others in these towns.

I believe this attitude of "I've got mine, too bad for you," is not held by most members of the FOP. If I am right, then I hope those in law enforcement will make it clear to their union that they are not in favor of accepting federal funds while their fellow-citizens are deprived of the same revenues. The police should stand with their communities on this issue, not by and for themselves.

His letter was not published.

Send comments, questions, and tips to stevenrharry@gmail.com or call or text me at 517-730-2638. If you'd like to be notified by email when I post a new story, let me know.

Previous stories