Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,831
- Points
- 1,040
>I read the article and can't decide if it is anti-police or anti-union
"Reason" is a libertarian-oriented organization. Libertarians vary in details, but share in common a preoccupation with individual liberties and civil rights. Libertarians are typically anti- anything which happens to be bad for those two things.
The UVic guy is Rob Gillezeau.
There is no meaningful connection between the research - or the opinion piece - and 1950s arguments about the economic good of slavery. Not sure why you thought that bit of irrelevant trivia merited mention.
Read properly, the part I quoted does not claim that increased killings correlate with increased compensation; it claims that both increased killings and increased compensation correlate with the introduction of collective bargaining.
Of course unions represent their members' interests. The point is that if police unions are found to be an aggravating factor, the unions should be reformed if not removed.
Policing is supposed to be a profession, which among other things means it must serve a public good (and the public interest should always supercede the interests of the profession and its members), and should be self-regulating. One thing I came across in another article (can't remember where) suggests, counter-intuitively (to me), that internal review and regulation works better than external review and regulation.
So another problem is how to balance the best regulation of the profession (which might be internally conducted) against the tendency of a union to try to capture any entity which regulates the profession (eg. a union naming the people it wants the membership to put on the board that oversees conduct) so that it can steamroll disciplinary processes.
One way is to simply remove unions; another is to make it impossible for them to interfere with professional discipline.
"Reason" is a libertarian-oriented organization. Libertarians vary in details, but share in common a preoccupation with individual liberties and civil rights. Libertarians are typically anti- anything which happens to be bad for those two things.
The UVic guy is Rob Gillezeau.
There is no meaningful connection between the research - or the opinion piece - and 1950s arguments about the economic good of slavery. Not sure why you thought that bit of irrelevant trivia merited mention.
Read properly, the part I quoted does not claim that increased killings correlate with increased compensation; it claims that both increased killings and increased compensation correlate with the introduction of collective bargaining.
Of course unions represent their members' interests. The point is that if police unions are found to be an aggravating factor, the unions should be reformed if not removed.
Policing is supposed to be a profession, which among other things means it must serve a public good (and the public interest should always supercede the interests of the profession and its members), and should be self-regulating. One thing I came across in another article (can't remember where) suggests, counter-intuitively (to me), that internal review and regulation works better than external review and regulation.
So another problem is how to balance the best regulation of the profession (which might be internally conducted) against the tendency of a union to try to capture any entity which regulates the profession (eg. a union naming the people it wants the membership to put on the board that oversees conduct) so that it can steamroll disciplinary processes.
One way is to simply remove unions; another is to make it impossible for them to interfere with professional discipline.