If a police officer does something wrong. It does not matter what the evidence shows or what happens. All police everywhere stand firmly together and protect their brethren. We literally have police offers who have undeniably murdered people and yet other police still stand with their class and demand better treatment.

If workers had that level of solidarity things would be so much better. Instead we cheer when someone gets fired who "deserved" it.

It helps that they have a stupidly overpowered union.

Im sure pretty much all gangs do.

I disagree with this take, so take your upvote. I’m all for unions, and I agree that more unions would help improve the world for more people. But if the police unions teach us anything, it’s the dangers of an overly powerful union.

The Police Union is the only union the Right likes.

We have a massive, well funded and organized operation working 24/7 to keep us divided. It's purpose is to remove solidarity and it's doing a fantastic job at it. I don't know how to counter it :(

"All police everywhere.."

One single exception is all it takes to debunk an absolute claim.

Unions are quite common in trades and that field is heavily populated by right-leaning people who are very much for those unions.

It's a product of their inherent selfishness and sociopathy. They don't care about others, they care about themselves and they want to be protected when they inevitably rape and/or murder someone. Same thing happens in powerful circles in the West (remember Epstein and everyone before him?). This wouldn't work for society, we actually need people who "love their neighbour as much as they love themselves"... but we're at a high point for vanity and self-centeredness so it's gonna take at least a couple hundred years in the West to veer into that direction, probably.

And yet, people love chanting their absolutist catchphrase whenever one is mentioned.

Which is it? Can't be both, that literally defies the whole point of an absolute stance.

which technically isnt a true union, just a gang/mafia that browbeats the govt to give what it wants, or they dont enforce any laws.

yup, and theres is a reason why its mostly white people in trades, thats why telling people to get into trades is rarely appropiate when its dominated by these people.

What does that have to do with whether right-leaning people are for or against unions?

Which is crazy, since they vote for people who want to dissolve unions.

...... What do you think a union is? It's collective action to get your demands or they don't get what they want

Am I in the right community? How is this an unpopular opinion?

How is it even an opinion??

It is easy to gather in solidarity when A) You are literally trained in pack tactics, backing up your fellow officer, and the culture instills an us vs them mentality by default, B) the solidarity you have is specifically in self-preservation from consequences for violent crimes that would otherwise destroy your life, and C) you are in a position of authority that gives you protection, preference, deference, and priority in all legal matters.

They kind of have to have solidarity because they are willing to die for their job. Every shift could be their last one.

Pizza delivery drivers are more likely to die on the job and they won't cover up someone beating their wife (like cops do way more than average)

You're right. Pizza drivers and police officers experience exactly the same dangers.

No no no, you're going to back up and fix your first statement. You're saying police have solidarity because they could die on the job, and there's jobs way more dangerous than theirs that aren't known for solidarity. So the that of death isn't related to solidarity.

So you were wrong.

The police aren't working class...

thats an unacceptable level of solidarity. Its like people who would hide their insane family member who likes to dismember people.

Once again you're right. You won.

They aren’t “management,” either. If you’re argument is that they’re employed by the municipality, so are teachers. What about their union? I would argue my point still stands.

You posted this to the wrong community (this is /c/UnpopularOpinion, not /c/PopularOpinion) but I'll take your bait:

If a police officer does something wrong. It does not matter what the evidence shows or what happens. All police everywhere stand firmly together and protect their brethren.

This is a blatant lie and you know it, otherwise zero cops would ever be arrested.

That said, I agree with the spirit of your post in the sense that laborers typically have little to no solidarity, and police generally have at least a measurable degree of (often feigned) solidarity.

It's an Opinion rather than a Fact because:

• It's impossible to objectively measure solidarity.

• As a result, it's a subjective opinion whether or not Group A has more vs. less solidarity than Group B.

To your other point, OP wants to circle-jerk for clout and doesn't care that their post doesn't fit. Evidently, the vast majority of people are on board with that.

Yes and No.

1. The FOP has tremendous political pull (because Ds and Rs both generally are pro-police, whether at literal or metaphorical gunpoint or not).

2. Not every agency has a union, let alone one that's affiliated with the FOP.

It's kinda like saying the guy who does your plumbing has a stupidly overpowered union because some plumbers are affiliated with the Teamsters.

But if the police unions teach us anything, it’s the dangers of an overly powerful union.

Yes and No.

1. The FOP has tremendous political pull (because Ds and Rs both generally are pro-police, whether at literal or metaphorical gunpoint or not).

2. Not every agency has a union, let alone one that's affiliated with the FOP.

It's kinda like saying the guy who does your plumbing has a stupidly overpowered union because some plumbers are affiliated with the Teamsters.

Blatant hyperbole.

Ok, but there’s plenty of evidence in the news of objectively bad police officers either escaping punishment for crimes or simply moving to a department in a different state. Between the unions and the “brotherhood mentality,” police in the US have become almost untouchable. That’s definitely a Bad Thing, and the union certainly plays a part in that. I never said it was only the union. I was simply replying to the OP.

That's got little to nothing to do with the power of police unions and everything to do with the power of unions and defense attorneys.

Either an employee should or should not have a defense against an accusation of wrongdoing from their employer.

Either a defendant should or should not have a defense against an accusation of wrongdoing from the state.

If you answer "should not" to both, I would argue you are authoritarian, including if your excuse is, "Well, we should be able to peel back certain legal protections for certain groups I don't like."

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it’s something that’s widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

A union protects labor from power. A police union is power that needs to be protected from. It’s just like if all the corporate bosses started calling themselves unionized… and yeah, they all work together for their own personal interests. But that’s not what a union is.

But people who suck at their jobs deserve to get fired, whether they're cops or not. Keeping them in that job just because they're "one of us" is irrational.

Their role in society is very different from workers. They protect the interests of capitalists. As such, they're allowed to have solidarity, because it does not affect the ruling class negatively. Not so for the proletariat.

Glad you recognize that. I suggest you privately assess your stances.

My dad was part of the police union as part of the DoC of our city, whenever we would discuss unionization efforts elsewhere he would go all against the idea, and then defend his union status, but then again without hypocrisy my dad probably wouldn't have much at all, and being almost 70, he'll never change, just another Fox News MAGA casualty.

Will do

The police are used to keep workers in line... That's why they get it easy.

It's not solidarity. It's that rulers and local leaders rely on police enforcement to keep the whole thing going.

You don't need anything else when you've got hypocrisy.

Gang life looks cool, and sounds cool online or in music. In reality isn't far from it. Members often snitch, cheat, lie, steal, snake. Turns out people... People.

Police is the strong arm of the bourgeoisie. They are the weapon wielded against the working class. That is why (even though they work for a wage) they can not have class solidarity and should not be considered part of the working class. They are de facto agents of capital and their "unions" are usually used to shield them from being held responsible by the working class instead of class struggle against the bourgeoisie.

Other municipal workers are usually not de facto agents of the bourgeoisie and can therefore be considered part of the working class. Their unions are real unions because they are part of the class struggle.

Because they're a violent gang.

The bloods and the crips are pretty tight, too.

No, a union protects employees from their employers' employment action (e.g. suspension, demotion, termination).

Punnet Square of typical unions (forgive my formatting as tables are not supported on Lemmy:

    +============================+======================================+==========================================================+
    |                            | Employee broke policy                                                              | Employee didn't                                                                                                                            |
    +============================+====================================================================================+============================================================================================================================================+
    | Union successfully defends | Fellow employees and/or employer and/or customers upset, likely zero news          | Employer upset, almost certainly zero news                                                                                                 |
    | Union fails to defend      | Employee suspended/retrained/terminated appropriately, almost certainly zero news  | If local news is lacking in Florida Man stories, they might run it between dick pill and truck ads, but 99.999% of people never hear of it |
    +----------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Contrast that with law enforcement unions:

    |                            | Employee broke policy                | Employee didn't                                          |
    +============================+======================================+==========================================================+
    | Union successfully defends | Justified public outrage, viral news | (Likely secretly) unjustified public outrage, viral news |
    | Union fails to defend      | Justified public outrage, viral news | Few know, and fewer care                                 |
    +----------------------------+--------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------+

The police are used to keep workers in line

Of the nearly ten years of patrol I did, I did 0 union-busting and maybe 2 Employee Theft cases? 3?

If 99.99999% of their time is spent elsewhere, is it really their purpose?

What part of the child abuse investigations I did was protecting capitalists?

Were the children secretly oligarchs? Even the 8 year old that was raped?

Or you just didn't work somewhere with a lot of protests.

What you're doing is using anecdotal evidence, as if it's statistical.

What's more the past is more important to how things got this way than today. The government, all governments fear riots and uprisings. That's the nature of government globally.

Most protests that get anywhere remotely near riotous have a police presence. You can look at various french riots for that, or the Watts riots, or the Rodney King riots, or what happened after the death of George Floyd, ect ect...

Or look at how closely groups like the Pinkertons were with the state. The police are the state's enforcement arm... And I'm not about to have your Copaganda try to bring that into question.

The notion that "police are good boys and never used violence" is fucking idiotic. You can take that lie and fucking puke it out somewhere else, and pretend it's an argument/evidence.

"A cop lying about evidence? Well I never".

Awww and you even included a made up percentage about yourself.

....and does the comment you're replying to even say it's a matter of "allocations of time" and how police time is spent day to day? NO! No it doesnt. So you're lying there too with your Copaganda bullshit.

"The state would never overpay for a way to enforce violence or repress protest".

...what a dumb argument to present.

Also, a lot of police union deals are done around election time. Hell, head lf corruption Donald Trump promised the police a bunch of stuff when running. Most political figures do.

You get a Zero out of 10 for your trying to make this about how you spent your time personally.

Or you just didn’t work somewhere with a lot of protests.

Tampa, so I'd say middle of the road in that sense - at least for the US. We have occasional protests but they're pretty lackluster. A more Republican area would have none and a more Democrat area would have more - and more busy/big/effective/etc.

What you’re doing is using anecdotal evidence, as if it’s statistical.

Yeah it's all I have to draw on, but all you need to disprove a blanket statement is a single contradictory anecdote.

What’s more the past is more important to how things got this way than today.

Yes and No. You didn't say "Police (and military) used to be used to keep workers in line," nor did you qualify what you meant by "keep workers in line." I'm plenty familiar with Blair Mountain and similar historic incidents. Frankly your entire reply here could've been better served at the top, if your desire is to be rational about the issue; with the asterisks you present, I have nothing to say because a lot of what you have moved the goalposts to is completely true.

The government, all governments fear riots and uprisings. That the nature of government globally. Most protests that get anywhere remotely riotous have a police presence.

Sure, but that's in the realm of "[government] exists to keep workers in line" which is at least a lot closer to the heart of the issue, even if I don't categorically agree with it; it's definitely an increasingly central function of our increasingly auth-right state.

The notion that “police are good boys and never used violence” is fucking idiotic.

Then thank fuck I never said that, but I appreciate your straw-man.

The rest of your comment is kinda you tooting your own horn and getting giddy about said straw-man and other nonsense, so let me know when you're ready to be an adult again and I'll respond accordingly.

I don't need you here either, so you're free to take your own advice.

If you don't want to talk to me, perhaps don't talk to me? It ain't rocket science.

P.S. Funny that you're calling me 'aggressive' and 'right wing,' though.