Labor unions exist, theoretically, to do little more than defend the interests of that union’s members against the interests of those that employ those members. On the face of it, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with this arrangement, in fact it should be viewed as necessary in some situations.
But, there can be problems with the inherent conflict of interests this kind of arrangement can bring into effect. After all, it’s still in the union’s interest to act in ways that help the employer succeed… otherwise the unions begin to act in ways that are ultimately more detrimental to their members than their worth by causing their member’s employers to close shop.
Law enforcement unions, perhaps the most powerful type of labor union in the US at this point in time, are a bit unique in that the conflict of interests that they can create have reverberations that range far outside the confines of the union hall and employer’s workplace. To understand why this is the case it’s important to remember who ultimately employs law enforcement officers because the conflict of interests inherent in police unions pit the interests of public servants against the very public they serve… a conflict that should appear as irreconcilable as conflicts of interests come.
For example, law enforcement officers are meant to be in the business of arresting suspected criminals, not defending them. But when police unions come into the equation it can bring about a rather surprising switch in roles, to the point where law enforcement officers actively seek to prevent suspected criminals from being brought to justice.
To see how this is so, we can take a look at some recent police union activities that have been in the news lately…
In Rockford Illinois, for example, a police union organized a fundraiser event for two men accused of shooting an unarmed man to death inside of a church daycare center, all within view of several children and daycare workers… and one of the prizes the police were raffling off was a police-issue rifle.
In Birmingham Alabama, police officers organized a “barbecue butts” benefit in order to bankroll the defense fees for five people who were caught on video kicking and beating an unconscious man who was just ejected from a car during an accident. Coincidentally, the president of that organization hosting the $30 a butt benefit was disciplined for his role in association with that case.
In Chicago Illinois, police officers recently hosted a $50-a-ticket fundraiser amid community protests in order to help to pay the defense costs for an alleged drunk driver facing reckless homicide charges for when he hit a parked car while drunk and caused an explosion that killed two. The suspect had a record of DUI arrests and was apprehended while trying to flee the scene of the accident with a BAC 3x the legal limit.
Now, it’s only fair to mention that the suspects discussed above are police officers and the organizations which hosted or organized these benefits are police unions… but should it matter? In cases of criminal behavior, should there be a distinction between police officer and suspect when the individual in question is one and the same?
There is no ignoring that, when it’s a police officer who stands accused, that police unions facilitate a conflict of interests that causes law enforcement officers to strangely switch roles from law enforcer to criminal defender. They encourage officers to act in ways that support the accused when, in any other circumstance, the officer’s duty is to put forth every effort to bring a person suspected of a criminal act to justice.
Now, of course, it’s questionable whether officers would or would not be as inclined to defend fellow officers accused of wrongdoing if such unions didn’t exist. But police unions do force officers to take such a stance due to the very nature of such a union. A union who’s alleged function is to defend the interests of it’s members against the interests of the employer of those members… pitting the police against those they are meant to serve.
Nothing really brings this incompatible conflict of interest into sharper focus than when police unions actively protect police officers from the very laws they are meant to enforce and from the very system of justice that they are meant to serve.
Does this mean police unions should be prohibited? Perhaps not, after all they do serve a necessary purpose in protecting police officers from the whims of public servants who would prefer a system of nepotism or political favoritism over unbiased merit.
However, it is important to keep this conflict of interest and all it entails in mind when considering how powerful police unions are becoming and whether there should be limits on the political influence they are able to wield… especially considering that they are currently the fastest-growing type of labor union in America today.
With this much power is it any surprise that they feel they are above the law?
The irony, of course, is that the unions exsist, at least in part, to subvert the mission of the members – rather like a bricklayer’s union set up to insure that walls occasionally collapsed. I doubt that the public would tolerate that, but oh, well!
Radley Balko mentioned your twitter feed over at the agitator. As always, keep cranking out the excellent work, Packratt.
Mepsi,
No surprise at all… sadly.
Nemo,
The irony is that people still mistakenly believe that when a police union makes a political endorsement or advocates for a new law that such an effort by the union has some concern for public safety behind it just because the union has “police” in it’s name when, in fact, the only concern of a police union is to increase it’s membership, increase the wages for those members, and prevent those members from being held accountable for what they do.
Addict,
I saw that, the occasional hat tip really helps, trust me! Thanks for the kind words!
Some good discussions about recent articles you’ve written here:
http://www.ratemycop.com//index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=162&func=view&catid=11&id=55817#55952
and here:
http://www.ratemycop.com//index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=162&func=view&id=55153&catid=2&limit=15&limitstart=60
The justifications and stupidity from the “blue” side never cease, not to mention they’re pretty funny!
Thanks for letting me know about the discussions. I don’t join message boards simply because it would suck away the time I have to do this research and I don’t think it would really do much good to argue with people who would never cede a point, like the police officers on that site… it would be an exercise in futility and frustration on my part.
As for the one discussion… The whole issue with the police unions offering “official” support for suspects facing trial is the “official” part of the whole arrangement. In the least, it’s hypocritical for an officer to throw support behind a suspect on a basis that is outside of the facts presented in a case… at worst it’s completely unethical.
In other words, it’s one thing for an officer to, after a thorough investigation of the facts, to suggest that a suspect is not guilty. But it’s another to suggest that a suspect is not guilty and attempt to sway the justice process by lending the appearance of official police support for the accused based on nothing more than that person’s position in government.
So, it’s one thing for an officer to lend support to an accused person in an unofficial and private way, as a personal friend, but another thing entirely to offer that support publicly as a police officer, in that official capacity, which is what police unions do when they organize these benefits. When they do this they are using the position of their office as government officials to support the accused instead of doing it privately outside of the union hall and not under the auspices afforded to their position in government which otherwise grants them additional authority and public support.
Might as well have government officials hold benefits for suspected criminals in town hall if you’re going to hold benefits for officers suspected of criminal acts as Police Officers in a Police union hall.
That would be me posting those over at RMC. Makes them squirm and squeal. And I must say their replies are highly entertaining!
Ah, thanks for letting me know Pyo, I appreciate it!
I don’t know what’s funnier; some of the BS they try to spout as truth or the fact that they expect the citizens to buy it!
One thing I’ve learned over at Rate My Cop is that the ‘blue brotherhood’ is stronger then you think.
Packratt, I need to thank you for the articles you wrote. They make excellent fodder for the ignorant ones, and great insight for those others that browse there!
They do enjoy seeing that less than 1% business, though they claim bogus reports by criminals. They lost sight of that word in the Unions article though. They were innocent until proven guilty, unlike John Q who gets the opposite reaction.
They will never see it the same way that a lot of us do because we supposedly have problems with authority.
Pyo,
Yes, it’s interesting to see police officers like that defend the hypocrisy of it, especially when that same police officer would likely turn right around and insist that anyone claiming to be a victim of police misconduct was a criminal even if they were never charged or were eventually found innocent of any charges against them.
It amazes me that someone like that would demand respect and insist he has any modicum of credibility after that. Oh well, can lead horses to water…
We here in the City of Miami have a situation with the Police Unions and the newly elected Mayor trying to oust OUR POLICE CHIEF OUT. Since he has been in the position he has fought to make a department crippled with misconduct, and so much more to turn for the better. Both for the citizens and the good and proper members of LAW ENFORCEMENT’S best interests! Since he has been CHIEF the Police Unions have done their best to stop him and get rid of him (PBA FOP ect. Goggle it).CHIEF JOHN TIMONEY has served the public well in many locations since he was young and did the proper job of climbing the ranks. I’ve talked to many people who know. They don’t come any better. FOR THE PEOPLE ………. His mission is To PROTECT AND SERVE THE CITIZENS! ISN’T THAT WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT. And this article gives light on what Police Unions are all about. Which leads to keeping bad cops on the street. Check the stats! Compound that with Public Officials it makes it even worse !We the Citizens need to support the GOOD AND HONORABLE members of LAW ENFORCEMENT. They don’t deserve to be SPIT ON for doing what their HEARTS, SOULS and LIVES are being put on the line for. Concerned Citizen of The United States of America
[...] in a cover up of that shooting incident that involved planting a gun to justify it. Of course, this isn’t the first time that police unions or associations, that normally claim to be all about fighting crime, suddenly [...]