A 1975 pamphlet circulated by the New York City police union --
similar leaflets were later created in Newark and Boston
A New York Times article, Police Unions Won Power Using His Playbook. Now He’s Negotiating the Backlash, gives a bit of insight into police unions. This one will curdle your milk if it isn't already cottage cheese. The NYT writes:
Ron DeLord, a fiery former Texas cop turned labor organizer, has long taught union leaders how to gain power and not let go. He has likened a police union going after an elected official to a cheetah devouring a wildebeest, and suggested that taking down just one would make others fall in line.
He helped write the playbook that police unions nationwide — seeking better pay, perks and protections from discipline — have followed for decades. Build a war chest. Support your friends. Smear your enemies. Even scare citizens with the threat of crime. One radio spot in El Paso warned residents to support their local police or face “the alternative,” as the sound of gunshots rang out.
“We took weak, underpaid organizations and built them into what everyone today says are powerful police unions,” Mr. DeLord said in a recent interview. “You may say we went too far. I say you don’t know how far you’ve gone until you’re at the edge of the envelope.”
That moment may be now.
A slide from a presentation Mr. DeLord gave to union officials --
the Cheetah (a police labor union) is chewing on a wildebeest
(politician) it chased down and killed while other chickenshit
wildebeests in the herd look on in horror at the prospect of the next election
THIS IS WHY A LOT OF AMERICANS OPPOSE
OR HATE PUBLIC SECTOR LABOR UNIONS
AND POLITICIANS GENERALLY
WHERE IS THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ANY OF THIS??
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS MOSTLY DEFENSELESS
Unions — many of which have dug in despite the protests and challenged officers’ firings in high-profile incidents — are also increasingly seen as out of step with the public. Officers in big cities can earn more than $100,000 a year, far more than citizens they are assigned to protect. That success has stoked a backlash. Many cities say they are unable, or unwilling, to pay for ever mounting police costs.
The president of the Dallas police union sent a campaign
mailer targeting a local councilman
Union and city leaders are especially watching negotiations in San Antonio. Years ago, officers there locked in some of the most highly coveted perks and protections of any department in the country: rules that helped shield officers from discipline; fat pensions, Cadillac health insurance plans, even taxpayer-funded payments for divorce lawyers. Their success became a case study for unions nationwide.
During the last negotiations, city officials claimed the contract would bankrupt San Antonio. Now, city officials are focused on undoing some disciplinary protections. Adding pressure, a May ballot measure in the Texas city could eliminate the union’s ability to bargain — a devastating blow.
Toby Futrell’s copy of the police unionizing guide Mr. DeLord wrote
with a fellow organizer and a political consultant
Elsewhere, police and city officials studied the book. “After I read it, I understood we were in over our heads,” said Toby Futrell, a former Austin city manager. “Even though we knew what the playbook was, we had never played — it’s one thing to read the football rules and it’s another to play football.”
An unexpected voice urging police unions nationwide to compromise is that of Mr. DeLord, who is the chief negotiator for the San Antonio union. “The unions need to bend,” he said. “They need to be prepared to bargain over things that their community thinks are fair.” Unions that don’t understand are “tone deaf,” he added.
The 1997 book Mr. DeLord wrote with a fellow organizer, John Burpo, and a political consultant, Michael Shannon, “Police Association Power, Politics, and Confrontation: A Guide for the Successful Police Labor Leader,” is pugnacious. The book repeatedly urges union leaders to ignore the “losers,” “whiners” and “naysayers” in their way. “A police association leader must throw out all those traditional notions of right and wrong,” it exhorts. “So long as it’s legal, you do what you gotta do to get where you’re going!” It also quotes one San Antonio union official saying, “If all else fails, we’ll drop the bomb and live in the ashes.” (emphasis added)
Does any of that sound familiar? Rhetoric arguing that despite losers and whiners, a leader must throw out all traditional notions of right and wrong smells an awful lot like the modern FGOP (fascist GOP). So is that argument persuasive that so long as self-interest is legal, you do what you gotta do to get where you’re going, even if the public interest and racial minorities are shafted? Also reminiscent of the modern FGOP is the admonition, if all else fails, we’ll drop the bomb and live in the ashes.
Once again, the American people and the public interest have been royally screwed to the tune of hundreds of billions (probably trillions). Once again, we face betrayal of democracy and the accountability of police power. This time, the political betrayal looks to be mostly bipartisan.
Questions: What comparable power is always present and as effective in defense of the public interest? The FGOP? The democratic party? No one and nothing? Who the hell is defending the public interest? Or is it the case that unless what Dark Lord DeLord and his ilk got for the patriotic thin blue line was necessary to get this level of police protection, racist or not, cost-effective or not?
Random thoughts:
1. Some data (disputed) indicates that former military are better cops because they have been trained in Iraq and Afghanistan where telling civilians from enemies is very hard and requires restraint before blowing people away with their guns. It is time to reassess all police training?
2. The FGOP is arguing strenuously that democrats do not adequately support the police. Is that a reasonable argument everywhere, some places or nowhere?
3. Since T**** and the FGOP lost power after the 2020 election, it seems that America's social and political situation has deteriorated, not improved. Bitter disputes over policing is a core source of social and political discord. Is that wrong?
4. Some data indicates that Eugene Oregon's CAHOOTS program[1] is highly cost effective and results in less violence and deaths. Is it time to intensify research into alternatives to police in appropriate situations, regardless of how much police unions hate diversion of money from them to possibly more cost-effective and less deadly options?
5. Is it unreasonable to be angry at police unions, or is the situation just a matter of competition in free markets where politicians are incentivized to not lose re-election, even if it means screwing the public interest to serve their own interest? Or, is that too cynical a view of reality?
Footnote:
1. One source comments:
"CAHOOTS calls come to Eugene’s 911 system or the police non-emergency number. Dispatchers are trained to recognize non-violent situations with a behavioral health component and route those calls to CAHOOTS. A team will respond, assess the situation and provide immediate stabilization in case of urgent medical need or psychological crisis, assessment, information, referral, advocacy, and, when warranted, transportation to the next step in treatment.
White Bird’s CAHOOTS provides consulting and strategic guidance to communities across the nation that are seeking to replicate CAHOOTS’ model. Contact us if you are interested in our consultation services program."
No comments:
Post a Comment