Item — HN Reader

IMO I don't think unions are the fundamental issue -- many PDs internal affairs leave something to be desired (and police need unions for the same reason everyone else needs a union).

So I think that responsibility should be entirely shifted outside of the org, probably to the state or county district attorneys. So it isn't police policing themselves. And empirical tools like this are a great way for outsiders to monitor broader patterns and practices that appear problematic.

2 comments

While it makes sense that the police would unionize for the same reason any other workers would, your second paragraph seems to contradict your first.

Your proposal to shift responsibility for "policing the police" up to elected officials means weakening police unions, does it not? Is there a political body out there that's even more fundamentally in support of police autonomy than police unions?

I don't see a conflict, unions would still be obligated to represent officers. It is just criminal behavior investigations would be shifted entirely to the DAs office (to prevent Joe from investigating his friend Bob).

Also an FYI police cannot strike! See https://grahamfactor.substack.com/p/im-sticking-to-the-polic... for an overview.

The power of unions come with collective bargaining, right?

Well. You can call their bluff. You want to fire a cop for their bullshit and the rest of the cops say well were gonna strike. Then you say okay go for it. You stop paying them and you start hiring new cops to replace them.

This is expensive but legal.