6 ms·

Police aren't labor and therefore are not a labor union.

alkonaut 2y ago
In what sense aren't police labor? "Labor" literally just means "work"? It's not like the unions of managers, pilots, lawyers, NHL players or software developers aren't "labor unions"? Policemen are employed so their organization as employees is a labor union (or just "union" for short)?
- SamWhited 2y ago
  "Labor" isn't being used in the dictionary definition of "doing work", here, it's being used in the sense of "the labor movement".
  - alkonaut 2y ago
    The movement that gave rise to the term is hardly relevant for who uses it today. Labor union means "employee organization". Do the police call their union "union" but not "labor union"? That's just a language thing then (The two terms aren't separated in my language - I always assumed that in English "union" was short for "labor union")
    - SamWhited 2y ago
      I'm struggling with what you meant by "it's just a language thing", that is of course true and what I was pointing out. For the purpose of good communication, everything is a language thing and language things are important. When we say "the police union isn't a labor union", we're people rejecting them from the classification even though they use the word because we don't think they fit in with our values. That's because we have labor (movement) values. You could also talk about any group of employees getting together and acting towards a common goal and call that a union, or a labor union, that wouldn't mean that everyone else automatically means the same thing. In this case, the poster didn't mean that.
      - alkonaut 2y ago
        > I'm struggling with what you meant by "it's just a language thing", that is of course true and what I was pointing out. For the purpose of good communication, everything is a language thing and language things are important. Ok fair enough. In english there is a distinction between just "Union" and "labor union". And under this distinction, a police union would not be a labor union. Language is important. Moving beyond language though, I can't see where the distinction is important e.g. legally or ethically - which is perhaps why the distinction has disappeared or never existed in some other languages. It's curious - perhaps related - that in English the difference between "salary" and "wages" also remains and is even relevant in some parts of the market.
        snapcaster 2y ago
        It's because the police are always on the side of capital
        svieira 2y ago
        Which of course, isn't true. The Red Guard was a police force in a very real sense as was the NKVD.
        snapcaster 2y ago
        Article is about US company violating US labor guards so yeah my comment really only applies to the US labor movement. Can't speak to Red Guard don't really know anything about them
        beepbooptheory 2y ago
        Police are always on the side of the state.
        marbletiles 2y ago
        The distinction can matter because the core purposes of the two are different. A "Labor" union is one that represents one side of the relationship between capital and the workforce: that is, the side that has a portion of the value it creates in its work extracted by the other. It exists fundamentally in order to be able to collectively negotiate around the amount of that value extracted and attempt to retain more for those who create it. That in doing so it also establishes workers' rights, policies around treatment etc is a nice to have. The police, as an extension of state power much like the army, are generally understood to be broadly on the "side" of capital (in capitalist states). They are not value-creating, and their "unions" have nothing to negotiate for a share of. This is why you'll more often see them represented as "associations" or "federations", much like civil service, nursing or fire service staff bodies. Their goal is simply to argue for better terms and conditions for their members. Does the distinction practically matter? In many cases, no. When the interests of capital or the state are at stake, yes: police officers will break up labor union strikes, even when those officers are members of a federation. They are fundamentally not part of the same movement.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  Police are what shows up when labor strikes. They’re part of the government, not a part of the collective “labor” that is the rest of the working world. As an example, police are part of an association but not a union. They aren’t legally allowed to strike anywhere in the US. They serve the interests of capitalism, which is the other side of the coin of workers’ rights
  - alkonaut 2y ago
    So they have a union, which is not a labor union? fair enough. It seems like a distinction without a difference for the topic. Some restrictions on strikes usually covers lots of different jobs (e.g. nurses).
    - burutthrow1234 2y ago
      There's an important distinction because a police "union" is in opposition to any other workers and unions. The police are the tools of capital, they break up strikes. The cops aren't going to join you in a sympathy strike.
      - brookst 2y ago
        Indeed. “Cartel” or “guild” would be better terms than police “union”.
    - whamlastxmas 2y ago
      The biggest tool a union has is striking. If you can’t strike you’re not really a union.
      - alkonaut 2y ago
        I don't think that's a useful definition. Laws may require employers from negotiating everything from working hours to safety with unions. Some countries have laws that require unions have voting power in company boards etc.
- harimau777 2y ago
  "Labor" isn't being used in the sense of just "someone who does work". It's being used in the sense of one of the sides in class warfare. Police generally work on the side of management rather than the side of labor therefore they aren't labor in the sense being spoken about. Note that solidarity is an important principle in the labor movement. So the fact that police the police might act as "labor" in their personal negotiations with management isn't considered to make them part of "labor" in the general sense; because they don't show solidarity with other unions. Think of it in terms of regular warfare. Just because two nations separately fight the same country in different wars doesn't make them allies. They are only allies if they support each other in wars against that other country.
- brookst 2y ago
  I’m actually with the parent — police are administrative, like judges and building inspectors. I don’t have a fully formed opinion, but I think there is something wrong with unions for government functions. Unions are good because they allow a large number of weak stakeholders to band together to negotiate with a powerful business. But governments aren’t businesses and don’t have the ruthless profit motive companies do, so I think government unions have too much bargaining power against the very diffuse stakeholders of a government. Police unions especially seem to exist more to avoid accountability than to further wages and working conditions. I guess I would say that “labor” in the union context is in contrast to “shareholder”, and governments and their employees just don’t work that way.
DiggyJohnson 2y ago
What are they if they're not "labor"? Certainly a police officer considers their upcoming shift as "work". Certainly the police could not function without on-duty officers on patrol and at the precinct? I hate to be so blunt on this site, but what is the flippin point of these sort of definitional and semantic arguments? What are you trying to gain, other than muddying the waters of conversations. I legitimately don't see how any position, yours or otherwise, benefits from this rhetorical approach.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > What are you trying to gain, other than muddying the waters of conversations How does enhanced clarity muddy the waters? Police are not labor, not practically or legally. Likewise, a CEO is not labor either, even though the CEO is apt to be an employee who shows up to work just like anyone else. Having a job that you go to work at is not what defines labor in this context. Considering all people who do work to be the same is what muddies the waters here.
  - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
    How is a police officer like a CEO, and not like a factory line worker? It seems very clear that they are more the latter (labor) than the former (admin).
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > How is a police officer like a CEO, and not like a factory line worker? Both the police and CEOs are incentivized to protect the interest of capitalists. That is a primary duty of their job. Labor, on the other hand, challenges the interests of capitalists. > It seems very clear that they are more the latter (labor) than the former (admin). Clear in what way? Where there are people there are people problems. Indeed, police often have associations to help with people problems, hell even the capitalists sometimes have unions (e.g. farmers), but these are not labor unions. If this is what you are talking about, there is nothing clear about it – it is all quite arbitrary who gets to associate and who doesn't, but is also beyond the topic at hand.

In what sense aren't police labor? "Labor" literally just means "work"? It's not like the unions of managers, pilots, lawyers, NHL players or software developers aren't "labor unions"? Policemen are employed so their organization as employees is a labor union (or just "union" for short)?

SamWhited 2y ago
"Labor" isn't being used in the dictionary definition of "doing work", here, it's being used in the sense of "the labor movement".
- alkonaut 2y ago
  The movement that gave rise to the term is hardly relevant for who uses it today. Labor union means "employee organization". Do the police call their union "union" but not "labor union"? That's just a language thing then (The two terms aren't separated in my language - I always assumed that in English "union" was short for "labor union")
  - SamWhited 2y ago
    I'm struggling with what you meant by "it's just a language thing", that is of course true and what I was pointing out. For the purpose of good communication, everything is a language thing and language things are important. When we say "the police union isn't a labor union", we're people rejecting them from the classification even though they use the word because we don't think they fit in with our values. That's because we have labor (movement) values. You could also talk about any group of employees getting together and acting towards a common goal and call that a union, or a labor union, that wouldn't mean that everyone else automatically means the same thing. In this case, the poster didn't mean that.
    - alkonaut 2y ago
      > I'm struggling with what you meant by "it's just a language thing", that is of course true and what I was pointing out. For the purpose of good communication, everything is a language thing and language things are important. Ok fair enough. In english there is a distinction between just "Union" and "labor union". And under this distinction, a police union would not be a labor union. Language is important. Moving beyond language though, I can't see where the distinction is important e.g. legally or ethically - which is perhaps why the distinction has disappeared or never existed in some other languages. It's curious - perhaps related - that in English the difference between "salary" and "wages" also remains and is even relevant in some parts of the market.
      - snapcaster 2y ago
        It's because the police are always on the side of capital
        svieira 2y ago
        Which of course, isn't true. The Red Guard was a police force in a very real sense as was the NKVD.
        snapcaster 2y ago
        Article is about US company violating US labor guards so yeah my comment really only applies to the US labor movement. Can't speak to Red Guard don't really know anything about them
        beepbooptheory 2y ago
        Police are always on the side of the state.
      - marbletiles 2y ago
        The distinction can matter because the core purposes of the two are different. A "Labor" union is one that represents one side of the relationship between capital and the workforce: that is, the side that has a portion of the value it creates in its work extracted by the other. It exists fundamentally in order to be able to collectively negotiate around the amount of that value extracted and attempt to retain more for those who create it. That in doing so it also establishes workers' rights, policies around treatment etc is a nice to have. The police, as an extension of state power much like the army, are generally understood to be broadly on the "side" of capital (in capitalist states). They are not value-creating, and their "unions" have nothing to negotiate for a share of. This is why you'll more often see them represented as "associations" or "federations", much like civil service, nursing or fire service staff bodies. Their goal is simply to argue for better terms and conditions for their members. Does the distinction practically matter? In many cases, no. When the interests of capital or the state are at stake, yes: police officers will break up labor union strikes, even when those officers are members of a federation. They are fundamentally not part of the same movement.
whamlastxmas 2y ago
Police are what shows up when labor strikes. They’re part of the government, not a part of the collective “labor” that is the rest of the working world. As an example, police are part of an association but not a union. They aren’t legally allowed to strike anywhere in the US. They serve the interests of capitalism, which is the other side of the coin of workers’ rights
- alkonaut 2y ago
  So they have a union, which is not a labor union? fair enough. It seems like a distinction without a difference for the topic. Some restrictions on strikes usually covers lots of different jobs (e.g. nurses).
  - burutthrow1234 2y ago
    There's an important distinction because a police "union" is in opposition to any other workers and unions. The police are the tools of capital, they break up strikes. The cops aren't going to join you in a sympathy strike.
    - brookst 2y ago
      Indeed. “Cartel” or “guild” would be better terms than police “union”.
  - whamlastxmas 2y ago
    The biggest tool a union has is striking. If you can’t strike you’re not really a union.
    - alkonaut 2y ago
      I don't think that's a useful definition. Laws may require employers from negotiating everything from working hours to safety with unions. Some countries have laws that require unions have voting power in company boards etc.
harimau777 2y ago
"Labor" isn't being used in the sense of just "someone who does work". It's being used in the sense of one of the sides in class warfare. Police generally work on the side of management rather than the side of labor therefore they aren't labor in the sense being spoken about. Note that solidarity is an important principle in the labor movement. So the fact that police the police might act as "labor" in their personal negotiations with management isn't considered to make them part of "labor" in the general sense; because they don't show solidarity with other unions. Think of it in terms of regular warfare. Just because two nations separately fight the same country in different wars doesn't make them allies. They are only allies if they support each other in wars against that other country.
brookst 2y ago
I’m actually with the parent — police are administrative, like judges and building inspectors. I don’t have a fully formed opinion, but I think there is something wrong with unions for government functions. Unions are good because they allow a large number of weak stakeholders to band together to negotiate with a powerful business. But governments aren’t businesses and don’t have the ruthless profit motive companies do, so I think government unions have too much bargaining power against the very diffuse stakeholders of a government. Police unions especially seem to exist more to avoid accountability than to further wages and working conditions. I guess I would say that “labor” in the union context is in contrast to “shareholder”, and governments and their employees just don’t work that way.

DiggyJohnson 2y ago

What are they if they're not "labor"? Certainly a police officer considers their upcoming shift as "work". Certainly the police could not function without on-duty officers on patrol and at the precinct? I hate to be so blunt on this site, but what is the flippin point of these sort of definitional and semantic arguments? What are you trying to gain, other than muddying the waters of conversations. I legitimately don't see how any position, yours or otherwise, benefits from this rhetorical approach.

randomdata 2y ago
> What are you trying to gain, other than muddying the waters of conversations How does enhanced clarity muddy the waters? Police are not labor, not practically or legally. Likewise, a CEO is not labor either, even though the CEO is apt to be an employee who shows up to work just like anyone else. Having a job that you go to work at is not what defines labor in this context. Considering all people who do work to be the same is what muddies the waters here.
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  How is a police officer like a CEO, and not like a factory line worker? It seems very clear that they are more the latter (labor) than the former (admin).
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > How is a police officer like a CEO, and not like a factory line worker? Both the police and CEOs are incentivized to protect the interest of capitalists. That is a primary duty of their job. Labor, on the other hand, challenges the interests of capitalists. > It seems very clear that they are more the latter (labor) than the former (admin). Clear in what way? Where there are people there are people problems. Indeed, police often have associations to help with people problems, hell even the capitalists sometimes have unions (e.g. farmers), but these are not labor unions. If this is what you are talking about, there is nothing clear about it – it is all quite arbitrary who gets to associate and who doesn't, but is also beyond the topic at hand.