Police Unions in America

The first thing we have to understand is that without the law, we have nothing. It turns into a situation of savage against barbarian, of the powerful against the powerless.  It turns into a situation of dog eat dog, unrestricted, without restraints or consideration of anybody’s humanity.
–  Dr. Harry Edwards, POPSspot Sports Radio Interview, August 22, 2014

Police union spokespersons often suggest that media coverage of police actions is invariably negative. Where are the reporters when a cop performs a good deed? Whether or not the media is truly biased against members of law enforcement is debatable, of course, but as noted sociologist Harry Edwards points out, “without the law, we have nothing.” Given the penchant for many professional social commentators and activists to jump onto the latest anti-police brutality bandwagon with unequivocal pronouncements, Dr. Edwards’ measured response is helpful.

There are a lot of reasons that common criticisms of law enforcement are simplistic at best, if not unfounded. Those concerned about the militarization of law enforcement might have a different opinion if they were to contemplate a situation where armed gangs had no superior force to deter them. In a nation that is armed to the teeth, a nation where with a few permits, almost anyone can own a semi-automatic high-powered rifle or a .50 caliber sniper’s rifle, it is naive to think that law enforcement is not going to require bigger guns and thicker armor. Because without the law, we have nothing.

Similarly, while criticism of law enforcement rates of pay is a valid part of a difficult, necessary discussion regarding financial sustainability and economic fairness, it should not be waged out of context. And the context is this: We have higher expectations of law enforcement than ever before in history, and overall they have delivered on that expectation, with crime rates at all time lows in the United States. At the same time, crime itself has become far more sophisticated, with the necessity today for law enforcement to contend with cyber criminals, global terrorists, and drug cartels with almost limitless sources of cash. Finally, we value life more than ever; we value personal security more than ever. For all these reasons, law enforcement requires highly trained, sophisticated personnel who are also willing to risk their lives. As a result, the premium that society should pay law enforcement is higher than ever, and it should be.

If you want to criticize the critics of law enforcement, examples abound. For example, it is true that the actual statistics relating to law enforcement indicate it is far safer than many other dangerous professions. There are about a million sworn police officers in the United States, and on average each year about 100 of them die in the line of duty. This death rate, about 10 per 100,000, is significantly less than the death rate for many professions including roofing, fishing, logging, mining; even liquor store clerks have a higher on-the-job death rate than police officers. But this misses the point for two reasons.

First of all, members of these other professions aren’t standing between the average citizen and, as Dr. Edwards puts it, “a savage, barbarian, dog-eat-dog situation of the powerful against the powerless.” Even more significant, while statistically, police do not have nearly the riskiest jobs out there, they live with the knowledge that at any moment, a catastrophe that dwarfs the average mishap could befall them during their shift. Another 911 terrorist attack, or natural conflagration, or industrial accident that spirals out of control could, in one awful moment, take down hundreds of them who are standing their ground, protecting society. As they say in investment finance, “past results are no indicator of future performance.”

Critics of law enforcement also point out, as they should, that technology now enables the surveillance state, that members of law enforcement now have unprecedented ability to look into our private lives. While this is true, and a valid concern worthy of vigorous debate, it is again necessary to ask: Who will enforce the law, if only criminals – including criminal regimes – have the ability to hack? In past centuries, a lone madman might kill dozens, at most hundreds of people with their diabolical schemes. We now live in an age of asymmetry, where one mad scientist can conjure up a weapon capable of killing thousands, if not millions. In such an age, privacy is not only less feasible, it’s less important.

Which brings us to the issue of police brutality, police killings of unarmed citizens. This issue isn’t going to go away, because just as the lives of police officers are valued now more than ever, so are everyone else’s lives. It is worth pointing out that because police must react to situations, meaning that an aggressive citizen bent on doing harm always has the element of surprise, there will be mistakes made by police, in accordance with their training, that have fatal, tragic consequences. Nonetheless, many training protocols must change in order to reduce incidences of brutality and needless killing, and some police are indeed bad apples. What else can we do to prevent tragic, obviously avoidable deaths at the hands of improperly trained or genuinely malicious police officers? Notwithstanding more recent examples, how do we prevent another death like that of Kelly Thomas, an unarmed, mentally ill homeless man who in 2011 was beaten to death by six police officers in Fullerton, California, because, in a panic, he attempted to flee? Why weren’t any of these officers convicted of wrongdoing? Why couldn’t these officers simply hit Thomas in the legs with their batons, rendering him unable to flee? Why did they have to hit him repeatedly in the head? Who defends training protocols that permit police to perform what, in the opinion of many who watched the video, was a cold blooded, sadistic murder?

And here is where the question of police unions comes into play. Because police unions, like teachers unions, are using far too much of their substantial influence to protect bad apples. Police unions also play an overly aggressive role in negotiating pay, and, especially, benefit packages for police officers that are simply not affordable, no matter how much they might actually deserve them. Police unions, along with firefighter unions and other local public employee unions, exercise far too much influence on elected politicians who are dependent on them for campaign support.

Reform is inevitable, both in terms of requiring police to wear body cameras, and in terms of downsizing their defined benefit formulas so their pension funds can remain solvent. The march of technology, the power of activist citizens, and unavoidable financial realities guarantee these reforms will occur. The real question is at what point will America’s citizenry recognize that public sector unions – most definitely including public safety unions – are fighting to protect their power and privilege at the expense of human rights and taxpayer rights?

President Kennedy once said, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” Here in America, we are all Kelly Thomas. If this homeless, marginalized individual can be brutally killed by police officers merely for the crime of attempting to flee when he was in fear for his life, then none of us are safe. There is law in such a nation, but there is no humanity.

*   *   *

Ed Ring is the executive director of the California Policy Center.

RELATED POSTS

How Police Unions and Arbitrators Keep Abusive Cops on the Street, Atlantic Monthly, December 2014

Government Employee Unions – The Root Cause of California’s Challenges, June 3, 2014

Conservative Politicians and Public Safety Unions, May 13, 2014

How Much Does Professionalism Cost?, March 11, 2014  (The Kelly Thomas Story)

How Public Sector Unions Skew America’s Public Safety and National Security Agenda, June 18, 2013

*   *   *

10 replies
  1. Douglas47 says:

    “Police unions also play an overly aggressive role in negotiating pay, and, especially, benefit packages for police officers that are simply not affordable, no matter how much they might actually deserve them.”

    “no matter how much they might actually deserve them.” ???

    What does that mean? You deserve this, but we can’t afford it, so we want you to work for less?

    Does that work when purchasing police vehicles or hiring private contractors? Are car dealers “overly aggressive” when they quote competitive market prices?

  2. Metaphysical says:

    I was with you until this nonsense:

    “In a nation that is armed to the teeth, a nation where with a few permits, almost anyone can own a semi-automatic high-powered rifle or a .50 caliber sniper’s rifle”

    I knew then & there that you are indeed from California, one of the most virulently anti 2nd Amendment states around and know little about firearms other than media spouted nonsense. Semi auto rifles date back 100+ years. They are neither new, nor suddenly any more “high powered” than they used to be. In fact, the AR15 which the wackos like Feinstein abhor has been around for, oh, 50 years or so & is fairly low powered compared to most. Not exactly the new kid on the block.

    I must also disagree with your comment that police “might actually deserve” the often egregious pay, pension & benefit packages, but do agree on the insidious effects of public sector unions. In short, police are NOT worth 100K+, nor do I see the need to let them “retire” decades before anyone else. We don’t pay the military that kind of money and our soldiers see considerably more danger than some radar jockey fleecing the public with yet another revenue driven speed trap.

  3. Tough Love says:

    SDouglas47, I’ll clear it up for you…..

    Police do NOT deserve (while getting “cash pay” alone that in most cases is equal to or greater than what their education, knowledge, and skill would get them in cash pay in the Private Sector) pensions that are TYPICALLY 4 to 6 times greater in value at retirement than those of Private Sector workers making the SAME cash pay, retiring at the SAME age, and with the SAME years of service.

    Honest, hard-working Police Officers deserve our respect and a total compensation package EQUAL to what a Private Sector worker in a job with similar risks, education, experience, and skill sets would demand.

  4. SDouglas47 says:

    ” Attempting to benchmark the compensation of, say, public safety officials to private sector employees is obviously problematic. In such a case, the appropriate level of pay is simply whatever the employers and employees can agree upon – but that only leads to efficient outcomes if there is transparency about the public sector compensation packages that allows all parties, including taxpayers, to understand the value of the benefits. That transparency is currently lacking.”

    Joshua Rauh, 2011

    I would say there is much more transparency today than when Professor Rauh wrote that in 2011. What I see alluded to more and more lately is not so much “you are overpaid”, but more “we can’t afford you”. Which are two entirely different concepts.

  5. Tough Love says:

    Quoting SDOuglas47 … “n such a case, the appropriate level of pay is simply whatever the employers and employees can agree upon ”

    Not when (as is the case in almost all Public Sector negotiations today) these “negotiations” include NOBODY at the table truly looking out for Taxpayer interests.

    The Unions are on one side of the negotiating table, and our elected officials (or their representatives) BOUGHT-OFF with Public Sector Union campaign contributions and election support, are on the OTHER side. Collusion, at it’s best.

  6. Douglas47 says:

    That was quoting Josh Rauh. Don’t shoot the messenger.

    Ironic how so many unions and bought off elected officials have negotiated pay and benefit decreases in the last five years. Maybe they aren’t clear on the concept.

  7. Tough Love says:

    Douglas47, ARE those REAL pay “decreases” AFTER oft-given COLAs, longevity, and step-increases ?

    I’d guess that your “so many” is likely FAR less than 1% of all such negotiating entities.

    If you have any substantive support of that “so many”, provide it.

  8. Barry Levinson says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Ring’s comments about police brutality as demonstrated by the brutal beating death of Kelly Thomas. In that case it was the police who instigated the suspect’s reasonable reaction to flee based on a physical threat of violence against him.

    However, I do not agree with Mr. Ring’s assessment of the increased militarization of the police as basically necessary in the face of greater criminal threats and fire power.

    Former NYC Police Chief Bernard Kerik made a very scary statement in my opinion on the Megyn Kelly show a few days ago. He said any citizen that does not comply with a police command to be handcuffed for arrest no matter what the alleged crime should get the same physical response from the police. So if you are jay walking, selling individual cigarettes or some other minor infraction, the police should respond to that person the same way when they are trying to arrest a serial murderer for instance.

    I could not believe the total lack of common sense by the former police commissioner to state that a single approach by the police is proper no matter the set of circumstances. This attitude by the police which seems to be getting more prevalent smacks of a police state where the citizens are the potential enemy of the police, rather than the people they have been sworn to serve and protect. This is the real danger in my opinion to the increased militarization of police departments. It is not simply the increased fire power, military style uniforms and equipment that they now possess but more importantly the growing police mindset that they are in a war zone with every person in the community a potential enemy. This attitude more than anything else has resulted in too many unnecessary deaths at the hands of law enforcement. Couple this with the lack of will by prosecutors and grand juries to hold those police officers responsible for their actions and we have the sad situation we are too often witnessing today.

  9. Ed Ring says:

    Barry – thank you for your thoughtful comment. I agree with you. When I defended the increased firepower of the police in 21st century America, I was not suggesting they use it indiscriminately, merely that they have it available when absolutely necessary. Those are very distinct endorsements. In my view, if we are to respect the 2nd amendment, we must also accept that police agencies will have the ability to respond proportionately. That does not translate, however, into acceptance of massively disproportionate response.

  10. Amore Cream review says:

    Needed to draft you a very little remark so as to say thanks a
    lot again considering the splendid views you’ve shown at this time.
    This has been certainly tremendously open-handed of people like you in giving easily precisely what numerous people would’ve sold for an ebook to end up
    making some money for their own end, mostly considering that you could possibly have
    tried it if you desired. Those suggestions in addition acted as a fantastic
    way to be certain that the rest have a similar interest much
    like mine to figure out a lot more with respect to this
    condition. I am sure there are thousands of more fun occasions in the
    future for individuals that look into your blog.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.