Portland police union boss slams Oregon gov candidate's claim about defund police stance: 'Simply not true'

Lord of Planar said:

Unions used to be necessary. I haven't seen a good one for a long time now. All they do now is find ways to cause tension between employees and management. I tend to agree with you.

Click to expand...

Unions are still, very much, necessary.

All one has to do to see that is to overlay the graph of the shrinking US middle-class income over that of one showing the decay in union strength in this country. They follow each other in near lock step.

But you are right in that you haven't seen a good one in a long time. They have been corrupted in the exact same methodology used to corrupt our Congress and our state houses, by the exact same people and for the exact same reasons.

Roadvirus said:

So you think police officers shouldn't have a group to represent them and their interests?

Click to expand...

They most certainly do, but in my state the hierarchy of the two major law enforcement representative collect bargaining units is corrupted. All one has to do to see that is to monitor the their number retiring into cushy state appointed positions to see that [Like I am sure the reward for being a thorn in the side of state pols is to be appointed to a high five or low six figure position].

That corruption has led to our being lied to about our pensions, COLA and the nature of the funding and management of them,

If I hadn't been so badly physically damaged in my service to my state during my tenure in law enforcement I would respond by first donating 50-60 hours a week in the creation of a true public service supporting 501 (c) (4) PAC that would lead to a low six figure position for running it with result based incentive bonuses. The collection of the supporting data to make a comprehensive funding list of the 800,000 public service, active and retired, in this state. The use of it for charitable fundraising to create a war chest. The hiring of the right folks to create the message, then push it. The getting and forming of 1% of the 400.000 retired public servants to create a 4000 member strong political activism unit to man voter registration drives, mailing and phone centers [boiler rooms in old school political parlance], polling, reverse polling, canvasing, getting the our souls to the polls on election day. Using all that to determine the top 4 state house dwellers acting against our best interests and primary them out of their jobs, Tea Party style, then look to the rest and ask, "Who'd like to be next?".

I know this game. When I was a kid I was heading toward it in a real way and got far enough up the ladder to see how it all really worked. That is when I decided that if I was going to make a living as a public servant I would be of better service arresting criminals than working directly for them.

ModernDiogenes said:

Unions are still, very much, necessary.

All one has to do to see that is to overlay the graph of the shrinking US middle-class income over that of one showing the decay in union strength in this country. They follow each other in near lock step.

But you are right in that you haven't seen a good one in a long time. They have been corrupted in the exact same methodology used to corrupt our Congress and our state houses, by the exact same people and for the exact same reasons.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind, the union memberships are decreasing because family wage manufacturing jobs are going to China and other places. This, middle class income is declining too.

You can thank those supporting global free trade.

Lord of Planar said:

Keep in mind, the union memberships are decreasing because family wage manufacturing jobs are going to China and other places. This, middle class income is declining too.

You can thank those supporting global free trade.

Click to expand...

That had something to do with it, but not the greater part of it.

That would be the corrupting of union hierarchies by corportist special interests for the purpose of weakening them as effective advocates for their memberships. Money, the offering of positions, and other means of generating influence were used and, because many of these folks were weak, successfully. So the unions were infected without. The use of the same corruptive methods were used in state houses to pass "Right To Work" laws [aka, the right to work for what I want to pay you laws] and other measures to weaken them further from the outside. Together these outward and inward corruptive methods, combined in lesser measure with what you mention, has made all but the public sector unions benign, ineffectual, or dismantled and no longer in existence. Even those public sector unions are shadows of their former selves.

The reason for the wanting of this, besides controlling their costs and raising their bottom line, is simple. These unions were the special interests acting as a counterweight on corporatist political influence/corruptive practices. Their combined purchasing of influence acted against those of corporate interests and in equal measure. This balance of equally wrong, but diametrically opposed, special interests negated the presence of each other. It leveled the playing field. It was, in great part, why we experienced a period of middle class expansion and better governing. Not because there was no corruption, but because there were two major sources of purchasing who each wanted opposite end results of it, thus tending to cancel each other out.

The killing off of the unions is what allows the corportist influencers to run the table as the biggest, and heading to sole, source of corruptive influence purchasing. This lets them purchase more for less, and it is why they have the level of influence they have in our Congress and state houses today.

As I have stated elsewhere, this has happened here before. It will have the same end results if it doesn't change.

ModernDiogenes said:

In free markets non-specialized workers {cogs} have the right of free assembly and to combine themselves in collective bargaining units to give weight and leverage to their power to negotiate terms with their employers. Just as business has the right to utilize leverage in a marketplace.

When business purchases power in state houses to un-level the playing field by the creation of laws that remove the right of assembly and free combining of self-interests from workers this is not free market capitalism. It is corporatism, which is a form of corruption of representative democracy.

Click to expand...

Unions are forcing out individuals who dont want to be part of them, so its undemocratic. Not only that unions corrupt whatever industry they infest.

PoS said:

Unions are forcing out individuals who dont want to be part of them, so its undemocratic. Not only that unions corrupt whatever industry they infest.

Click to expand...

Without unions standard laborers without specialized skills have no means to negotiate wages and job site protections other than government statute. Since their unions are not present to purchase [lobby] influence in Congress and state houses these statutes either don't come into existence or become weaker if they do exist. There is no doubt of this to anyone who bothers to track the decline in "cog" earning power over the last thirty years.

This is not accidental, but a deliberate and effective long game on the part of corporatists who, very much, want not only to decrease labor costs but negate labor unions as an effective means of countering their efforts to purchase influence in Congress and state houses.

Given the readily discernible, measurable, aforementioned decrease in adjusted for inflation wages as a percentage of corporate profit and the increase of effective corporate influence purchasing of government the point I am making is hardly refutable.

PoS said:

Unions are forcing out individuals who dont want to be part of them, so its undemocratic. Not only that unions corrupt whatever industry they infest.

Click to expand...

such ignorant bullshit ^

by federal law, union elections are democratically conducted

the union members elect their representatives

Schism said:

Portland police union boss slams Oregon gov candidate's claim about defund police stance: 'Simply not true'The Portland Police Association’s president on Thursday criticized Oregon gubernatorial candidate Tina Kotek for claiming during the previous night’s debate that she has always been a supporter of law enforcement.


When you go to vote, don't forget that democrats ran interference for over a year during the riots.

These people are frauds and liars.

Click to expand...

For an "Independent" all you seem to do is bash Liberals/Democrats. LOL

PoS said:

Unions are forcing out individuals who dont want to be part of them, so its undemocratic.

Click to expand...

Unions are "forcing out" people? How?

PoS said:

Not only that unions corrupt whatever industry they infest.

Click to expand...

Do you enjoy work breaks? What about proper lighting? Safety conditions? What about vacations or pregnancy leave? You don't like these things?

justabubba said:

such ignorant bullshit ^

by federal law, union elections are democratically conducted

the union members elect their representatives

Click to expand...

Strawman. Thats not what I was saying.

Bodi said:

Unions are "forcing out" people? How?

Click to expand...

By excluding those workers who want to work in the company without being in a union.

Do you enjoy work breaks? What about proper lighting? Safety conditions? What about vacations or pregnancy leave? You don't like these things?

Click to expand...

None of those things were invented by unions. Try again.

ModernDiogenes said:

Without unions standard laborers without specialized skills have no means to negotiate wages and job site protections other than government statute. Since their unions are not present to purchase [lobby] influence in Congress and state houses these statutes either don't come into existence or become weaker if they do exist. There is no doubt of this to anyone who bothers to track the decline in "cog" earning power over the last thirty years.

This is not accidental, but a deliberate and effective long game on the part of corporatists who, very much, want not only to decrease labor costs but negate labor unions as an effective means of countering their efforts to purchase influence in Congress and state houses.

Given the readily discernible, measurable, aforementioned decrease in adjusted for inflation wages as a percentage of corporate profit and the increase of effective corporate influence purchasing of government the point I am making is hardly refutable.

Click to expand...

BS, there are already state and fed laws that protect workers. They dont need unions.

ModernDiogenes said:

Without unions standard laborers without specialized skills have no means to negotiate wages and job site protections other than government statute. Since their unions are not present to purchase [lobby] influence in Congress and state houses these statutes either don't come into existence or become weaker if they do exist. There is no doubt of this to anyone who bothers to track the decline in "cog" earning power over the last thirty years.

Click to expand...

Are you impying teachers, police, etc, need such protections?

justabubba said:

such ignorant bullshit ^

by federal law, union elections are democratically conducted

the union members elect their representatives

Click to expand...

Really?

There are so many jobs that you cannot have without joining the union.

This to 100% wrong. Why do you support such corrupted authoritarian policies?

Police unions lol. The only union republicans care about and its obvious why.

PoS said:

Strawman. Thats not what I was saying.

Click to expand...

you were insisting unions act in undemocratic ways
i was pointing out that federal law requires unions to elect its representatives democratically
in short, i was pointing out that your assertion was factually incorrect

PoS said:

By excluding those workers who want to work in the company without being in a union.

Click to expand...

the union does NOT make such an exclusion
state laws determine whether union represented employees within their state are or are not obligated to become union members

let's then examine the circumstance where a state does compel union membership of union represented employees:

the employee chooses to apply to that employer for a job which is known to require union membership as a legal condition of employment
the applicant has effectively said to the company, i want to join your staff as a union member
no one, especially no union, twisted that applicant's arm to force them to seek a job, which job is union represented
the applicant probably applied because that job pays better and is more secure only because there is a union representing the employees

PoS said:

None of those things were invented by unions. Try again.

Click to expand...

those things are the kinds of working conditions the union will be responsible for enforcing, on behalf of the employees it has a legal obligation to represent
without the union, there is no enforcement mechanism within the employing organization. the absence of such a mechanism is then often exploited by management to the detriment of the employees

Lord of Planar said:

Really?

There are so many jobs that you cannot have without joining the union.

This to 100% wrong. Why do you support such corrupted authoritarian policies?

Click to expand...

see post #40 for an explanation why you are again proven wrong

Schism said:

Portland police union boss slams Oregon gov candidate's claim about defund police stance: 'Simply not true'The Portland Police Association’s president on Thursday criticized Oregon gubernatorial candidate Tina Kotek for claiming during the previous night’s debate that she has always been a supporter of law enforcement.


When you go to vote, don't forget that democrats ran interference for over a year during the riots.

These people are frauds and liars.

Click to expand...

I am cheering for Drazan. We'll see if a Republican can clean up Portland's streets.

Lord of Planar said:

Are you impying teachers, police, etc, need such protections?

Click to expand...

Please stop.

I said cogs without specialized skills. Obviously those public workers have specialized skills.

I also said public employees are the only ones who gave minimally strong unions these days, though they are diminished.

Working class folk who do cog work (non-specialized labor). Decided need someone looking out for them.

Lord of Planar said:

Yes they are. Living in Portland, the Portland police were never for the common citizen. They simply don't care about crimes the common people report. They have been excessively violent like other departments across the nation. Crime is far more rampant that the national statistics suggest, because most crime are no longer reported. It's a waste of time.

Click to expand...

It’s not the officers don’t care, it’s that local government is owned by the activist class. Back in the 70s and 80s when Portland was a working class extension of the Midwest it was a great place to live.

PoS said:

All unions should be abolished.

Click to expand...

No.

They should not.

EMNofSeattle said:

It’s not the officers don’t care, it’s that local government is owned by the activist class. Back in the 70s and 80s when Portland was a working class extension of the Midwest it was a great place to live.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was. It was also more conservative that today. You have no idea how pissed I am of how the liberals took it over, and ruined it.

justabubba said:

you were insisting unions act in undemocratic ways
i was pointing out that federal law requires unions to elect its representatives democratically
in short, i was pointing out that your assertion was factually incorrect

the union does NOT make such an exclusion
state laws determine whether union represented employees within their state are or are not obligated to become union members

let's then examine the circumstance where a state does compel union membership of union represented employees:

the employee chooses to apply to that employer for a job which is known to require union membership as a legal condition of employment
the applicant has effectively said to the company, i want to join your staff as a union member
no one, especially no union, twisted that applicant's arm to force them to seek a job, which job is union represented
the applicant probably applied because that job pays better and is more secure only because there is a union representing the employees

those things are the kinds of working conditions the union will be responsible for enforcing, on behalf of the employees it has a legal obligation to represent
without the union, there is no enforcement mechanism within the employing organization. the absence of such a mechanism is then often exploited by management to the detriment of the employees

Click to expand...

Wrong. I was forced into a union when I worked for a sporting goods franchise right out of college. I didnt want to be in that union, but they said if you want the job, then you have to be.

PoS said:

Wrong. I was forced into a union when I worked for a sporting goods franchise right out of college. I didnt want to be in that union, but they said if you want the job, then you have to be.

Click to expand...

my deepest sympathies are with you [/s]
you wanted a job with union benefits
and to get that job you HAD to join the union

no you did NOT
you could have passed on the job with union benefits
and instead chosen lower paying work with shit benefits

there was a reason you wanted the union job
there was then a reason why you joined the union to get that job

only you wanted the benefits without having to pay the union dues
there's a name for that

justabubba said:

my deepest sympathies are with you [/s]
you wanted a job with union benefits
and to get that job you HAD to join the union

no you did NOT
you could have passed on the job with union benefits
and instead chosen lower paying work with shit benefits

there was a reason you wanted the union job
there was then a reason why you joined the union to get that job

only you wanted the benefits without having to pay the union dues
there's a name for that

Click to expand...

Rationalizing....

justabubba said:

my deepest sympathies are with you [/s]
you wanted a job with union benefits
and to get that job you HAD to join the union

no you did NOT
you could have passed on the job with union benefits
and instead chosen lower paying work with shit benefits

there was a reason you wanted the union job
there was then a reason why you joined the union to get that job

only you wanted the benefits without having to pay the union dues
there's a name for that

Click to expand...

What union benefits? I had $600 deducted from my paycheck because I was forced to pay dues and all I got was a ****ing bi-monthly newsletter. Unions can go **** themselves.