Currently, police unions are allowed to collectively bargain with government officials over the methods used to hold police officers accountable for misconduct. Proponents argue that collective bargaining stands in the way of accountability. Opponents of limiting collective bargaining argue that more intense criticism of police will disincentivize officers from doing their jobs resulting in crime rates going up.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Voting for candidate:
Zipcode:
@9XHTC4J7mos7MO
Yes, and limit the bargaining power of police unions to only issues that are not related to interaction with the public. I.e. salary, and benefits.
@9V7CHF68mos8MO
Police unions are important, but they are perhaps too defensive in cases of alleged misconduct. They should be more focused on getting rid of bad cops and improving the publics perception of police in order to make them safer and more effective.
@9V23X2P8mos8MO
They should let the people settle the argument, but if it gets violent in any way, they should intervene.
I feel that the police should go to court, they can communicate with each other but they have to hold each other accountable. They are holding everyone else to the same standards, they should hold each other to the same.
@8WCKRCK4yrs4Y
Yes, but only in the case that unions get in the way of liability and obstructing justice
No, as long as the practice is not abused, and that officers who abuse their powers are held accountable for their actions
Yes, this is a conflict of interest.
@8R3V2BD4yrs4Y
Yes, this would be a conflict of interest.
No, but eliminate collective bargaining for police unions.
@9XKJ2TX7mos7MO
Yes and limit the power of the union to only involve their pay, and safety matters. Police cannot impartially judge the police.
Join in on more popular conversations.
