Quote:
Originally posted by andViolins
Did you read what you linked to? Maybe just the beginning of the time line? If you scroll down, you stumble upon this gem:
1987
Interest arbitration is reinstituted for police and firefighter contract negotiations, with arbitration awards subject to funding by the legislative body.
Last time I checked, police meant, um, police. And contract negotiations usually implies that employees have a collective bargaining agent. That usually implies a union. But hey, I'm just guessing.
aV
|
I actually read what I linked to. They noted the exception in 1958 and never noted a change to include the specific term "union" thereafter. It should surprise nobody here that I'm speaking from personal experience. Collective bargaining? Yes. Union? No. Strike? No. I'm not saying they have no similar rights, including many that are included in their collectively bargained contracts. And many are similar to what unions achieve. But I've seen the same 1958-like language in many contexts, and its always been used to state that police can't be in a union.
Which is to say, pointing me to language that says they can collectively bargain, does not negate the language that says they can't be form a union. I'll google it and be right back if I find an explanation of the reasoning for the no-union thing.
I note (before this turns hostile), that my whole quote about "arguing about terminology" specifically covers your retort. You are arguing the similarity of the rights to those of a union, and I'm merely noting that, at the very least, their organization just can't be called a union. For whatever reason.
Hello
ETA: The national FOP site indicates that it was merely avoiding the shame of being a union when formed in 1915. It does not substantively address things like the MASS 1958 exception (which, strangely, I only found for MASS on the internet... weird that). Anyway, aside from the no-strike thing, one of the rather major differences from many traditional unions is the organizational structure. The national is more like a professional organization that does lobbying, political endorsements etc. It does not govern locals. For example, it doesn't take over locals when the leadership has gone bad. Similar to the state/local level. I suspect its related to the union thing in that local govts want to bargain with their sweethearts and not some guy in another state. But there is surprisingly little to be found either for or against my proposition on the internet.
Threaded Mode