Should Police Officers Be Allowed to Join Unions?

As a veteran of law enforcement with 32 years of experience, the topic of police officers forming unions is one that carries a significant weight. While many advocate for law enforcement to join unions, others hold reservations. In this article, we delve into the pros and cons of police unionism, focusing on the benefits and potential drawbacks of such associations.

Police Officers' Rights and Unionism

Police officers, like any other citizen, do have the right to freedom of assembly, speech, and to form a union to represent their special concerns. This collective action often provides several benefits, such as raising funds for community projects, supporting schools, and organizing events for community safety and morale.

For instance, the union helps with educational assistance for college tuition, organizes basketball clinics, and hosts Christmas parties in inner-city areas. These activities are funded through dues and volunteer time, demonstrating the union’s commitment to the community.

Unionism in Law Enforcement: A Necessity or a Threat?

While I don’t have any significant issues with unions protecting employees, there are concerns about the quality of unions. It can be challenging to believe that there are always good unions and no bad ones. Some individuals might argue that there should be no government employees or military allowed to unionize, considering it as an act of sedition. However, as a 32-year veteran, I firmly believe that unions are necessary for protecting benefits and negotiating for pay raises.

The Dark Side of Police Unions

One significant problem with police unions is their tendency to protect bad cops. Union policies often unreasonably defend officers, regardless of the severity of their crimes or policy violations. For example, if a police officer commits rape or lies in a report to frame an innocent man, the union is often unwilling to take action against the officer. This raises serious ethical concerns and risks undermining the integrity of law enforcement.

Balancing Protection and Accountability

While I support the idea that police officers should be protected by unions, these unions must operate within certain limits. They must be designed to ensure that the core principles of protect and serve are upheld. We need to establish mechanisms to hold union leaders accountable and prevent them from defending officers who should face consequences for their actions.

Historical Context and Benefits

Since my retirement from law enforcement, I have continued to reflect on the impact of unions. For instance, in Illinois, where collective bargaining and binding arbitration are allowed, my agency received annual cost of living (COLA) raises early in my career. COLAs are essential to maintain the value of wages as inflation occurs. Without COLAs, our wages were effectively decreasing in value.

After unionizing, COLAs became a regular occurrence, alongside actual raises based on time in service and improvements in work conditions. This transformation was crucial for our agency, allowing us to attract and retain top talent, and improve the overall quality of life for both officers and their families. The union also helped smaller agencies in the area negotiate better salaries, subsequently reducing the risk of losing officers to larger, unionized agencies.

Conclusion

The decision to allow police officers to join unions is a complex one, balancing the need for collective action and representation against the risk of protecting bad officers. While unions can provide essential benefits, it is crucial to ensure they operate within ethical guidelines and do not compromise the primary mission of law enforcement. The key is to strike a balance that supports the police while also holding them accountable for their actions.