Appreciating Police Officers, Challenging Police Unions

Police carIn the wake of tragic and deadly attacks on police officers, those of us who have never wavered in our support for the members of law enforcement, but have questioned the role of police unions and have debated issues of policy surrounding law enforcement have an obligation to restate our position. Civil libertarians and fiscal conservatives have disagreements with police unions which were summed up quite well recently by guest columnist Steve Greenhut, writing in the Orange County Register. Here are some of the principal concerns:

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Police unionization protects bad officers and stifles reform. Lack of transparency into investigations of police misconduct aids and abets the worst actors. Police unions often support laws designed to extract increased revenue from citizens in the form of excessive fines. The “war on drugs” and militarization of law enforcement can further increase the tension between police and the populations they serve. And, of course, police unions fight relentlessly for increases to compensation and benefits, especially straining the budgets of cities.

To have a balanced discussion on these topics, however, it is necessary to revisit why police work has become more controversial and more expensive. Here are some of the reasons:

(1)  The value of life has never been higher. A century ago, when the life expectancy for Americans was 49, tragic deaths were commonplace. Compared to Americans in 1916, Americans today on average can expect an additional three decades of productive life, and premature death is proportionately more traumatic. This means the premium that police officers deserve for their service is higher than it’s ever been, and should be.

(2)  The expectations we have for law enforcement have never been higher. Along with longer lives, Americans suffer less crime. For nearly forty years, in nearly all categories, crime has steadily diminished. While there remains enough crime to generate a daily barrage of lurid local news reports, we enjoy more safety and security than at any time in history. We are getting this service thanks to our police forces, and better service deserves better pay.

(3)  The complexity of crime has never been higher. Crime itself has become far more sophisticated and menacing, morphing into areas unimaginable even a generation ago – cybercrime, global terrorism, financial crimes, murderous gangs, international criminal networks, foreign espionage, asymmetric threats – the list is big and gets bigger every year. Countering these threats requires more capable, better compensated personnel.

(4)  The statistical risk to police officers, even in the wake of recent tragedies, may remain low, but that could change in an instant. In the event of severe civil unrest or well coordinated terrorist attacks such as we saw in Sept. 2011, hundreds or even thousands of officers could find themselves on the front lines of a cataclysm. Statistics are not necessarily predictive, and police officers live with this knowledge every day.

So how do civil libertarians and fiscal conservatives manage their debates with police unions while conveying their respect for police officers? First, by acknowledging the complexity of the issues. Police should make more money than ever before – the debate should start there, not end there. Police have to be armed to the teeth, because in a free republic, the citizens themselves are armed to the teeth. That’s the choice we made, and unless we want to disarm the citizenry, we can’t disarm the police. These are fundamentals where there should be agreement.

Beyond that, it is necessary to appeal to the patriotism and decency that animates the vast majority of members of law enforcement, and ask them: Please work with us to curb the inherent excesses of police union power. Of course we have to get bad cops off the street. Of course we have to come up with effective non-lethal uses of force. Of course we have to figure out how to fund police departments without levying excessive fines. And of course we have to face a challenging economic future together, where police are partners with the people they serve, not an economically privileged class. Is this possible? One may hope so.

There’s more. If police unions are going to be intimately involved in the politics of law enforcement and the politics of police compensation, and they are, they may as well start getting involved in other causes where their membership may find common cause with civil libertarians and fiscal conservatives. Police officers see first hand how welfare destroys families and how public schools fail our children. So why aren’t they fighting to replace welfare with workfare and why aren’t they fighting to destroy the teachers union? You can say what you will about police unions, but they did NOT turn this nation into a lawless hellhole, quite the opposite. The teachers union DID destroy public education. So help us reduce their influence.

Similarly, police officers need to decide if they really feel like enforcing the myriad environmental harassment laws that are criminalizing everything from installing a window or water heater without a building permit to watering your lawn on the wrong day. The global environmentalist movement – of which California is ground zero – has become fascism masquerading as anti-fascism. It has become neo-colonialism masquerading as concern for indigenous peoples. It was a previously noble movement that has been hijacked by cynical billionaires, monopolistic corporations, and corrupt financial special interests. In its excess today, it has become a despicable scam. Help us to crush these corrupt opportunists before our freedom and prosperity is obliterated.

These thoughts, perhaps, are challenges that civil libertarians and fiscal conservatives might offer up to the police unions of America.

This piece was originally published by the Flash Report

*   *   *

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


  1. Randy Townsend says

    Pay cops even more money, on top of the solid golden retirement packages they have “negotiated” with the politicians? Cops are very well paid. No such thing as “too much money” when it comes to LEO’s, right? Police are already “armed to the teeth”. If fact, most SWAT teams are indistinguishable from infantry troops in all areas of equipment. No, Ed, those two issues are not “fundamentals where there should be agreement”. The only weapons capabilities cops don’t have are artillery support and offensive air power – those need to be added to the arsenal, Ed? Cops make enough money and they have enough firepower. The cost of the public safety retirement benefits is the issue. There should be a rule that only one pension is available as the result of public safety service. PS employees that “retire” from one job and get the same job in another and different jurisdiction and earn another pension should be stopped. Disability should disqualify that employee from working another PS job – too sick/injured to work? Enjoy your taxpayer funded retirement. CalPERS is drowning in debt. Taxpayers are on the hook to pay for them. Save the comments about not supporting LEO’s. Not about that – they are employees and need to be addressed in that manner.

  2. The pay should be well above average because their life is at risk every day. The pensions are the problem. Nobody should have the kind of pensions that the public sector unions including police and elected officials get. They should all get 401 style pensions with the employer matching funds to a certain percentage

  3. Rottweiler says

    I think all officers including Sheriffs, Highway Patrol, LAPD and any other ancillary officers who protect us should stand down and not work. Let the vacuous, undeserving and ungrateful people get a taste of complete and utter chaos with a second helping of lawlessness. I am always in awe of their duty and service even if their Chief is divisive and does not back up his officiers. He is always prejudging them in the media even before Internal Affairs has a chance. He never gives them the benefit of the doubt. Chief Beck is a politician first and is so stagnant with political correctness and pandering that they can not rely on any kind of leadership. God Bless our police force and I only hope that some day they will get a Chief they deserve who will actually protect them from the leftist progressive media and other activists which are so stinking negative like BLM. Everyone knows George Soros hires these paid for hire detractors that only cause mayhem just to detract. It is obvious they have only one mission to destroy.

Speak Your Mind