Chilling Effect: Not!

One of the problems of union-management relations is that often each sector thinks of its issues and perogatives in very parochial ways. (Not that this is all that surprising, maybe every group does this.)

And I do understand unions being concerned that when they bring up issues, the response isn't to fix things to make it better, but about control and overspecificity.

This by the way is a problem too with activism and government, we hesitate to bring things up because typically city agencies think in terms of control, regulation, licensing, and revenue generation through licensing, rather than how to have policies that make a better city.

Anyway, I am still somewhat shocked by this story in the Examiner, "Police review the basics," where the Police Union claims that a review of police procedure--because 1 in 5 arrests are thrown out by the U.S. Attorney's Office, rather than attempting to try the case--would have a chilling effect on police officers doing their job.

Evaluation for improvement is always a good thing.

Still, DC's MPD has maybe gone overboard in terms restrictions on officers, and I can understand the union's concern about this further increasing. At the same time, it's a bit of lazy journalism to always rely on the director of the Police Union for a response in articles, because the bias he represents is never adequately explained or disclosed.

(Plus the police and fire fighters unions are very much involved in donations to Council and Mayoral campaigns, which then makes it harder for politicians to do the right thing when it comes to dealing with these departments when it comes to governance matters.)