Theoretically speaking though, why is there a constant tension between police unions and local and state governments? Can't they all just get along? Well, to answer this question, perhaps we should briefly examine the differences between police unions in the United States and those in Canada to see if there is some underlying difference between the way the two are viewed by their respective societies. In a project commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice entitled, "Police Labor -- Management Relations (2006, Vol 1) the issue was addressed explicitly, the project states:
Labor relations in Canada and the U.S. share a similar history and similar original legislation. So why are the bargaining regimes and outcomes so different? The one word answer is legislation. Whether public sector or private sector, the notable difference between Canadian and U.S. labor relations history is that Canadian legislators have not eroded or outright annulled the substance and spirit of our early, formative legislation that enables the organization and certification of bargaining units, recognition of unions by employers, and facilitates collective bargaining and the administration of collective agreements.
Consequently, police labor relations in Canada operate in a protected environment where neutral third-party dispute mechanisms, like binding interest arbitration, are the norm. To our advantage as well, arbiters and most employer negotiators recognize the police as unique employees in unique workplaces. Police-to-police comparison generally is the accepted standard. For the most part, this has allowed us to hold our own in comparison with self-regulating professions, with each other regionally, and for larger bargaining units nationally. Most important, this protected environment has allowed us to stay ahead of the private sector and separate ourselves from the rest of the public sector in gains in salary and benefits. Good wage and benefit packages account for the low incidence of police corruption in Canada. Being able to rely on a defined process in our legislation and maintaining a favorable image in the eyes of the public as well as the respect of most of our politicians has helped us survive, and in most workplaces avoid, poor labor-management relations. (Kilnnear, 2006, p. 27-28),
In Canada police unions are not viewed as a pernicious entity, a money-gulping indolent bureaucracy, instead it is ingrained in the social fabric that a police union is a positive influence that assiduously works -- via the cooperation of its members -- to mitigate crime. Their ways of operation, their legislation, is clearly defined and transparent. And, what is most important is the understanding by both policy makers and the police unions is that police work is fundamentally different than any other type of work in the public sector. Consequently, it should be treated differently and comparisons that juxtapose police salaries and benefits with jobs in other sectors of the workforce are inherently flawed. In the U.S. however, police unions (really unions in general), are not viewed with the same deference and respect. Unfair comparisons are drawn in an effort to bust unions.
In addition to the external pressures the Locust Club faces, there is also internal pressure(s) within the organization. For example, conflict can arise over members' dues and fees, the near compulsory aspect of the union, grievances amongst union members and union management, etc. After all, cops are people too, so there are no shortages of complaints and issues that need to be addressed and handled in a calm and efficient manner. What's important is that these issues get resolved internally so that the Locust Club maintains a unified front and a singular voice when...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now