This was written a couple of weeks ago, but I didn't see the need to find additional reasons to criticize Scott Walker. There was very little chance that he was going to be voted politician of the year on Dailykos. So, I'll post it now, as this specific element, and the reasoning behind it, deserves to be aired
I watched Governor Walker's interview on "Meet the Press" very carefully yesterday,
so I was stunned by this exchange with the interviewer, David Gregory:
When asked why he did not include Police and Fire in his demands, this is the substance of his response:
....this is not a value judgement about employees, but it's ultimately about preserving public safety. (He described the inconvenience when school teachers walked off the job for three days)
.....Even if there were one jurisdiction across the state where firefighters and police officers weren't on the job in full force. I can't afford to have a fire or a crime committed when there's a gap in service. It all just boils down to public safety.
.....I can't afford to have a gap when it comes I think that's the one thing universal, republicans and democrats alike, liberal and conservative that people know that we can not have a gap in, and that's why we made that change in the bill.
Walker used variations of the phrase, "must prevent gaps in public safety" three times, each with the smooth assurance of reciting an accepted meme, as he said, with "universal bi partisan agreement" It slipped right past Gregory, as it probably did to most viewers.
It stopped me cold.
There is a bedrock principle on every level of government that agencies, military or police, that have the tools and authority to use deadly force must be under the control of elected civilian executives. Therefore the President, governors or mayors have not only a right, but a duty to control the actions of these forces.
Such executives are expected to get feedback from the heads of uniformed services, and act appropriately to secure the protections that they provide, but ultimate authority rests with the civilian executive. Walker has said that if he were to remove the right to collective bargaining the police are more likely to have a work stoppage. Let's look at this closer. They would be striking only if their demands are rejected. It follows that he sees a probability that these demands will be made and then....that he would reject them.
Now let's back up. He just said three times, "I can't afford to have a fire or a crime committed when there's a gap in service." In effect if there ever is a demand, however unreasonable it may be, he will not take a stand to stop it. This statement applies whether police have the right to bargain over work rules or whether they are prohibited from doing so.
I don't know details of the Wisconsin police culture, but I lived in New York City for four decades, and know this force well, and there are certain propensities common among police departments. The first is corruption, the temptation always present, and inevitably taken by some, and often many, from the a great metropolis to my small city in California.
The one in my small city was described in this diary, a police raid on a Democratic Fundraiser, that was covered up by the police agency and the D.A. Only in settling a civil suit was the illegality of the action acknowledged. This unionized police force illegally entered a private home, then demanded information that it had no right to demand, and then with excessive force arrested two persons. Their union was a part of the concerted effort to excuse this action.
My own experience was almost a half century ago on 3rd Ave and 81 St in Manhattan, that I remember perfectly. It was a shakedown by two plain clothes detectives who didn't like my pace of crossing the intersection. When they sped up, almost brushing against me, my taking something out of my pocket to protect myself from these guys was enough to have them arrest me. They tried, they threatened, "Do you know what we could do with you with just what we have in our back seat, without even using a gun" They didn't exactly demand money, but they had a persistent interest in whether I knew exactly how much I would have to pay a lawyer to get me off. I managed to keep cool, play dumb and finally walk away. It was almost a good natured game; but I realized just how vulnerable anyone is to those bad eggs who have a badge and gun.
One of the benefits that their union won, is that if accused of a crime, from homicide to trivial infractions such as I experienced, police officers do not have to give a statement to internal affairs for 48 hours. We all understand the constitutional protection against requiring self incriminating statements, but no one has a right to a job. The authority to use deadly force, police authority, can and should be contingent on full cooperation in ascertaining facts. The suspected officers are not released from this obligation to do so promptly by law, but by negotiated contract
If there is one union that should not be allowed to negotiate its work rules, it's the one that has the authority to use force to deny others their civil liberties. Police unions can, and have, impeded the proper oversight that controls excesses. Without this vigilance, the few that are always in any police force can expand to reach critical mass, to the point that corruption becomes the norm. When such corruption is fostered for political gain, it can subvert the very fabric of our political culture.
This seems to be what Scott Walker was flirting with in his decision to exclude police from his crack down on unions.
.