[UnderseaLcpl]

I notice that the article mentions the police sergeants union. As such, this doesn't surprise me a bit.

I'm sure their new chief is a jerk. He sounds like the kind of person that manages with little or no regard for properly motivating his subordinates.

That being said, I think a big part of the problem here is the union. Only in a union would this kind of drop in productivity be tolerated. I would know, I'm a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. Between my union and the United Transportaion Union, it is a wonder that any freight ever gets anywhere in this country. Whenever someone pisses us off, we stage unofficial "work slowdowns" (we aren't permitted to strike under federal law)
Really, we have no reason to do this. We are pretty well paid, and we should be, because a lot of responsibility is entrusted to us. It takes years to master train-handling, and millions of dollars of equipment and peoples lives are at stake.
But everyone always wants more. And usually they get it, because the state typically sides with the unions when arbitrations are necessary.

I'm sure that the Police Sergeants Union feels the same way, but I would not support them for two reasons;
1) They are public servants*. They have a duty to perform. If they won't do it properly just because some jacka$$ is in charge, they have no business being public servants. Some jacka$$ is always in charge, especially in affairs of state.
2) If my union ruins productivity, my company suffers. In turn, we suffer because the company pays our wages. If a police union ruins productivity, people can die, or get raped, or be assaulted or robbed, or all of those. And they waste everybody else's money while they don't do their jobs.

The management is also at fault. That kind of management only exists because there is not enough competition to eliminate organizations that practice it. In state entities, it is because of the fiat powers of the state and the difficulty in removing ineffecient agencies. In private industries, it is because of the fiat powers of the state and the difficulty in removing ineffecient agencies. It is no coincidence that the private companies that cost the economy the most(ahem, banks) are also the most heavily-regulated and state-influenced. Thus, the markets these companies control are difficult for entrepeneurs and other companies to break into.

Conclusion; the real problem is the state. The state has a tendency to discourage competition because it's judgements are so powerful.

When the state makes a wrong decision it is difficult to reverse or replace it. It requires a lot of public awareness and political involvement. When people are struggling to make ends meet, those things are generally not high on their list of priorities.

Competition is the solution. It provides incentive to produce, something that the government and unions are notoriously devoid of. The state's only role in the economy should be to preserve competition, both through staying out of business affairs as much as possible, and, by popular mandate (at least 66% majority), breaking up monopolies. Well....... it should also endeavour to promote international trade via elimination of trade barriers and a policy of state non-interference, obviously.

Back to the point. unions = bad. State + unions = bad for everyone.




*I can't support that objectively. My view is influenced by my military experience.
I am still at odds with fellow servicemen who thought that they had no reason to perform their duties because they disagreed with certain state policies concerning foreign affairs.