The UCMJ explicitly prohibits unionization for a reason; let’s discuss why the police aren’t similarly prohibited. : Veterans

Firstly, do your due diligence and check my source: Cornell Law School article on this specific section.

Edit: as correctly stated, I miswrote “UCMJ prohibits” and instead should’ve noted Federal law prohibits. …

The sub says no partisan politics, I agree with this concept. I expect that this issue transcends partisanship.

Our ROE in Iraq circa 2003-2006 was variable and we had to stay on top of it. One thing I recall vividly was the explicit use of force doctrine that forbade us from firing without first observing fire and determining it was in our direction.

Y’all who served in my AO remember this; anything so much as a soccer game had these people out in the streets firing off AKs with tracer rounds. If we lit up an Iraqi every time we got scared, we’d have spent most of our time at parade rest in front of full birds explaining ourselves.

If we had union representation backing our actions in the early oughts, comrades, bloodbath would be too gentle of a word for what would’ve happened (which was by plenty of measures, already an actual bloodbath if you were in my chunk of Baghdad.)

…

We are prohibited from unions in the military for some very well established ethical reasons, feel free to engage in the comments with why that is, what that’s necessary.

Then I’d love to hear a rational explanation as to why that same policy doesn’t exist for this nation’s paramilitary organizations such as, say, the police.

The key word here being rational.

I understand that there are people who can make anything a partisan debate, coughcough, but let’s avoid that yeah? I’m interested in a good faith conversation that drills down to an acceptable solution to a national concern that transcends partisanship.