The op-ed here doesn’t suggest disbanding the unions, as well it shouldn’t. I agree with others that that would set a dangerous precedent in a country with far too few unions. This doesn’t change the fact that police unions are a public enemy. They are our enemy in the competition for the ear (pocket?) of our public officials. As the OP points out, government officials are making these deals with the police, and succumbing to the pressure of the unions. The unions are gross, and their attitude and actions are making their constituents enemies of the people, so one would hope better representation can be elected in the future, but that will only happen if their tactics fail to work with government officials. To make this happen, it needs to be clear that the deals that are being made are not acceptable, and that officials who make such deals will be removed.
Now, what this may also require is a limitation of the kinds of political powers that unions can have, and how union money can be spent. I would be all in favor of this across all unions, as long as corporate lobbying is similar brought in line. So yeah, about as likely as removing corrupt officials.
Honestly, countries that have across-the-board unions for all of “labor” as opposed to unions for specific bureaucracies and industries are much more productive and sensible, but I would hope we wouldn’t erode what little labor representation we have.
