Skip to main content

George Floyd versus Union Cops: Is that the Real Story?


No one with a brain can look at the video of the Minneapolis cops putting their weight on George Floyd’s entire body, including a knee to his neck, and see his resulting death as anything but murder. The first autopsy cited pre-existing health conditions as a contributing factor in Floyd’s death. The second autopsy found Floyd’s death to be murder due to his carotid artery being crushed, cutting off blood flow to his brain. The official coroner seems to have come around to the murder conclusion, but regardless, those cops killed a man for passing a counterfeit 20-dollar bill; and because he’s dead, we can’t even find out if Floyd knowingly did so.


Were the cops indifferent to Floyd’s pain because of racism? I don’t know, and no one else does, either. The cop with his knee on Floyd’s neck is obviously responsible for Floyd’s death. The other cops, who did nothing to alleviate Floyd’s suffering when he complained that he couldn’t breathe, are at least culpable in the murder. Three of the cops are identified as Caucasian and one is identified as Asian. It seems that the color of the cops is all that many need, apparently with absolute certainty, to know that Floyd’s death was due to racism on the part of the cops.


One thing I do know, though, is that cops – law enforcement in general – kill too many people. Four years ago, John McWhorter, a professor at Columbia University, who happens to be black and is no conservative by any means, wrote an article for Time magazine entitled “Police Kill Too Many People—White and Black.” He points out that he had, for some time, asked for evidence that whites were dying in the same way as the offensive black deaths at the hands of cops, being convinced of systemic racism in police ranks. Then, somebody obliged. His article describes three senseless deaths of whites at the hands of cops. Then he points out, “The men in these cases were white, not black, and yet all three were killed by police officers under circumstances that would almost surely have elicited indignant protest nationwide if they were black.”


Watch Netflix’s Waco miniseries. Most of the scores of Branch Davidians who died were white and included women and children. You’ll see accurate depictions of law enforcement authorities lying outright only to cover their own misjudgments and culpability in their improper exercise of government’s police powers. None of that had to do with racism although lots of innocent people died.


We’ve all seen the videos of police arresting someone and roughing them up, putting on handcuffs too tightly, kicking their legs, slamming them against a car, and then when the individual attempts to protect himself, the cops pummel him and tack on “resisting arrest” to the charges. I personally don’t believe many policemen are racist. I do believe, however, that a significant number of them are bullies. Some of them are even cowards. For many, their police culture reinforces bully behavior.


In 2016, a white female police officer in Oklahoma fatally shot an unarmed black man, who was acting erratically and had drugs in his system. He was big, too. But, there was a white male officer right there with her, aiming a Taser, and who never discharged his weapon. Likely, she fired because she was scared, not because she was racist. She should have been convicted of manslaughter, but she was acquitted completely. It probably is a “white thing” to give police officers the benefit of the doubt.


We have a cop problem in this country. A relatively small number of bullying and cowardly cops are giving everyone else a bad name. But how does this minority of officers stick around? Reports have come out that the cop who pressed his knee into George Floyd’s neck had well over a dozen complaints against him. He apparently was never so much as formally reprimanded. Why not?


The mayor of St. Paul* (the son of a retired police officer and black), in a rambling answer to an interview question Sunday morning, identified the problem. Union contracts make it difficult to fire or discipline police officers. All union contracts for public employees make it difficult to hold public employees accountable, whether police officers, firemen, teachers, or any other unionized position.


Our elected officials and the people they appoint owe their entire allegiance to taxpayers as a whole, regardless of election turnout, and regardless of who helped to pay for their campaigns. That allegiance is called a fiduciary duty, an obligation to absolutely act in the best interest of all citizens. It’s a high standard. But when an elected official’s paramount consideration is to insure victory in the next election, or to favor a supporter, or to favor an organization that organizes on the official’s behalf, that official isn’t coming close to meeting the fiduciary obligation. And frankly, anything short of meeting that fiduciary duty is a corrupt act.


That’s where unions come in. Local government elections often occur on unexpected and under-publicized dates, resulting in abysmal voter turnout. That means only a small number of votes can swing an election outcome. Therefore, public employee union activity can easily make the difference in local elections. Prevailing officials naturally (though improperly) feel they owe their position to union activity, and they act accordingly, acceding to favorable contract terms for union employees. After all, the union employees essentially hired their employer. Thus, the employer (elected official) acts against the interests of taxpayers in general, an absolute breach of the fiduciary duty.


Two policy changes are badly needed in Oklahoma. All elections should be held on no more than two or three standard election dates, and public officials should be prohibited from negotiating and signing collective bargaining contracts. Right now, it is entirely possible that an election could be held somewhere in Oklahoma every single month of the year. There is simply no way to “fix” public employee union collective bargaining. It has to be ended.


Even with standardized election dates increasing general turnout and dissipating union voting, unions will influence elections. Their influence intentionally has the effect of breaching a fiduciary duty to all taxpayers in general. Even without collective bargaining, employees can still associate in an organization and might seek to influence their bosses, but the kind of corruption (like when bad cops aren’t fired) that comes with public employee collective bargaining would be less common.


Would this completely solve the problems with race we have in this country today? No, not when you have race-baiting ideologues at the New York Times pushing a historically inaccurate and purposely provocative narrative handed over to schools that, sheep-like, dutifully teach it as fact. And not as long as race baiters sell false narratives to what has clearly become a hyper-sensitized subset of a community who interpret every cross look and every stop by a policeman as an overt act of racism. 


A scene in The Mule depicts a Hispanic man, pulled over because his vehicle matches a description, saying a police stop “is statistically the most dangerous five minutes” for a minority like him. Based on what teachers say of their minority students’ beliefs, these kinds of erroneous “facts” are common and a source of feelings of persecution. Maybe we should all share our experiences with being stopped for the most minor of traffic infractions just so a bored police officer can size us up. It might just be that the experiences of people of different ethnicities aren’t all that different, like McWhorter’s discovery about people being shot by cops, most of whom, I’m betting, belong to unions.


*An earlier version of this blog incorrectly identified him as the mayor of Minneapolis. 


Byron Schlomach is 1889 Institute’s Director and can be contacted at bschlomach@1889institute.org.


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

If Licensing Protects Consumers, Why Are Licensing Laws Blatantly Anti-Consumer?

Once upon a time, there was a small island whose economy revolved around scuba-diving tourism. Unfortunately, the island elected legislators who considered scuba dangerous. Inexperienced divers would surface too quickly and get the bends. The legislature, wanting to make diving feel safer, passed a law that banned sharks in designated scuba diving zones. There were no known cases of sharks attacking divers, nor were divers being frightened into surfacing too quickly by sharks. This is what most occupational licensing schemes look like. Legislators act, giving the public a sense of security, and giving powerful industries protection from competition. The laws do almost nothing to help consumers. Not only are they futile, they are also deceptive.   Some licensing regimes, like the Oklahoma Real Estate Broker ’ s Act, take the deceit one step farther. Instead of just telling the sharks not to eat people (which they weren’t doing anyway) the act does the equivalent of gathering a group of

Massage Therapy Licensing: Violating the Pursuit of Happiness

In a way, America at least partly owes its independence to the conviction that granting exclusive market privileges is an illegitimate function of government. In a free country, no-one has an exclusive right to a market over anyone else. Yet, two and a half centuries after the American Revolution, the old-fashioned kind of monopoly, wherein government grants exclusive privileges, is experiencing something of a revival. In Oklahoma, legally bestowed market advantages are commonplace, and take many forms such as Tax Increment Finance Districts , various special tax credits unrelated to core government functions , and occupational licensing . Today, people use the word “monopoly” to refer to a business that has achieved total domination in a market as the result of laissez-faire processes, but not so long ago, a “monopoly” was a business that was bestowed with artificial market-domination and insulated from competition by a monarch. That’s the kind of monopoly conferred on the East

One More Suburban Draw: A Black Lives Matter Chapter in Every Oklahoma City School

“You don’t want to live in the Oklahoma City school district.” That was the universal advice I got from everyone I talked to in Oklahoma when I moved from Phoenix with my wife and son, who had a couple of years of high school left to complete. The clear and simple message was that Oklahoma City district schools were pitiful and should be avoided at all costs. You’d think that with a reputation like this, the last thing on the mind of the superintendent of Oklahoma City district schools would be to make sure every school has a Black Lives Matter chapter, but you’d be wrong. I happened to see a recent meeting of the Oklahoma City school board, and that is exactly what the superintendent, Sean McDaniel, said, that he wanted to make sure every campus had a BLM chapter. You’d think that OKC district leaders would be concerned about academics, student motivation, and how to hold both students and educators more accountable for attaining what most people think schools are for – decent educat

Why Oklahoma's Method for Selecting Judges Is a Bad Idea

The state of Oklahoma selects supreme court justices using a system known as the Missouri Plan, which is a form of merit selection. Advocates paint a rosy picture of the plan, claiming that it is a more sophisticated system than the federal model or the election model and that it strikes the perfect balance between the other two systems. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case. Here is how the plan works: the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), a board of individuals who review candidates for vacancies on the supreme court, selects three candidates to present to the governor. The governor must select one of these candidates. If he does not, after 60 days, the Chief Justice selects one of the candidates to fill the vacancy. Once on the court, justices face an uncontested “retention election” every six years; however, not one justice has been voted off the court in the half century that this system has been in place. On its face this system might seem like a good idea, but