The problem with police unions isn't that they are unions.

The problem is that in addition to representing the line workers, the union also manages the entire department. It controls everything except setting the department's budget.

It would be like the C-executives of GM being part of the United Auto Workers union. There would be zero accountability for anyone, and the interests of the shareholders would not be represented well.

Unions must exist in an adversarial relationship with management - it keeps all parties honest. If the union takes over management, you get a disaster.

I agree with you but I also think there's a problem with police in unions. I find it unethical, and it's clearly not working, for a government entity approved to inflict violence on a population to organize and ensure the violence can happen without any accountability. The government needs complete and total control over police to fire and discipline them as needed when they're literally murdering people. It is not reasonable to allow a group of citizens the ability the deny basic law enforcement over union disputes.

So you're saying we need a second military. I'm not on board with that.

If a union protects a coworker that has verbally abused me that finally escalated to a physical altercation, then the union is useless.

If the coworker is part of the union and you aren't, then the union has fine its job.

The issue is that I think most of us agree when it gets to the level you describe, perhaps that's not a job worth doing.

It's easy to see how it gets to that point though. Friends in the union might not care who is in the wrong, and selective retelling of the facts can get other union member up in arms about the "raw deal" their fellow member is getting, so it's probably easier for the union to just protect all but the most egregious behavior against non union people. I imagine that's just how the incentives work out.