Moonlighting isnt the problem. Workers arent slaves and should be able to work elsewhere when they arent on the clock.

Cities legally requiring people to hire moonlighting cops IS the problem.

I don't agree, some jobs are what I would consider protected. Particularly, when they are literally wearing their main job uniform and exercising their same powers!

For example, in the UK the Police are technically servants of the crown, and are prohibited from industrial action / striking - this means there are different from a regular job.

Do you feel members of the military should be allowed to have weekend jobs, particularly roles that benefit from their main job.. such as being a mercenary?

Comparably, I would be shocked in an SEC official would be allowed to have a 'side-gig' working in finance. Same as there are conventions on the business interests that US presidents are allowed to have.

Are they allowed to wear their military uniform at the side gig and exercise privilege given to them in a private paying role?

Im not sure what the rules about uniforms are, and for the record, I dont think cops should wear uniforms when moonlighting either.

Military do retain many privileges in private roles.

For example, having a verified secret security clearance is often a big advantage in a second occupation in private industry.

With respect to police, I assume the "privilege" is being able to act as an off duty cop and make arrests. This is a ability the people have given cops because we want them to do it. It is a good thing if they arrest a dangerous person off duty.

This brings us back to the problem. We shouldn't have laws on the books requiring the employment of off duty cops. If a company really needs someone with police power, they should contract with the police department.

If they dont needed it, they should be free to contract with whom they choose.

A bouncer or traffic director does not need the ability to arrest people.

That would make things interesting if you hire, e.g., military personnel stationed at an ICBM launch site…

Using the language of labor movements to describe police isn't adequate for understanding the constraints they work under. What makes a cop a cop isn't the work they do, but the power they have. To what extent they are free to apply this power, or sell it, outside of its normal sanctioned purpose is a critical question. And one completely separate from the issue of workers selling their labor to multiple parties.

Workers aren't slaves, but police are closer to slave drivers than they are to workers in this model. They do not labor, but are part of the system that coordinates who labors, to what ends, and to whose benefit.

Exactly. Police are part of the “special bodies of armed men” that form the state. They only exist to protect the interests of the ruling class, which in most cases is exploiting labour.

Laborers need and want protection and laws too. The vast majority of what police actually do is serving labor.

Not if the laws are written against their interests.

Somehow, billionaires don’t go to prison for stealing food.

I think that argument breaks down if the police are Moonlighting in a job that doesn't require police powers.

It is one thing, and I think reasonable, say that police can't wear their uniforms when working off duty. It's another thing entirely to say that they can't work at all

In most of the US (if not all - I don't know), off-duty police have the same powers as on-duty police, uniformed or not. That's why people want to hire them. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/when-pol...

So if police are allowed to moonlight in other jobs, then they by definition bring those powers to the job - and their legal immunities, and their illegal immunities created by the 'thin blue line' of cops who protect each other.

Did you read the article? People don't want to hire the off duty police. They are required by law to do it and very unhappy.

They want to hire regular bouncers without the power to arrest to work their nightclubs.

Wow, I guess I must have comprehensively addressed your actual point, for you to switch topics!

In places where it is not required to hire off duty police, they still get hired.

Plenty of contracts in the US require that the employee doesn't work for anyone else, and they are enforceable in most states.

Cops are different in that they are always on the job. If they see a crime happening, they are obligated to intervene even if they are off duty (probably with some reasonable exceptions, e.g. they aren't going to be writing parking tickets).

The moonlighting cop is still a cop even if off-duty, still has arrest powers and is authorized to use deadly force even while working the second "security" job.

Police in the United States have no legal obligation to intervene in crime, on duty or off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

Yep, people are always surprised to learn this in my experience.

The government doesn't offer a guarantee of safety, or even a guarantee to try its best. Responsibility ultimately lies with the individual to protect themselves.

You're correct, I should have said "they can" not "are obligated to." They don't lose their police powers just because they are off-duty.

In a number of countries, events that take place in public spaces can hire the police service as security. A key difference is that it's the police department itself that you're paying, not individual officers.