As previously reported on the Freedom@Work blog, union militants are certainly making headlines of late using violent tactics and vandalism to prove their point.
Stunningly, union thugs in Michigan may have taken this to the next level last week when John King, owner of King Electrical Services, was reportedly shot by a union goon spraying the word "scab" on the side of his car in the driveway.
Of course this should surprise no one familiar with the violent legacy of Big Labor, including that of AFL-CIO union boss Richard Trumka. But for good measure, the Investor's Business Daily (IBD) opined today about union bosses' reliance on violence to get their way:
The attack on King is emblematic of the sad fact that the leading perpetrators of political violence today are U.S. labor unions.
They've grown more violent in their rhetoric as their political power grows and their appeal to workers diminishes.
According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, a right-to-work think tank in Washington, there have been 4,400 incidents of union violence in the last 20 years.
The Teamsters are the leading perpetrators, with 454 incidents. But IBEW, which some suspect in the King incident, is in the top 10, having engaged in 125 incidents.
All told, there have been 11,600 incidents of union violence against workers, management and the public since 1975.
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court actually ruled to grant union officials the special privilege to be exempt from federal prosecution for union violence. And shocking these numbers may seem, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research states that for reported incidences of union violence between 1975 and 2000, only three percent of those incidents have led to an arrest and conviction.
The numbers used by IBD also don't account for the fact that most incidents of union violence go unreported (a study of one strike found seven instances of violence for every on reported on in the media) meaning that the already staggering numbers the article cites are just the tip of the iceberg.
Comments
Go Building and Trades
At least were at the bottom of the list. Building and Trades. I could expect to see this from any middle class person pretty soon, union or non-union. Were getting fed up with the corporations walking all over freedoms and running this country into the ground.
Misuse of Statistics
First, where do you get these statistics? It is notable that you don't include any sort of citation. How do we know you aren't making this up?
Second, important terms aren't defined. What is "violence" and what is an "incident."
Third, in contrast with NLRB proceedings, where there is analysis of whether employers or unions are responsible and culpable for violence by third parties, you simply and conveniently assume that the union is to blame and culpable whenever something "violent" happens to an employer.
A union or unions in general aren't culpable simply because some wingnut decides to vent his frustrations with violence and vandalism. All we know is that someone, probably a union supporter or member, vandalized King's car ans shot him. Such acts are disgusting, but absent some evidence of union duplicity, you can't just blame the local union by implication.
Requiring proof of union involvement cuts both ways. To hold an employer liable for third party violence (for example in representation elections) the NLRB has a factually based test. This test prevents management from being liable for acts of errant individuals.
Your selective statistics also fail to detail how much violence and coercion is aimed at union activists, organizers, and supporters. In about 1/3 of NRLB election campaigns union supporters are fired. Threats are common. And particularly when strikes happen, violence by both sides isn't unheard of.
If you case against unions is so strong, so factually based, then you should be able to tell the source of your information, define "incident" and "violence", connect with specificity these acts to unions (rather than guilt by implication), and compare violence against union supporters to violence by union supporters.
But you don't do any of that. So your "statistics" are useless.
@ Mr. Stephens: Would you, I
@ Mr. Stephens:
Would you, I wonder, apply this same logic to The Tea Party?
Also, sine you are in the mood to be so exacting about definitions and verbiage, what would you consider a "strong" case?
Given the language you are using and the stance you have taken, I feel safe in the assumption that you are in favor of forced unionism.
Tell me, what gives anyone the right to take my wages from me against my will? If I do not feel compelled to join a union, why should I be forced to do so? Why should I not be free to work under my own terms, come and go by my own terms?
These are only a few of the many questions I have.
Pennies worth of thought
Morons with computers and poor logic should not have a blog in the first place. I shouldn't have to read about what some idiot who took a college course on argument (maybe) thinks is "forced unionism." In reality, the law has been in place for 76 years and employers are scared of making people aware (or letting them know) of how to go about unionizing. No one says that have to join, only that they must be made aware of such rights. As for your loaded questions and obvious misrepresentation, try this on for size:
"Taking wages": You make alot more when unionized so any person could definately afford it. An employer usually leads in with that statement without qualifying it.
"...forced to do so": No one forces anyone to join, they may solicit, but no one can make you. After hearing about all the added benefits that come with organizing, people usually join.
"...work under your own terms.": There are rules that state you must wait in the job line in the order you were hired/fired, have a certain qualification for particular jobs, show up on time, have a certain amount of schooling and on the job training, no drugs, alcohol, or hate speech... Oh, you meant work without paying dues by way of being forced to join a union. You just repeated yourself.
"...come and go by my own terms?" You can leave the union anytime you wish. How much more vague can you be. I hope you give them back that five bucks they paid you to write this, you nescient sycophant. Thanks for wasting my time.
Just sayin'...
I am not saying anyone is right or wrong but, don't read the information if you don't want to hear someone else's opinion. The author included a link below the graph that was done by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research; it's in blue, right below the graph, so I don't see how you could miss it. It amazes/amuses me how many people will read an opposing viewpoint and then gripe about how they wasted their time..lol.