jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (8 posts)

Should we really be surprised that the union thugs would get violent?

  1. Cassie Smith profile image69
    Cassie Smithposted 5 years ago

    Should we really be surprised that the union thugs would get violent?

    Union members getting violent if they don't get their way is a typical example of The Left sense of entitlement.  If members or anyone else disagree with them then they resort to violence and think it's appropriate.  They have a history of this and the Democrats support it because they know that they need union votes to keep them in power.

  2. Tusitala Tom profile image61
    Tusitala Tomposted 5 years ago

    Goes a bit deeper than that, Cassie.   Way, way back when the union movements began just about all over the world, there was organized opposition to them.   Most trade unions came into being during the great Industrial Age on the 19th and early 20th Centuries.   The ideal was to get better wages and working conditions for the people the unions represented.   

    This was fought tooth-and nail by the big industrialists.  They, in turn, hired thugs to put down and intimmidate the union leaders.  In many instances they even saw to it that those leaders were done away with - killed in some instances.  I believe there was a wholesale massacre of trade union leaders by such 'hired gangsters' on a ferry boat somewhere in America in the 1920s or 1930s.

    It got so fire was fought with fire.   It was only after long and arduous conflict that here in Australia Aussies got the 40 hour week, paid recreational leave et cetera.  It didn't come about out of the kindness of the hearts of their employers.

    Study your history.  You might be quite surprised who the 'baddies' used to be.

    1. Cassie Smith profile image69
      Cassie Smithposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There is enough history on both sides when it comes to violence.  Union bosses easily become corrupt when they attain power and aren't different.  One of the best movies, On the Waterfront, was about union corruption.

  3. glenn wallace profile image75
    glenn wallaceposted 5 years ago

    Good historical perspective answer from Tom! A well-put response to a (not really a question) question.

    Cassie, not all union members get violent, even when they don't get their way. I think most union members would agree that resorting to violence is not appropriate. My fifth grade teacher for instance, might protest in a union strike, but I can't see her hurling bricks or wielding a 2X4.

    A better question may be, why do Unionists seem so passionate and adamant about their collective bargaining rights? Part of the answer lies in the bloody history Tom references.

    1. Cassie Smith profile image69
      Cassie Smithposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Passion is fine but when it crosses over to violence, it's not.

  4. LandmarkWealth profile image79
    LandmarkWealthposted 5 years ago

    Not really.  There was a time in history when violence was used against the US labor movemment.  But the was a LONG time ago before most of these members were even born.  They have devolved into a thug movement in many ways that feels they need laws to force workers to join a union and pay dues as a condition of employment, even when the worker and the employer don't want anything to do with them.  They often cite union wages are higher.  Yet it is not nearly enough to offset the higher cost of living created by these artificial wage increases and their impact on regional inflation. While in right to work states, the wages are lower yet the standard of living is typically higher in terms of how far a dollar can go, and more than enough to offset the lower wages.   

    When you see actions like what we witnessed yesterday, its clear why so many companies simply packed up an left the US rather than deal with that type of an attitude.  As well as why Detroit south has blown away Detroit north.  Workers for US automakers in the south are doing just fine while the UAW brings back people who were caught drinking on the job.   Most of the public has figured out the labor unions time is over and that is why they need to force people to join.  In places where workers are given a choice, they've left the union in large numbers.   They serve an important role in an emerging market place to help create effective and reasonable labor laws.  But in a developed indistrialized economy they are counterproductive and simply subsidize incompetence and laziness, while failing to reward the best and the brightest people properly.

  5. GNelson profile image78
    GNelsonposted 5 years ago

    We just took one more step toward a third world economy.  That is what should surprise you!!

  6. rfmoran profile image87
    rfmoranposted 5 years ago

    The labor movement has a history born largely of necessity. A pipe fitter had no way, given his limited education and absolute lack of contacts, looked naturally to a group that could help him. But now, with unionism predominantly in the public sector, a whole new reality sets in. Big labor is now mainly public employees, protected by the CIVIL SERVICE LAW. It is a coercive movement that seeks gain at the expense of non members. The public service unions get their power and money from the people across the table who they put at the table through their contributions. Violence is an unfortunate way to insist on their entitlements.