Union Thug Update: Better Not Talk About Right to Work


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

union thug

As the saying here at the CH 2.0 goes,

Unions: so great, that people have to be forced to join. 

And, if you want the freedom to choose if you belong to a union or not, goons show up to threaten you!  Freedom Works has more…

One eyewitness sent me an account of what happened, along with video. This eyewitness has requested anonymity, fearing reprisals from the unions.

Freedom “Ruins Everything,” Unions Protest

Three words strike fear into the hearts of union leaders: “Right to Work.” At the mere mention of the phrase, unions in lockstep intimidate, harass, and bully those who dare to question what’s best for American workers.

Little did I know I’d be experiencing this first hand.

As a young conservative striving to find a foothold in a challenging economy, I was intrigued by the Northwest Employee Freedom event about right-to-work legislation. Held jointly by Oregon’s Cascade Policy Institute and Washington’s Freedom Foundation, labor experts including “top union watchdog” Vincent Vernuccio from the Mackinac Center would be coming to Vancouver to discuss labor reform and strategies for increasing employee freedom across the country.

I was looking forward to an intellectual discussion from these leading minds, but others insisted on being heard that evening.

From the moment my companions and I pulled up to the Clark College parking lot, already having fought our way through a drenching Northwest downpour, we realized another battle lay ahead. A cluster of people waving signs obstructed the driveway. Standing in the crosswalk to slow down cars, one man snapped pictures of every license plate as we drove in. Intimidation: Chapter One.

Chapter Two awaited us at the building entrance. Another crowd milled around the doors bearing more signs, daring any one of us to call them out. “He threatened to punch me if I didn’t get out of the crosswalk,” complained one would-be victim about another event attendee. “Let’s call the police on him.” One man held a sign stating, “Right 2 Work short changes your wallet” and admonished us, “Shame on you!” as we walked by without comment. “Right to work ruins society,” intoned another protester. “Ruins everything.”

The only thing being ruined at that moment was the educational forum we were yet to reach. Protesters in the hallway hovered as we presented our tickets, trying to join their compatriots who had already shouldered their way inside.

We entered the room to find sheer chaos – men with signs and bullhorns flanked the perimeter, surrounding participants who sat at tables watching the spectacle in disbelief. Vincent Vernuccio, the featured speaker, was countering the amplified voices with his brash New York attitude, giving no quarter as the men tried to hold the event hostage. “It’s our meeting now!” one bullhorned protester proudly proclaimed, as if sheer volume somehow translated to being king of the sandhill.

Chanting then broke out. “Hey hey, ho ho, union busting’s got to go! Hey hey, ho ho…” Another shouting match ensued. “Who is paying your wages?” demanded one protester.  “What are your biggest donors, your biggest contributors?” Ah yes, because unions are clearly in favor of financial transparency.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

The situation continued out of hand until police arrived to a round of applause, escorting out the union trespassers and arresting one man who tried to insist that he was being “profiled.”

“Back to our regularly scheduled programming,” Vincent, the speaker, quipped. “If you’re not getting flak, it means you’re not over the target!”

The event itself proved incredibly illuminating. Harry Beck, famous for union workers’ “Beck rights” to pay only those dues not used for political purposes, cited Governor Kitzhaber’s Labor Day speech as a classic example of the hypocrisy inherent in the anti-right-to-work movement.

“Kitzhaber gives women the right to an abortion, or not. He gives seniors the right to die with dignity, or not. But he won’t give public sector workers, who are specially trained, who carry guns, who protect us, who we trust to teach our children – he won’t give them the right to choose whether to be in a union, or not. Why? Because they’re not smart enough?”

“Right-to-work isn’t about union dues. It’s about choice. It’s about freedom,” he emphasized.

Freedom to make unions have to earn their dues. Freedom to hold them accountable to the members that they claim to represent. Freedom from fear of the retaliation and intimidation tactics on which they rely.

Hey hey, ho ho, freedom helps workers, don’t ya know?

The Blaze has even more…

All of this points out several aspects about Unions, and the political left as a whole…

1.  The left is all about choice, until you choose something they don’t like.  Choose to kill a baby?  Great!  Choose to kill a black baby?  “Better yet,” says the leftist!  Choose to be gay, Muslim, Wiccan, or furry?  Excellent!

Now, something breaks down…

Choose to be a Christian?  HATER!  Choose to be free?  GREEDY! Choose not to be in a Unions?  Release the Union Thugs!  You’re a medical worker who chooses not to participate in abortions because of your religious beliefs?  You’re FIRED!

2.  “This what democracy looks like,” was the battle cry in Wisconsin, and at OWS.  But, when people vote for something else, it simple cannot be allowed.  You see, “democracy” is only “democracy” if the leftists win, even if they have to cheat.  If they lose, then it is not “democracy,” it is “hate.”

3.  Just like the East Germans and Soviet Union, the totalitarian impulse is strong in leftists. So even if it sucks, people cannot be allowed to leave.  Whether its keeping poor minority kids from escaping democrat-ruined public schools, or preventing workers from choosing to join a union, there can be no escape from leftist control, and if Union Thugs have to bust your head to make you stay, so be it.


Michael Moore Goes Full Metal Moonbat Over Right to Work


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Every now and again, a great example of moonbattery is seen.  Michael Moore had a reaction to the Michigan Right to Work Vote that raised the bar to “Full Metal Moonbattery.”  Let’s take a look at some of his tweets, via Red Alert Politics…

Right to work laws essentially prohibit unions from forcing employees who do not want to be union members to pay union dues in order to keep their jobs. It also stops businesses from requiring employees be part of a union as part of their employment agreement.
“This is all about taking care of the hard-working workers in Michigan, being pro-worker and giving them freedom to make choices,” Michigan’s Republican Gov. Rick Snyder said. “The goal isn’t to divide Michigan, it is to bring Michigan together.”

So, in other words, Moore is going to embrace freedom by forcing people to join a union, even if the use of such force is illegal?  Yes, because nothing says “freedom” or “rights” like force, right?

Wouldn’t that kinda  be like Democrats saying that they didn’t like the Emancipation Proclamation, so they were just going to force blacks to stay in the plantations anyway?  Come to think of it, they may have only changed the name of the plantation.

In the end, you get it.  To liberals, freedom is slavery.


Unions Attempt to Embrace Democracy, by Preventing Vote


If you recall, the unions love the chant, “this is what democracy looks like.”  But they seem to not understand what democracy is, as they seem to try very hard to stop actual votes from being taken.  We saw that in Wisconsin, and now, in Michigan.  The Blaze has more…

Police used pepper spray Thursday to subdue protesters trying to rush the Michigan state Senate after Gov. Rick Snyder and other Republican leaders announced they would press for quick approval of right-to-work legislation limiting union powers.

“When several of the individuals rushed the troopers, they used chemical munitions to disperse the crowd,” said Michigan State Police Inspector Gene Adamczyk. “It would be a lot worse if someone gets hurt and I failed to act.”

It seems that the thugs didn’t want a vote to tale place.

Notice the chant “Right to Work has got to go.” Now, I thought the leftists we all about choice? Or, is that all about being to choose what they want you to choose.

And if you disagree?

So, to summarize, lets make some observations about labor unions, and the left as a whole.

1.  Democracy is what they are all about, unless the vote goes against them.

2.  Choice is great, as long as you choose what they like.


Unions Boycotting Democratic Convention?


Barak Obama, as POTUS, has a history of telling supporters, either in words or actions, to STFU.  The latest example is that of the unions.  Stacey McCain has more…

Ken Binversie at Watchdog.org explains:

North Carolina has a Democratic governor, Bev Perdue, and sent its electoral votes to Barack Obama in 2008, but it’s still a right-to-work state. That means employees in the Tar Heel State are free to choose to join a union — or not. Because of this, North Carolina has the lowest percentage of union membership in the nation, just 2.9 percent as of 2011. . . .
[L]abor looks at the convention — with delegates staying in non-union hotels and dining at non-union restaurants, and Obama accepting his nomination at a football stadium built with non-union workers — as a poke in the eye. As a result, many in labor will boycott the convention outright. The AFL-CIO, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Laborers International Union of North America and others have withheld an estimated $10 million in contributions that would have helped pay for the convention — a radical change from 2008, when unions helped pitch in more than $8 million to help the DNC pay for its national convention in Denver.

So, the Democrats, who are supposedly so copacetic with big labor, are holding their convention in a state that allows people to CHOOSE whether or not they want to join a union.  Of course, as we all know, the only real choice allowed by Democrats and unions is for a woman to kill a baby, particularly if that baby happens to be black.  So having a convention in a state where workers have actual rights is a slap in the face to the union bosses, who usually send money to democratic politicians, as well as send goons to intimate the locals.

Of course, now the union bosses are looking up at the chassis of the bus, and they aren’t too happy about it.

I’m starting to wonder which is worse, being Obama’s enemy, or his friend?


Forced Union Membership Means Free Speech


OK kids, it’s time to put on your suspension of disbelief, and hold on to your chairs, because this is going to be one crazy ride.  It seems that a union is suing to overturn Indiana’s Right to Work Law.  Their reasoning is typical liberal, and therefore defies all logic.  Here is more from CNBC…

INDIANAPOLIS – Indiana’s new right-to-work law should be struck down because it infringes upon unions’ free speech rights by depriving them of the dues that fund their political speech, attorneys for a union challenging the law contend, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s so-called Citizens United ruling that eased restrictions on corporate campaign spending.

Attorneys for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 argue in a court brief that Indiana’s new law, which allows workers to not pay union dues even if a union bargains on their behalf, interferes with the union’s free speech rights and “impinges on this fundamental right of union membership.”

Where in the you-know-what do we begin to take this one apart?  Obviously, this is typical leftist, “re-brand slavery as freedom” effort.   Essentially, what they are saying is that to grant the “right” to union membership, people must be forced to join them.  Because, as well all know, exercising rights means depriving everyone else of theirs.  Then, the union’s “freedom of speech” requires that they confiscate funds from the members, that, in turn, must be forced into joining.  And all of this is OK, because “this is what democracy looks like,” right?

H/T:  National Right to Work Committee


If the NEA was so Great, why are People Leaving it?


If they are permitted, that is.  As several states have passed laws making  union membership voluntary, the NEA has suffered a drop in membership, and consequently precious cashflow.  For more, kindly take a look at this excerpt from Big Government…

Over the past year, several states – including WisconsinTennessee and Idaho – have passed legislation freeing teachers from the shackles of compulsory union membership.

Now that membership has become voluntary, a growing number of teachers are choosing to quit the union, which is causing hard times for the nation’s largest teachers union.

A new report finds the National Education Association has revised its membership numbers downward – from 3.2 million to just over 3 million.

According to Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency website, the hemorrhaging of members is contributing to the NEA’s $17 million deficit, which may force union leaders to lay off employees and cut aid to state affiliates.

I have to chuckle, because the unions portray themselves as the champions of the worker, but, when given the option, a large number of their members leave.  That does lead to the question, if unions were so great, why do they have to use the force of law to keep people in?  Why do they fight Right to Work laws?  Don’t those laws give people a choice?  And, aren’t the Democrats all about choice?  I guess choice is a rather relative term for the Democrats, and their union cronies.

When you think of it, forced union membership is the Berlin Wall of the labor market.  To keep people from leaving the ranks, the bosses pay politicians to pass laws, trapping people in the unions-their individual rights be damned.

In more pragmatic considerations, how much of that 17 million dollar deficit was incurred “gooning up” Wisconsin?  How much of it was used fighting right to work legislation, or recall elections, or labor reform bills? How much will they have left to give to Obama later this year?  I have been saying for some time that it might be advantageous to hit the unions from many angles, and forcing them to expend their resources over a broad front.  I would say that it’s a great time, if possible, to pour it on!  The more bills they fight, they more resources they have to expend.  The more bills that pass, the more workers that are set free from the unions, which hit their resources even more.  And, the more their resources are stretched, the less they have to buy elections.  It could result in a death sprial for them, resulting in more and more workers being freed from their tyranny, and more jobs for all.

It seems rather encouraging, doesn’t it?


What can Conservatives Learn From Erwin Rommel?


Yes, he was a German Field Marshall during WW II.  And, he was a Nazi.  That makes him a certifiable bad guy.  However, at the same time, Erwin Rommel was one of the best military minds of the 20th century, if not of all time.  His ingenuity in mobile warfare has shaped the military doctrine of countless nations, including out own.  So, how does that help us, now, and in the political arena?  Take a look at this quote.

“What difference does it make if you have two tanks to my one, when you spread them out and let me smash them in detail?”

Rommel said this to a captured British officer.  In North Africa, the British outnumbered Rommel’s Afrika Corps, often by several times.  But, the British had a failing strategy.  They sent their tanks out on dribs and drabs, allowing Rommel to concentrate his forces to defeat them time and time again, with minimal losses of his own.  On paper, the British should have been able to push him right back into the Mediterranean Sea. They outnumbered Rommel in every meaningful way, but by not concentrating their efforts, and spreading themselves too thin, they allowed Rommel to fend off their attacks, as well as allowed him to constantly outmaneuver them.

This is what is happening to Republicans and organized labor.  Several states have considered taking on the unions regarding medical benefits and retirement plans, which are now bankrupting many states.  Or, they are considering Right to Work laws.  However, their attempts have been piecemeal and uncoordinated, allowing the unions to adjust, and readjust their resources and tactics to fit the particular situation.  Also, they have the lack of conscience that allows them to engage in unethical or even illegal activities in order to win.  Consequently, even though they are outnumbered, they have been taking the fight to the public, and their representatives, instead of the other way around.

Rommel would find the enemy’s weakest point, and hit it with overwhelming force.  He would determine when and where an attack was coming, and prepare a defense, and a counter-attack.  The British never really learned to emulate him, and Montgomery only ran him off with overwhelming numerical superiority, as well as due to the fact that Rommel was at the end of a very tenuous supply line.

Let’s translate that into our situation with organized labor.  We outnumber them.  They have to be spending their available cash at a rapid rate.  Between Wisconsin, then Ohio, and now Indiana, they are spread out.  There has to be an upward limit of how many commercials they can run, as well as goons they can hire.  At the same time, many states have been waiting to see what happens in the other states before they act themselves.  But, what if two, three, or even four other states acted now?  Would the unions be able to fend off all of that at once, as well as put millions into the Obama billion-dollar campaign?  How many of their resources would be spread all over the place, and how would they engage in GOTV activities for the Democrats?  Montgomery defeated Rommel, not by outsmarting him, but by attrition.  For us, it means that we need to use our strength against their weakness.   Does it not stand to reason that we could stretch their resources until they break?

As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.


CH 2.0 Post Debate Wrap-up


Tonight’s debate was rather interesting.  Here are some thoughts…

Gingrich: For much of the first half of the debate, old Newt came off as rather petulant.  However, he came into his own as second half went on.  As always, you have to keep the following in mind as he speaks; “this man is part of the establishment.”  When he spoke out about establishment politicians, I had my only “LOL moment”of the debate.

Santorum: Competent, and I thought he covered Conservative issues well.  He also mention the IPAB Death Panel, and stated the case against ObamaCare well. At the same time, I thought he was a bit self aggrandizing when discussing his record.   Also, he has some votes in his past that he probably wouldn’t want to discuss.

Bachmann: I thought she was perhaps the most consistently eloquent.  Solid on all of the issues.  Disagree on the social issues or not, she stated her opinions openly.

Pawlenty: He seems to be a likable guy.  He went to his record, and scored some points there.  He’s also for Right to Work, which is a plus.

Romney: Could care less what he said. RINO-RINO-RINO-RINO!!!  Did I mention RINO?  In all seriousness, he has changed positions too many times, and did RomneyCare.  At least for me, that is a non-starter…game over.

Cain: I like Cain.  I hope his stated position on TARP is his true opinion.  Also, I think he bungled the discussion on the “Muslim in my administration” question. On the other hand, I liked his responses on Social Security, streamlining government, energy, and the economy.

Paul: I also like Ron Paul.  However, I think he consistently  tried to stuff 10 gallons of answer into 5 gallons of time.   That being said, this, more than any other, may be his time.  He has the economic recipe.  The real question is if he can get people to order it from the menu.

General impressions:

Some of the questions “from citizens” seemed contrived, especially the one from the “moderate Republican.”

King tried to spin the Right to Work question into a bash session towards public workers.  Gingrich got petulant and smacked that down.

The Union thuggery going on might have just made Right to Work an national issue.  I caught the coverage after the debate, and CNN had some dial polling. The had a line in red for Conservatives, and a yellow line for independents. When the candidates talked about Right to Work as a freedom issue, both lines nearly pegged at the top of the chart.  It is both impressive that it happened, and that CNN showed it.

I think they tried to push the candidates into discussing social issues  bit more than needed.  The chief issues, and the ones that will resonate with the electorate, are the economic ones.  We’ll see if this is a trend or not.

It doesn’t matter what the candidates did or did not say, the left will lie about it.


Where the Battle is Won


John and I have, for some time, promoted the idea of focusing more on the politics within the local and state governments than the corrupt and inept national government.  We truly believe that the answer to our current problems doesn’t start at a national reformation, but at a local one.  Simply put, if we bring the power back to the states the national government will fall in line.  Allow me to provide some evidence to support what we’ve promoted to be effective and hopeful.

First, it is abundantly clear that national political victories are, at best, a small source of friction along the path of self destruction.  While the House victories in November were historic in numbers, the actual political outcome has been far from monumental.  The addiction to spending in Washington runs so deep in so many that even historical elections can’t provide enough people for a successful intervention.  Two months in and our great successes are a symbolic message to the President and a budget “cut” proposal that cuts $61 billion from our $3.7 trillion dollar budget.

Let’s consider this cut for a moment.  First, watch the video below.

Now that we have a visual on how much a trillion is compared to a billion consider this.  We’ve got a budget of $3.7 trillion (that means almost four times that represented by the double stacked pallet image) and we’re proposing a cut of $61 billion.  $61 billion is merely 1.7% of the budget.  Of course, cutting just 1.7% doesn’t sound like a lot to you and me, but to the addicted politicians in Washington it’s a ton.  In fact, you would think it was the end of the world by their rhetoric.  Apparently such a cut would endanger national securityhurt the low income and elderly, and destroy economic growth.  I have news for Washington – all of those things are already happening.

The fact that Washington is calling anything in their actions “cuts” is absurd anyway.  The President’s latest budget proposal of $3.7 trillion is actually up from 2010’s $3.5 trillion.  Either way, our revenue is more than a trillion dollars lower than our budget proposal.  Who proposes a budget with nearly a 1/3rd of it going directly to debt?  I’ll tell you who, someone who already has a debt more than 5 times their annual income.

The fact is that this year’s proposal is an increase on the 2010 budget (there wasn’t a 2011 budget).  It is interesting to see where this budget increased and decreased.  Let’s take a look:


Health and Human Services          +3.1%                   $1.11 trillion                        $9,727/household

Social Security                                     +8.5%                  $808 billion                          $7,112/household

Defense-Military                                  +0.7%                $294 billion                          $2,595/household

Treas.- Interest on Debt                    +14.5%             $474 billion                          $4,173/household

Agriculture                                            +21.3%                $104 billion                          $917/household

Transportation                                     +4%                       $70 billion                            $620/household

Education                                                +56%                     $31 billion                            $276/household

Energy                                                       +38%                     $12 billion                            $104/household

Veterans Affairs                                     -2%                        $70 billion                            $620/household

Military Reitrement                             -5.2%                     $48 billion                            $426/household

Labor                                                         -51%                     $117 billion                           $1,035/household


Does that look like the budget planning of a government that is serious about cutting spending and balancing a budget?

Let’s put this into a personal perspective.  Let’s say that you were running a business with America’s fiscal attributes.  Let’s say that this businesses annual revenue is $500,000 this year, but has started the year off with a budget to spend $750,000.  At the end of this single fiscal year the business is going to add $250,000 dollars to their debt.  Combine that with the fact that he is already $3,000,000 in debt and you can see this business is literally worthless.  It’s okay though, because they are going to make a serious cut to the previous year’s $750,000 budget – they’re going to cut it down by $10,000!  Now imagine that you were trying to run a business with this budget plan and you were selling these proposals to your investors.  Unfortunately, we the people are the investors to such a plan.

The only conclusion we can draw is that the federal government is incompetent when it comes to fiscal responsibility.  Even when we turn up at the polls and flip the national ratios the end result is comparable to a bucket in the ocean.  We put too much faith into too few who are too far away.  November did bring us hope though…

In November Republicans gained control of 19 state legislatures and picked up more than 650 seats nationally.  10 states threw democrats out of their executive seats and replaced them with republicans.  More importantly than the R’s and D’s, many of these individuals have taken office with the intent to cut state spending and loosen the grip the fed has on their state.  More important than the proverbial political promise is action; and we’re finally seeing something.

Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, Rick Scott, Sean Parnell, John Kasich, and more are a new breed of governor that are fighting the fed on behalf of their state’s rights.  Further, they’re fighting the spending from within the state in order to make right what has for too long been wrong.  Standing up against the fed, the establishment, and entitlement leeches is a formidable task, yet they do it and it is about time.

The states have been forgotten too long in the shadow of the ever growing centralized federal government.  It is in these shadows that we find not only our only option to bring America back to a responsible and formidable nation, but also what has always been our best option.  It is unfortunate that it has taken the exhaustion of all other inferior attempts to finally realize that our last option was best all along.

States are intended to be the greatest check on the potential imbalance of power at the federal level.  It is by no mistake that the Constitution gave power, not specifically identified as national in letter, to the states.  This nation has chosen to ignore the letter of the law in an attempt to redefine an intent; that is to say, that we can assume expanding national powers by applying broader definitions to the letter.  The Commerce Clause, for instance, is specific in letter, but the intent can be broadly interpreted to mean nearly anything to include, most recently, that your thoughts are affirmative action and therefore fall under the proper jurisdiction of Congress.

Now, considering the relative ineffectiveness of our national elections, look to the victories of the states.  Wisconsin, New Jersey, Indiana, Ohio, etc. are all making huge strides in balancing their state budgets, breaking up the democratic party’s money laundry scheme (unions), and throwing off the unbearable yoke of the federal government (Obamacare for instance).  A small handful of states have done more in fiscal responsibility in just 2 months than the national government has even dared to dream.  Of course, this doesn’t make the beneficiaries of our burden happy.

Have you ever seen the democrats more unhinged than they are right now?  When was the last time you saw state legislatures turn into chanting protestors in their own legislative halls? When was the last time you saw legislatures hiding in hotels across state lines in order to avoid their duties?  Have you ever seen teachers get fake notes from doctors in order to skip school?  It’s at least been since President Bush was in office that you saw them doing things like thisthisthisthisthis, and this.

Cut the cord and the baby must learn to breathe on its own…and that is usually initiated by crying.  Let the crying begin.

Original Post: The Sentry Journal


Conservative Hideout Freedom Plan: Organized Labor


Here’s where I get myself on the list to receive busted kneecaps, but it has to be said…

It is arguable that labor unions were absolutely necessary in decades past.  Worker safety, benefits, increased wages, and other worker protections were a result of union intervention.  That is another debate in and of itself, but those factors are the result of the existence of unions.

However, it can also be argued that the unions have outlived their initial usefulness.  With stories of “job banks” in corporations that were deeply in debt,  threats to workers, and violence against others, today’s labor unions appear to be little more that collections of organized goons that bankrupt companies and act in their own self interest, rather that the interests of the worker.

This became very clear to me in the mid 90’s, when the steel workers were striking against a company with approximately 5000 employees.  The issue at hand was pensions, which, if I recall correctly, the company wanted to manage in a way the union did not like.  Since this would set a precedent throughout the industry, the union resistance was vigorous.   At any rate, the president of the union was quoted by the MSM as saying that if the company didn’t relent, they union would shut the company down, permanently if necessary.  At the time, I was still learning about Conservatism, so I only noted that if I was an employee of that steel company, I would not feel particularly “represented ” by that union. (Note that I have to go by memory here.  This happened pre-internet, so I have been able to find no references to the event.)

That resonated a good bit for me.  As a child, I remember hearing stories from grandparents  about how the unions worked.   They told me of people being beaten half to death for opposing the leadership.  According to what I was told, people would be drug from union meetings and beaten on the spot for the slightest opposition to the leadership.  The message was clear to the worker, usually an immigrant that was happy just to have a job; “tow the line, or get the hell beat out of you.”  I would think that such messages were received in the spirit in which they were intended.

Now, I understand this a bit more.  Since unions are left leaning, socialist organizations, their members are not individuals will needs, preferences, or rights.  They are instead numbers, or units, if you will.  In a socialist state, or a union,  individuals or groups are sacrificed to insure the survival of the whole (or more to maintain the power of the leadership).  So, if 5000 workers had to be sacrificed for the union leadership to have their preferred pension choice, so be it.

I could cite examples of union violence, of which there are many, but that has been covered here, and at many other blogs.  I could go over the fact that unions contributed mightily to the loss of jobs around the US.  That too, is easily verifiable.  I could cover the history of mob connections and other criminal exploits of union bosses and members, up to and including recent allegations of voter registration fraud, but that too, is very well documented.  Instead, let’s just concentrate on one factor that  is central to Conservatives or Libertarians:  do people have the right to choose their affiliations?

For me, the more I look at this issue, it’s a matter of personal liberty.  Does a free human have the ability to seek employment with out being forced to affiliate with an organization that they do not wish to join?  Do workers have the right to own their own labor, and not have the fruits of that labor confiscated and used for causes that he or she may not support?   You see, no matter the abuses of labor or management, it boils down to an issue of liberty.  Are we free to pursue employment without interference or conditions, or are we obligated to join a union, or be left out, beaten, or otherwise intimidated?

However, this argument cuts both ways.  If someone wants to join a union, they should be able to do so.  Alternatively, if someone does not wish to join, they should be free to refuse-without the risk of  interference or personal danger.  You see, no matter what, it’s an issue of individual freedom.  It always has been, and I think we should shelve the rhetoric, and discuss it from that angle.

Yes, I’m talking about Right to Work.  And yes, it will limit the power of the unions. It will do that because the union’s power is based on power and coercion. Eliminate the coercion, and allow people to choose,  and folks will slowly begin to abandon the unions.  With that, goes the unions ability to be a destructive force.  They’ll still be around, and they’ll  (hopefully) actually advocate for workers, but they won’t be the thuggery machine of which we’re so accustomed.

If you hear that I’m in the hospital, you’ll know why.