Oh, that's right, there have been none.
Let the duly elected government in Michigan pass a law similar to that of 23 other states, though--a law that enhances personal liberty, at that--and you get violent protests. It's like I keep telling you, the left knows only compulsion, and if you don't do things their way, they go straight for the physical violence.
And don't you love it when teachers show their maturity by behaving this way?
At least 26,000 children will miss school today because their teachers called in sick or took a vacation day to protest proposed right-to-work legislation, which is expected to pass today.Ah, the union mentality.
Nothing would ever get done in this country if conservatives acted this way. How we as a society tolerate this kind of behavior from half our people, and expect to survive long as a society, is beyond me.
Update: And who's surprised at this response from the White House?
White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to condemn the increasing violence and threats by union members in Michigan, merely telling reporters Tuesday that “the president believes in debate that’s civil.”Update #2: "There are people under there, oh my God!"
When asked by a reporter about a claim by Michigan state Democrat that “there will be blood” should Republicans pass a union-choice law in Michigan, Carney professed ignorance and then downplayed the comment.
11 comments:
Perhaps one of our union-supporters can chime in with hollow denunciation of union violence along the lines of "I disagree with what they did but I understand why they did it"?
I've always found the "praising by faint damn" defense particularly revealing of the left-wing mindset. The excuse that what you feel absolves you of responsibility for what you did is just what a selfish child would offer as a defense for an otherwise indefensible act of violence.
Proof that the media and White House are in agreement was nowhere more obvious than the deathly silence over Stephen Crowders televised on air beating by a union member later identified as "Tony". If this is an example of rank and file membership, then most American want no part of them. And if this is an example of White House leadership, then we now know that this president is intent on agenda AND NOTHING ELSE and that he will allow violence to occur when it suits the agenda. Now that we know that, does civil war really seem such a distant idea? I'm not promoting it, but tacit approval of union threats and actual violent actions by this president is going to get people killed. Leaders step up, not back.
The concern of a union is the union itself, not its members.
I will always vote against any union-backed idea, proposition, or politician. I will shop as much as possible at non union stores. If my children were back in school, they'd be in a private school. I even canceled my pro-union Sac Bee. Nothing but thugs, cheats, scammers, liars, thiefs, and a-holes proudly show a union card.
Thank goodness I'm in a right-to-work state, and don't have to join a union to teach!
There isn't anything exusable here. But unions only work if enrollment is mandatory. A more honest approach would be to just ban unions.
Why would that be a more honest approach?
You are right though that without the power to coerce unions have little to offer. Since they have little to offer taking away the power to coerce will result in unions disappearing without the need to take any direct action.
It would be more honest, because the goal of right to work laws is to render unions untenable. If you support that, I accept your position. But, calling something that serves to try to eliminate unions 'right to work' is ridiculous. Yes, I guess it means you might be able to save the union dues. But you will also be making less money overall. I know union workers drive up prices . . . but they also then get to spend more, creating jobs. Their boss is likely not to spend as much . . .which is why trickle down doesn't work.
It would be more honest, because the goal of right to work laws is to render unions untenable.
Hardly. The power to coerce should be handed out very sparingly and unions have abused their privileged position. They use the power to coerce to provide an economic advantage to their membership at the cost of society in general - a relatively small number of people do quite well, thank you very much, and a large number of people are rendered just a trifle poorer - isn't just a bad idea economically it's a bad idea societally.
The result is a scramble to acquire the power to coerce for your own benefit, hence the unofficial union motto of "screw you, I've got mine". So union members don't "spend more, creating jobs" - they spend money they haven't earned costing jobs.
If the neighborhood kid who earns spending money raking leaves goes from charging $10 for the job to $50 bucks, because he's threatened you and you have no recourse, the kid's certainly better off but you most assuredly aren't and neither is society.
Allen . . . you're entitled to your opinion, but nothing you said refuted the point you quoted. People who promote right to work laws do so, knowing that it will at least weaken unions, if not bust them entirely. It's why they do it. If you don't like unions, then by all means, support right to work laws. Just don't be disingenuous about it.
Every RTW state has unions. It's just that people aren't required to support them; in other words, the union has an incentive to represent *all* workers.
I've read that the teachers union in Alabama, a RTW state, is stronger than the teachers union in Massachusetts, most assuredly not a RTW state. One data point.
Post a Comment