Monday, September 4, 2017

The Bloody History of Organized Labor - A Repost

It's Labor day, or as we refer to it around here: August 35th.  While being retired means it's not even a long weekend, we'll be smoking some Atomic Buffalo Turds this afternoon.  We're keeping a wary eye on Irma, which is not behaving nicely but being more threatening.  For a few days, the spaghetti plots were tracking east and pushing it offshore the South Carolina/North Carolina area.  Yesterday, the models abruptly reversed to pushing it back over us.  It's still a week away, and I don't think those forecasts are worth anything over three days out, but all we can ever do is watch. 

So a repost of something I did for Labor Day in 2013, that I think is worth sharing again. 

I enjoy my extra day off this week as much as anyone, but the history of the American labor movement that led to this day off is a pretty bloody history. Most of us are probably aware of the recent incitements to violence and riot, such as the problems in Wisconsin in 2011, when legislation to attempt to get control of the state budget led to confrontation in the state offices.  Remember this email, sent to several State Senators by a union supporter because lawmakers were going to ask union members to simply contribute to their benefits plan, instead of it being 100% paid for by taxpayers?

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your families will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks.

Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families, then it will save the rights of 300,000 people, and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. ...

We have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes: your house, your car, the state capitol, and well, I won’t tell you all of them because that’s just no fun…

Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones. [W]e will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!
In what world is it acceptable to threaten killing someone and their family, and not expect any negative consequences for it?  Only in the upside down world of labor unions.  Daniel Sayani at the New American puts together a short history of union violence in this country.  The first blood spilled by union activists apparently goes back to the Haymarket Square massacre in 1886, in which:
... striking union workers threw a bomb at Chicago police, killing eight police officers and countless civilians, after being incited to their lethal rampage by socialist Samuel Fielden (not unlike how Marty Lamb was beaten after the crowd of unionists was inflamed to violence by “progressive” Rep. Capuano) [Note: explanation of Rep. Capuano reference in that article on the New American - SiG]
Because of their enormous influence in the Democratic Party, unions have specifically gotten themselves exempted from laws the rest of society must follow.  You probably know about the exemptions from the anti-trust laws, and extortion laws, and that they're trying to exempt themselves from Obamacare.  (just one example for each of those).  And, of course, you know when unions physically assault conservatives like Kenneth Gladney there never seems to be any consequences for the union thugs.

Unions are progressively more desperate because membership in non-government employee unions is down.  Only government workers' unions are growing, where no true negotiation takes place because there are no parties at the table risking anything.  Unions like the SEIU and the AFSCME are the beneficiaries of fat government contracts.  They get more union dues which they siphon off to contribute to getting Evil Party politicians elected who will negotiate new, fat contracts with them.

I didn't mention in last night's post [about the $15 minimum wage ] that the SEIU and other unions are the ones behind the minimum wage protests.  Despite the rhetoric, they're not trying to make anyone's lives better except for their own.  If members get some crumbs that make their life better, that's nice.  For non-unionized workers, who have to pay them their higher wages, too bad.  As the saying goes, FUJIGM.  


  1. Huh. I like that you're filing this under bags-o'-scum.

    1. Seemed to fit, but I'll freely admit to bias here. It's also tagged Union Thugs, and those go together in my mind.

  2. I agree that unions have caused lots of problems, however if you go back 100 to 150 years ago there were legitimate reasons for them to form (and substantial violence on the part of the employers). Most unions haven't adjusted to the changes that have made them mostly irrelevant and they need to change their focus from political activities to actually seeing to the needs of their workers. Until they do, they will continue to decline.

    1. I agree that unions have caused lots of problems, however if you go back 100 to 150 years ago there were legitimate reasons for them to form (and substantial violence on the part of the employers). Sure, but the point is that it's not like that any longer and there's really very little chance of work going back to the way it was in the 1880s. Companies compete with each other for talent by offering benefits and other perks that unions used to negotiate for. For example, two weeks vacation is a pretty common benefit, so some high tech companies offer three weeks to attract talent. Companies have learned that they can't beat people into working for them; they have to offer a good environment to work in.

      After a lifetime in industry, I understand that companies rarely every buy anything without serious negotiations over price and unions are just trying to negotiate the price of labor. I get that. In everything else they negotiate for, companies can work to get a lower price by qualifying a new supplier, getting a competing supplier, or something else. The harder the unions are to negotiate with, the more likely companies will find a way around them. When a part gets too expensive to put in your product, you design it out. When labor gets too expensive, there are ways around that, too.

  3. In what world is it acceptable to threaten killing someone and their family, and not expect any negative consequences for it?

    In the world of politics, where everything government does is backed up by the threat of their employees murdering you. You accept this, which means you find it acceptable. "Accepting" and "finding it acceptable" are two grammars for the same single decision. You believe having your healthcare options systematically removed is not worth fighting. Actual fighting, with rifles, like the overweight and smokers in Britain should be doing today but aren't. You believe automobile license tag tracking by distributed semi-smart car cameras is not worth fighting. But there aren't a lot of log step increases in control remaining between the present and dekulakization.

    I sure wish I had solutions, but I don't.

    The solution is simple, just stop accepting it; you're too numerous to digest. Like the German Jews, will you wait to stop accepting it until you know your effort will not succeed? Is not succeeding the goal? I speculate that it is most frequent for human beings to have genetically-programmed political instincts which never allow them an emotional gut-check comfort with fighting and winning against the legitimate government. Humans also have genetic firmware support for racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. These urges can be weakened by intellectually learned behavior. Anyone who wants to survive the upcoming healthcare rationing will need to intellectually learn to not act on their urge to obey the government.