I don’t know if you have ever thought about this as I have, but whenever I heard about unions growing up in school, one thing always crossed my mind. Why don’t companies just fire all the employees when they went on strike and hire new ones. I mean, when you see people on strike it seems like work continues. Sure, I heard about “scabs” (those that cross picket lines) but I wondered why they didn’t just keep on goin with the “scabs” as employees and leave the union guys out on the road. Naivety was partly to blame, and educational omission was the other part. You don’t here about how this stuff actually works in school. And you rarely hear about it in the media either unless it’s one of those stories that’s just too big to ignore. So how does a labour union deal with this issue? The same way they deal with the possibility that not everyone in the workplace will want to join: violence.
Think labour union violence is a matter of history? Think it only happened in Al Capone’s Chicago or in Teamster/Mob deals? Think again. Labour Union violence is essential to their function. There wouldn’t be any unionism without it. In fact it’s so essential that the United States judicial system has officially endorsed it and agreed to turn a blind eye. The 1973 United Stats vs. Enmons decision exempted the actions of union workers and representatives from anti-extortion prosecution. Cato’s policy paper describes this:
In the Enmons case, three members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) were indicted for firing high-powered rifles at three utility company transformers, draining the oil from a transformer, and blowing up a substation. However, the U.S. District Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, dismissed the charges on the grounds that, in the context of a strike, the militants actions were not illegal since they were pursuing “legitimate” union objectives.
–David Kendrick, Freedom From Union Violence
I bet you didn’t know that blowing up a substation and shooting transformers with high-powered rifles was “legitimate” did you? This is just par for the course though. The not-so-dirty little secret is that things like strikes and such don’t work on their own. They only work if there is also a parallel system of violence and intimidation to go along with the strike. People have to eat and live, so they want to work. It’s human nature. To counter this human nature, unions employ violent tactics to scare people into not working. In sane world we call this extortion or coercion. Many politicians however, call it campaign security. Forced union membership and it’s resultant dues pay for many political campaigns, especially democrat. That’s why democrats are so heavily pro-union, and so willing to turn a blind eye to the corruption and violence.
Kendrick reports in his paper that the Labour Relations Board has recorded 8,799 reports of union violence since 1975, from news reports alone. Obviously there are probably many more that go unreported. Last year in Arkansas, our UAW (United Auto Workers) friends engaged in a violent campaign to keep workers from crossing picket lines at the Kohler factory. Right to Work reported some of it:
A second temporary worker, who also asked their name be withheld, described what it was like to cross the picket line. “They follow people home and spray paint their vehicles,” the worker said. “They scream obscenities and hit my car with their signs. They’re being down right vicious.”
–Right To Work Blog, 2007
And more from a New York construction company in 2006:
The legal complaint catalogs a long list of alleged run-ins between Mr. Kourkounakis and local union members. Most recently, a union member last month struck Mr. Kourkounakis with a billy club, breaking his hand, according to the legal complaint. Starting three years ago, union members have been harassing Mr. Kourkounakis by throwing bricks through the windows of his home, leaving threatening phone calls, and vandalizing his car and his employees’ cars, the complaint alleges.
–Right To Work Blog, 2006
This epidemic of violence is another reason that conservatives oppose labour unions. Strom Thurmond (republican) and Orrin Hatch (republican) have both tried to pass anti-union-violence measures in congress. Any Christian should obviously be opposed to this type of violence and corruption. Just one more reason that Christianity is incompatible with the Democrat party.