Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was just reading about this. Apparently this poor small businessman has been the victim of reported union thuggery for years.
"... King’s success, especially during the recession, may have come with a price, including lawsuits, harassment, slashed tires and multiple incidents of vandalism, just to name a few."
Just pointing out more hypocrisy. Anti-union neocons painting the entire labor movement by one incident by one wackjob, yet have no problem with senseless wars fought for profit.
Many Obama supporters are born again neo-cons, yet they support unions.
So are the Pinkertons used to surpress unionization. Both sides are too willing to use violence. There are better ways to settle differences.
Yeah, it was just yesterday that Pinkerton's were used to suppress unionization, while the railroad magnate twisted his handlebar mustache. This is not a 2 way street, at least not in the last 100 years.
Disgusting plain and simple. Are union members known as thugs. Appears so agree with them or else.
There are violent people within all groups on this planet. Violence within a group shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether or not the foundation of the group should be demolished. It certainly shouldn't be tolerated anywhere in any way, shape, or form.
(and Americans have never said, "Agree with us, or else???")
Just pointing out more hypocrisy. Anti-union neocons painting the entire labor movement by one incident by one wackjob, yet have no problem with senseless wars fought for profit.
Time to separate the apples from the oranges, argument wise.
It's not just "one incident".
Public unions, and the liberals who still, for some odd reason, support them, just can't seem to realize they aren't needed any more.
Living in the past, to keep those who can't, or don't want to, from dealing with the fact that if they didn't join or have a public union contract, they wouldn't be able to make it on their own without the union "protection" and tax dollars funding their jobs.
There are violent people within all groups on this planet. Violence within a group shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether or not the foundation of the group should be demolished. It certainly shouldn't be tolerated anywhere in any way, shape, or form.
Of course it shouldn't. But liberals and public union members don't want to get rid of public unions because it's just one more form of welfare, that comes with a lot of protection and funded by your happy tax payer.
Public unions are no longer, and haven't been for decades, necessary, to "protect" union members. The entire premise behind the start of public unions was ...what?
Does it apply in 2011 and how so?
Quote:
(and Americans have never said, "Agree with us, or else???")
Collectively? No.
Keep in mind, not all Americans are union members. What's your point?
What are you referring to that has to do with public unions?
More like reasonable people, who will get a job done when those who are too good to realize they ain't worth what they're paid, go on strike.
Especially in THIS economy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
