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.
The case involved a labor strike in which union members fired rifles at three utility company transformers, drained the oil from another, and blew up an entire company substation. The labor union in question was seeking a higher-pay contract and other benefits from their employer, the Gulf States Utilities Company. The Court decided that the union involved was immune from prosecution because their violent acts were in pursuit of a legitimate union objective.
They say individuals can be prosecuted. However, the NLRB recorded 8799 incidents of violence with only 258 convictions from the court ruling through 1998. That's less than a 3% success rate.
The case involved a labor strike in which union members fired rifles at three utility company transformers, drained the oil from another, and blew up an entire company substation. The labor union in question was seeking a higher-pay contract and other benefits from their employer, the Gulf States Utilities Company. The Court decided that the union involved was immune from prosecution because their violent acts were in pursuit of a legitimate union objective.
They say individuals can be prosecuted. However, the NLRB recorded 8799 incidents of violence with only 258 convictions from the court ruling through 1998. That's less than a 3% success rate.
The court's ruling set a legal precedent where violent acts against an employer by workers on strike, including destruction of property, assault, and homicide, are not punishable offenses under federal law. They can, however, be punishable under state or federal civil and criminal laws. These laws can include assault and battery, murder, and theft, among others.
Or perhaps this part.
Quote:
In understanding Enmons, it is important to keep in mind that what the Hobbs Act outlaws is extortion, not just any bad act. Federal law, in particular the National Labor Relations Act, says that collective bargaining and strikes in support of collective bargaining goals are legal and protected. Therefore, since collective bargaining is purpose that is not extortion, one of the key elements of a Hobbs Act violation is not met.
And I supplied the less than 3% conviction rate. Your states rights argument isn't working.
This needs to be fixed.
The source of that research isn't accurate, as the NRLB points out. It's compiled from news sources, including employer violence. There isn't any real study performed on conviction rates of individual members of unions comitting acts of violence.
The supreme court decision threw out the case because the Hobbs Act, which was what the prosecutors were using, didn't apply to the case because the union wasn't using violence to extort their employer, as the union, in the process of collective bargaining, had an interest or stake in the company property, so to speak.
There isn't anything to fix. A union can't be held responsible for the acts of its individual members.
The source of that research isn't accurate, as the NRLB points out. It's compiled from news sources, including employer violence. There isn't any real study performed on conviction rates of individual members of unions comitting acts of violence.
The supreme court decision threw out the case because the Hobbs Act, which was what the prosecutors were using, didn't apply to the case because the union wasn't using violence to extort their employer, as the union, in the process of collective bargaining, had an interest or stake in the company property, so to speak.
There isn't anything to fix. A union can't be held responsible for the acts of its individual members.
The Buffalo News reports that members of Operating Engineers Local 17 are charged with pouring sand into construction vehicles’ engines, stabbing a company executive in the neck, tossing hot coffee at non-union workers and threatening to sexually assault the wife of a company representative.
“We’re not condoning the allegations or arguing that union officials are completely immune from prosecution,†Newman said. “Instead, we simply want to make sure that the [federal law] is not interpreted in a way that could have a chilling effect on legitimate union activity.â€
While the AFL-CIO is not directly condoning the crimes alleged against the union members, its friend-of-the-court brief leans on the 1973 U.S. v. Enmons Supreme Court ruling which condones union violence as long as it is in the interest of “legitimate union activity.â€
So at the end of the article, it says this...
Rick Manning of Americans for Limited Government adds that the AFL-CIO’s refusal to publicly disavow the Enmons case protecting violent union members by attempting to weigh in through an amicus brief shows where the union really stands.
“The AFL-CIO has shown their true colors by seeking to file an amicus brief protecting their members from charges resulting from a campaign of terror waged against an employer,†Manning said in an email.
So spare me the legal protocol. We know what normally happens here. The majority of the time - union members get away with violence.
The Buffalo News reports that members of Operating Engineers Local 17 are charged with pouring sand into construction vehicles’ engines, stabbing a company executive in the neck, tossing hot coffee at non-union workers and threatening to sexually assault the wife of a company representative.
“We’re not condoning the allegations or arguing that union officials are completely immune from prosecution,†Newman said. “Instead, we simply want to make sure that the [federal law] is not interpreted in a way that could have a chilling effect on legitimate union activity.â€
While the AFL-CIO is not directly condoning the crimes alleged against the union members, its friend-of-the-court brief leans on the 1973 U.S. v. Enmons Supreme Court ruling which condones union violence as long as it is in the interest of “legitimate union activity.â€
So at the end of the article, it says this...
Rick Manning of Americans for Limited Government adds that the AFL-CIO’s refusal to publicly disavow the Enmons case protecting violent union members by attempting to weigh in through an amicus brief shows where the union really stands.
“The AFL-CIO has shown their true colors by seeking to file an amicus brief protecting their members from charges resulting from a campaign of terror waged against an employer,†Manning said in an email.
So spare me the legal protocol. We know what normally happens here. The majority of the time - union members get away with violence.
And the companies don't? Ever hear of Matewan, WV? Or, Ludlow, CO? Or, Cripple Creek, CO?
Things we take for granted today, like the 8 hour work day, overtime pay, health and retirement benefits and on the job safety were bought by the blood of union members. Companies don't like to share the wealth created by labor and had to be forced to give up a portion of their profit to the people who actually do the work. They used every means at their disposal, including the use of government troops, murder, the buying off of the legal system and anything else they could think of to hold on to every dime.
But, the unions prevailed in the face of unrelenting violence and jail time. You benefit from that today.
Yet, too many people don't know enough of their history and are willing to calmly and casually be led right back to the very conditions which gave rise to the organized labor movement during the era of the Robber Baron's. Worse, they seem to think it's actually in their best interest to surrender everything gained by so much blood in exchange for what?
And the companies don't? Ever hear of Matewan, WV? Or, Ludlow, CO? Or, Cripple Creek, CO?
Things we take for granted today, like the 8 hour work day, overtime pay, health and retirement benefits and on the job safety were bought by the blood of union members. Companies don't like to share the wealth created by labor and had to be forced to give up a portion of their profit to the people who actually do the work. They used every means at their disposal, including the use of government troops, murder, the buying off of the legal system and anything else they could think of to hold on to every dime.
But, the unions prevailed in the face of unrelenting violence and jail time. You benefit from that today.
Yet, too many people don't know enough of their history and are willing to calmly and casually be led right back to the very conditions which gave rise to the organized labor movement during the era of the Robber Baron's. Worse, they seem to think it's actually in their best interest to surrender everything gained by so much blood in exchange for what?
So ... that gives them license to commit crimes and run roughshod over them members? I don't think so.
In fact, unions are doing they very things today that you mentioned businesses were doing back then.
You mentioned...
Companies don't like to share the wealth created by labor and had to be forced to give up a portion of their profit to the people who actually do the work. They used every means at their disposal, including the use of government troops, murder, the buying off of the legal system and anything else they could think of to hold on to every dime.
Substitute "companies" with "unions" and we move to today's news.
The source of that research isn't accurate, as the NRLB points out. It's compiled from news sources, including employer violence. There isn't any real study performed on conviction rates of individual members of unions comitting acts of violence.
The supreme court decision threw out the case because the Hobbs Act, which was what the prosecutors were using, didn't apply to the case because the union wasn't using violence to extort their employer, as the union, in the process of collective bargaining, had an interest or stake in the company property, so to speak.
There isn't anything to fix. A union can't be held responsible for the acts of its individual members.
It can be if union leaders are inciting violence as an ends to specific union goals.
The case involved a labor strike in which union members fired rifles at three utility company transformers, drained the oil from another, and blew up an entire company substation. The labor union in question was seeking a higher-pay contract and other benefits from their employer, the Gulf States Utilities Company. The Court decided that the union involved was immune from prosecution because their violent acts were in pursuit of a legitimate union objective.
They say individuals can be prosecuted. However, the NLRB recorded 8799 incidents of violence with only 258 convictions from the court ruling through 1998. That's less than a 3% success rate.
Did this failed ruling cause as much death to humans as the other mistake the Supreme Court made in 1973. I heard today that that one has caused 53 million deaths since it was done.w
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.
