Look for the union hero


"he had no family ties in the union, which helped other members get steady jobs" (because actual qualifications for the work being done, well - that's just silly)

"Knowing that members who committed crimes on behalf of the union - referred to as "nightwork" - got the best jobs, Walsh let it be known to its then-longtime head, Joseph Dougherty, and four business agents "that he was willing to perform whatever crimes were necessary," Livermore wrote.

"Walsh aspired to be a legend in the union - to commit acts which other ironworkers only talk about doing," Livermore wrote, adding that another member called Walsh the union's "big-time hit man."

Sounds like a wonderful guy working with a wonderful organization...

No votes yet

Scary how many lives he put in danger for politics.


Federal Court Lifts Injunction In Scott Walker Case
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday removed one barrier to restarting an investigation into possible illegal coordination between Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and more than two dozen conservative groups, a legal setback for the Republican who is locked in a tough re-election campaign.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. If you want to discuss it you should start your own thread.


Walsh was a dirt bag, no argument there. And, there was a culture of corruption he took advantage of. Yet, it doesn't mean all union situations are the same. If the purpose of this post is to point out one example of corruption in a union setting, fine. But, if your intent is to paint unionism, or the concept of unions as bad, you have a long way to go.

Unions have a history of intimidation.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2014/09/22/reynoldsburg-teachers-blo... Because standing in front of cars is something non-aggressive people do. These are teacher too.

Even in the Crowder video the whole time it was the Union members who were displaying aggressive behavior. Of course when I submitted unedited video that displayed this you still believed that Crowder pushed the man. Of course Crowder hadn't displayed aggressive behavior before that point, yet you accused him of being a liar and provoking the whole incident, neither which you can prove.

So yes, there is a culture of corruption. There are three examples right here.

You are a union apologist. Plain and simple and even when the facts don't support you, you will still ignore what is blatantly clear.


Generalization is a common logical error. Many make this error when it comes to unions. Just because one union has experienced corruption, it doesn't mean they all will. Any organization has the potential for corruption, even religious organizations. If there are humans in a group, there is the possibility for corruption. To throw all unions under the bus because some have experienced corruption is like denouncing all of Catholicism because some churches ended up with pedophile priests.

Unions have benefited many people, even non- union members. It was even a union that helped bring down the old Soviet Union (look up Lech Wałęsa and Solidarity).

I gave you three separate examples from three separate unions in three separate states.

At what point does it become systemic acceptance and not a generalization?


So, is three examples some sort of magic number? I'm sure if you started searching you could find at least three examples of corruption, even violence, in many different types of organizations: business, social, religious, sports, etc.. I'll bet even the Girls Scouts have had a few cookies sales go bad throughout the years. I've witnessed little league parents provoked into fist fights before. Father Robinson was convicted of killing a nun, does that mean the Catholic Church is murderous? With your way of generalizing, we would end up labeling all organizations as corrupt and violent. The problem is the idea of all unions being corrupt has become an "acceptance", when in reality it is just a generalization. As I said, many people make the mistake of generalizing when it comes to unions.

"Father Robinson was convicted of killing a nun, does that mean the Catholic Church is murderous? With your way of generalizing, we would end up labeling all organizations as corrupt and violent."

Actually yes. Because you combine it with the widespread molestation cases throughout many dioceses and yes, you have a church that was corrupt and turning a blind eye to crimes.

I am a Catholic, and I love my faith but I am also very vocal on the churches need to confront it's problems.

It's no different with the Armed Forces. We have a broken reporting system on sexual assaults. We need to continue combatting it. The Congressional solution is not a solution but we do need to confront sexual assault head on.

You are ignoring the problem. Unions have left their membership behind and allowed thugs to run the organization for too long. Why do you think union membership is so low? Why do you think that when given the chance to leave the union many opt out? The union is grasping upon a defunct industrial age economic model and the world is passing them by.

For instance, unions encouraged fast food employees to strike in an effort to raise the wage to $15 per hour. Do you know what the result of that will be? Fast food chains will eliminate all but their cooking staff and emplace touch screen kiosks where you can put in your order yourself. It will keep food prices low but it will also raise food order accuracy. The cooking staff will get their $15 an hour but it will cost 3 other employees their jobs. It's all the cost of doing business.


There are many different unions. Not all of them are encouraging the fast food workers to go for $15 an hour. Not all of them have thugs on the take. That's why you shouldn't generalize, throwing all of organized labor under the bus. Just like no one should throw all of Catholicism under the bus because of a minority of dioceses.

My union works very well with the company I work for. About every four years we negotiate a contract that both sides agree to. It's good because both sides know what to expect from each other. We work very hard for the company, and make its owners a lot of money. We don't gouge the company with unreasonably high wages or crazy benefit packages. We are not out to hurt the company in any way. We want to have a place to work, after all. In fact, a good number of us have purchased stock in the company.

It bothers me when people paint all unions with the same brush, emphasizing only the bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm against bad union practices. I, as a member of a good union, especially don't like the way such practices give ammunition to all the union haters who are constantly looking for a way to bash collective bargaining.

Three myths about unions:

1 Unions protect the lazy-
This is absolutely not true. Contracts often clearly state that company rules will be followed by employees. Consequences for things like tardiness and being unproductive are spelled out in the contract. The contract actually helps the company get rid of bad employees.

2 Unions send companies packing to China-
This is a blanket statement that does not account for the fact that many unions are service based. Such jobs never left, and will never leave to China. Industries such as construction, trucking, and maintenance have to be done where the work is.

3 Unions are no longer needed-
Unions are needed for many reasons, but here is one example that also serves to answer why unions involve themselves in politics, a practice that union haters like to complain about. The labor laws in this country are constantly under attack by certain politicians. These politicians like to please their rich constituents and try to get rid of things like the overtime pay rate. They introduce things like HR -1406. If something like it ever passes, overtime pay will never be the same, affecting many workers both union and non-union. If for nothing else, we, union and non-union, need organized labor to keep watch over the hard fought labor laws in this country.


PMW as I've given you examples from different unions and different parts of the country I believe I've made a good factual case that the thuggish behavior is the norm rather than the exception.

Likewise you're continued support of the union member who was pushed in the Crowder affair and baseless accusations toward Crowder show that you support the thuggish behavior and are an apologist for any union wrong doing.

The people are rejecting unions en masse. This is a fact. You believe we need unions. Well most of the country disagrees with you, and they're showing it in their actions. I need to look no further than Wisconsin to show you the rejection of the union's thuggish actions and continued attempts to force unionization upon those who do not want it.


Likewise you're continued support of the union member who was pushed in the Crowder affair and baseless accusations toward Crowder show that you support the thuggish behavior and are an apologist for any union wrong doing.

That's some skewed logic you're using there, Mikeya. How is it you reason I support "thuggish behavior"? Are you really coming to that conclusion just because I feel the video shows Crowder pushing the guy? I have a different opinion about what happened on a video, and suddenly I support "thuggish behavior" and "union wrongdoing"? Think about it, and then tell me again how that follows.

The uncut video shows aggressive behavior on the side of the union supporters. Especially in the lead up to the pushing incident.

Yet you've called Crowder a liar(proved wrong) and still believe he pushed the guy yet you cannot point to one other aggressive act. I can point to several aggressive acts by the union members that you conveniently overlook in your race to demagogue Crowder.

So yes, you support union's thuggish behavior.


Crowder is a total liar, and the video proves it. In the interview with Hannity, Crowder said the union guy got pushed because he was tearing down a tent, yet one and a half seconds before he was pushed to the ground we see Crowder standing next to the guy. How did he get from next to Crowder, over to the tent, then onto the ground in less than 2 seconds? Step through it yourself and see. The video proves the guy wasn't tearing up a tent anytime before he got pushed. He was next to Crowder and both were away from the tent. Plus, the direction he goes down was even farther away from the tent. Proving Crowder to be a liar by the video is easy. If you still don't think he's a liar, then tell me the time stamp where the guy that got pushed is tearing down the tent. I asked you this in another thread and you never responded. You will not be able to respond this time either.

There is no point where that man is tearing down the tent, you are correct. But I believe it's more a part where Crowder is mistaken. However it is understandable. Why? Look at 1:30 of the video. A union man in a hard hat attacks the tent, one of the filmers pushes him away, the man who was pushed runs in between the two to prevent them from stopping the tent being torn down. 1:37 Crowder approaches, puts his hands up in an non-threatening manner. All the while, they're still violently tearing down the tent behind the man who was pushed. 1:43 Crowder turns and takes his attention off the union man and the tent being torn down. 1:46 the man in the white hard hat who had started the tent tearing down comes briefly into frame screaming and moves behind the man who was pushed. 1:48 the man goes down, but simultaneously a pushing match is started on the man filming on the camera on the left.

All the violent actions are a result of the union thugs. Crowder got one item wrong.

At no point did Crowder display any aggressive behavior.

The union man who was overtly aggressive was right behind the man who was pushed. It's not hard to see how that man could start a chain of events that would result in the man being pushed. Does the man get up and attempt to figure out who pushed him? No he straight up attacks Crowder unprovoked.

You make excuses for this. So yes, you support union thug behavior.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.