Happy Labor Day!

In honor of Labor Day, Michelle Malkin brings us some more useful (and timely) rejoinders to the people who tout unions as “the people who brought you the five-day, 40-hour work week.”

I’m not quite certain just when unions stopped being the ally of the worker, but it’s pretty clear that it’s firmly entrenched now — and has been for some time.

The red bandana
The Welcome Wagon
  • I continue to be mystified how an organization with an overt mission of monopolizing both an employer’s access to labor and a worker’s access to employment, can possibly be in anyone’s interest but that of the gangsters running it.

  • Anonymous

    Barry’s racketeers have such sunny dispositions..

  • Bob Armstrong

    Hating unions on labor day. How appropriate for this so un-American blog.

    • This post is about the violent behavior that unions have been displaying. There is nothing unamerican about revealing that violent behavior to those who may not know about it.

      • Bob Armstrong

        Ahh, and it’s just a coincidence that it’s on labor day?

        Hating is un-American. Hating hard-working, law-abiding, family-raising union members is un-American.

        That would be you,

        And denying it is sooo typical, and so chicken sh*t.

        • Anonymous

          Nothing more un-American than a filthy hippy telling you what to think any day of the year.

          Screw off hippy!

        • Anonymous

          This guy’s posts get goofier every day.

        • jim_m

          And Bob knows about being chicken shit.

          He calls people racist then runs away from the thread.  He calls people birthers and then runs away without bothering to support the accusation.  He writes lefty BS and then runs away without trying to back up his BS or otherwise defend his talking points.

          No Bob is just showing us that the left never meant it when they said that, “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”.  What they really meant was that when they dissented it was patriotic but when anyone else dissents it is sedition.

          The first thing Bob does here is accuse people of being unAmerican.

          Maybe you could say something about your fellow travelers who spit on our military.

          • Bob Armstrong

            I ignore trolls who change the subject and just fling monkey poo without knowing what they’re talking about.

            Unfortunately that means ignoring you, Jim and the know nothing crew of imbeciles who also fling monkey poo. Your repeated “call outs” and challenges that “I’m running away” are a good example of just how immature you and the rest of the trolls are around here.

            Feel free to challenge whatever I write or ignore it if you choose – just as I choose to ignore your ridiculous bullshit, ad hominem attacks, and repeated talking points jerking.

            If you’d like me to be more clear – I think you’re a moron and choose to ignore you for that reason. Now try to stay on topic and quit acting alike a fathead.

          • jim_m

            Oh, so providing specifics, data and links are just flinging monkey poo?

            What is it when you called me a racist? Or a birther?

            My repeated call outs are trying to engage you in defending your positions.  You won’t.  You just drop a load of talking points BS and then run away because you lack the ability to look up information on your own. 

            You have yet to acknowledge hat you were wrong about obama never saying that he was working on gun control under he radar.  I provided links and sources and you ran away.

            That’s the problem Bob.  You won’t actually engage in discussion.  You throw out bullshit lies and call people names and then stop posting on that thread.

            You ignore what I write because I counter your BS with facts and you can’t back it up.  How many people have posted over and over again about your calling the posters here racists?  You are the one who goes off topic with BS accusations.  Quit projecting and back up what you say.  You called us all un-American for doing something you do far more than the rest of us.  Either back it up or retract it.  Be a man for once.

          • Bob Armstrong

            You’re an idiot – which encompasses birthers and racists.

            Feel free to write ANYTHING about labor and labor day, moron — or just keep proving my point if you insist.

          • jim_m

            I have a whole series of topical posts below on the thread.  You have one calling everyone haters. 

            I have a series talking about how labor unions exploit workers and use their money for political ends.  I have posted with specifics a data supporting my assertions  You have one calling people un-American. Once again we see that you are the liar.

            You avoid posting links that defend your comments.  I do not.

            You still will not admit errors.  I have. 

            You will not admit that you have nothing to justify your calling me a birther.  You realize that I have spoken out against them in the past but you called me one the other day because you can’t help but slander (technically libel since it was in print) those who you disagree with.

            There is a reason people here have nick named you Spongebob Racepants.  You can’t help but call everyone who disagrees with you a racist.  I note that you’ve toned that down a little.  But others who post here like Steve Crickmore and Chico have focused on actually trying to post defensible ideas.  They even bother to do a little research and post links supporting their assertions.  You do not.  You just make baseless assertions and then run.

          • Bob Armstrong

            poor baby… You’ll get over it, once you grow up.

          • jim_m

            Fine.  Then defend your comment that hating unions is un-American.

            You won’t.  You never defend the rude things you say.

          • Bob Armstrong

            oh, poor POOR baby. We all really feel sorry for you Jim. I hope you recover from today’s trauma.
            You’ve done an excellent job, chicken-sh*t Jim. Not one fact, not one link, not one comment in the thread above addresses the issue. Just ad hominems and bullshit.

            You’ve proven my point quite well. You hate Americans and you especially hate any American who dares disagree with you. And you’re not alone, look a the troop of idiots who follow you and “like” your ad hominem attacks and bullshit nonsense.

          • Anonymous

            This is pathetic. Why don’t you look into some online debating seminars? Or an Eighth Grade Speech class.

          • jim_m

            You’ve proven nothing.  You claimed that hating unions is un-American.  I’m saying that you should back it up.  If it were myself making such an assertion I would be coming back at you with some evidence of historical events that showed people making that same claim.  I would be showing you laws passed or speeches made to that effect.  You show nothing.

            The other day you said that obama had never said that he was working on gun control “under the radar”.  I provided a link and quotes from two people in the room when he said it.  Where are the links?  Where are the quotes?  I suppose the best you can do is Hoffa’s quote from today right?

            You provide nothing. 

            As for ad hominems you do that so well you’ve been nick named on this board for your ad hominems.

          • Anonymous

            And right on que Bob calls you a name and says you’re proving his point, that is really rich.

          • Bob Armstrong

            Jim writes: >>Oh, so providing specifics, data and links are just flinging monkey poo?

            Do you see any specifics above in ANY of Jim’s comments.

            Hint: the answer is no.

            Jimbo spews poo and says nothing on topic, then claims he’s “providing specifica, data and links.”

            He’s a moron, it’s just that simple. He’s poo flinging moron.

          • jim_m

            I provided no data:

            Contrary to leftist opinion unions are not the nation.  Only 11.9% of
            workers are union members.  Only 6.9% of private industry workers are
            union(36.2% of government workers).   Given the high penetration of
            unions in the government and the lousy performance of government I would
            suggest that it isn’t a good thing.  Heck, there are more unemployed
            and under employed than there are union workers.

            That’s what I posted earlier today on this thread.  The stats are from the BLS.  Go look them up yourself.

            You said I didn’t supply data?  You didn’t bother reading.  Others here have.  They know who the charlatan is.  It’s you.

          • Okay, now you’re just waving a piece of cardboard on which you’ve written “Race” in crayon. It’s pathetic. You need therapy.

          • Anonymous

            See, this is what happens when sodomy aficionados store
            their heads up their asses.  The head
            trauma adds up in a cumulative manner.

        • jim_m

          Hating is un-American. Hating hard-working, law-abiding, family-raising unionTEA Party members is un-American.

          There I fixed it.  Hypocrite.

        • Anonymous

          Hey, give the guy a break.  When they were teaching him basic logic, he thought they were saying lethargic and went back to sleep.  When they were teaching critical thinking, he thought they said patriarchal so he marched off to the administration accusing the instructor of sexism.  And when they said “use your common sense,” he asked for directions to the government office that would give him some.

        • Anonymous

          Nothing says I hate America more then supporting the Mugabe in chief  with your head firmly planted up his ass..

          That’d be you BA Racepants..

        • Anonymous

           You need to improve your reading comprehension, Bob. I explicitly said it was in honor of Labor Day.


    • jim_m

      Really? So where are unions mentioned in the Constitution?  The United States was nearly 100 years old before the first national labor union was formed.  And it might be worth mentioning that those first unions excluded minorities.

      Contrary to leftist opinion unions are not the nation.  Only 11.9% of workers are union members.  Only 6.9% of private industry workers are union(36.2% of government workers).   Given the high penetration of unions in the government and the lousy performance of government I would suggest that it isn’t a good thing.  Heck, there are more unemployed and under employed than there are union workers.

      So according to your logic it is unpatriotic to criticize the union movement even though it is a declining movement and associated with organized crime and corruption in government. 

      But I’m sure you would have no problem with criticizing the military on Veterans Day or Memorial Day even though over 9% of the nation are active military or military veterans.  The left takes pride in denigrating the military constantly.  The left considers that patriotic.

      • Bob Armstrong

        >>”Really? So where are unions mentioned in the Constitution?  The United
        States was nearly 100 years old before the first national labor union
        was formed. ”

        Yeah the industrial age of the 1800s introduced factories and assembly lines, and unions were formed to deal with workplace issues – -which means, follow me now moron, there had to be workplaces.

        Thanks for once again showing I was right when I said you were a blabbering, know-nohting, talking point repeating moron.

        Where are the unions mentioned mentioned in the Constitution? What a f*cking moron.

        • jim_m

          The point is that you are saying that being anti-union is being un-American.  I countered by saying that there is nothing about America that necessitates being pro union,  Unions didn’t even exist when America was founded and as you point out (actually I think I alluded to it as well), unions were not needed as much in preindustrial US. 

          Why is it now unpatriotic to be against the unions?  Read below.  These are not talking points.  You can look up the info.  You can find support for your allegation that being anti-union is un-American.  Or can you?  Maybe that is the real talking point.

          • Bob Armstrong

            And I didn’t say you had to “pro-union” to not be un-American, you idiot.

            I said being anti-working class Americans is un-American.

            “Where does it say Unions in the Constituion” repeats Jim the moron, as if the Constitution contains anything and everything “American.

            Clearly you’re an idiot. And I didn’t single you out for this treatment – you follow me on every post flinging your nonsenical, low-IQ poo.

            You have the nuance and reading comprehension skills of a third grader. It’s amazing how amazingly stupid you appear to be, Jim

            And if you ignore Jim the troll he flings more poo, claiming that you’re running away from debate – – no, I’m just ignoring a moron..

          • jim_m

            Hating unions on labor day. How appropriate for this so un-American blog.

            That is your original post on this thread.  The simple conclusion is that hating unions is appropriate for an “un-American blog” because hating unions is un-American.  Otherwise your original post makes no sense.

            You can call me an idiot but once again I am proven right because you are running away from your own words.  You won’t go back and correct or moderate them.   You won’t say that you misspoke or that you did not convey your meaning properly. Instead you just call me an idiot or a moron or a troll.  Then you accuse me of having nothing but ad hominems.

    • “Hate.” I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    • Anonymous

      Bob, you don’t have to hate unions to disagree with their tactics and their political position.  This is America and those who disagree with unions are deserving of the same right of opinion as the unions are entitled to.  It has nothing to do with hate.  

  • “I’m not quite certain just when unions stopped being the ally of the
    worker, but it’s pretty clear that it’s firmly entrenched now — and has
    been for some time.”

    When corporate propaganda artists started telling Americans that REAL ‘MERKINS don’t need commie unions and labor laws for workers to get a fair share of the fruits of their own labor. Why look at how good the US worker has it after three decades of Reaganomics:

    “Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. …The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.”Link.

    • jim_m

      Umm.  Profit belongs to the ownership of the company (ie shareholders), which includes a lot of regular Americans and a lot of retirement portfolios.  I suppose you would be advocating raiding everyone’s retirement plan to recover those assets?

      Union membership is declining.  Recently in Wisconsin it was clearly demonstrated that he union position was preventing improvement of working conditions and the hiring of teachers.  With the changes hat were forced on the unions by the Budget Repair Act many districts were able to hire more teachers.  That means that the unions were actually standing in the way of the betterment of the people they supposedly represent.

      Unfortunately, that is all too commonplace today.  The gains made by unions decades ago are codified into law today.  We do not need unions to sustain them.  Too often unions are standing in the way of real improvements.  Today we see that unions are standing in the way of making this nation solvent again. 

      Rigid union contracts contributed to the decline of the auto industry.  When you add $2000 to the cost of every car off the line you become uncompetitive.  Union work rules in our schools are impeding the education of students.  We cannot reward teachers for doing a good job.  We cannot remove teachers who don’t. 

      If unions were so good then why are they demanding Card Check?  Why do they need to be able to intimidate workers in order to unionize a workplace?  Why do union members in Indiana and Wisconsin stop paying dues when the government stops collecting them by force?  Why wouldn’t those workers want to keep paying those dues?  Do they recognize hat they aren’t getting any value?

    • Unions aren’t about securing to workers the fruits of their own labor — they’re about securing to the gangsters who run the unions the fruits of workers’ labor.

      They aren’t fighting those eeeeevil robber barons you despise — they are the robber barons.

      • jim_m

        California’s public unions collect approximately $750M per year in dues.  Is it any surprise when union members no longer have their union dues taken directly out of their paychecks by law that they stop paying dues?  The unions are corruption incarnate.

  • How does it feel advocating for extortionately high bonuses for parasitic executives who sit in air conditioned boardrooms while demonizing the advocates of those who ACTUALLY DO THE MANUAL WORK THAT CREATES WEALTH. I’m sure the John Galtian executives of Verizon know what it’s like to personally climb up poles and set up wires all day.


    • jim_m

      I don’t know.  How do you feel about unions spending their worker’s dues on political activity that the workers do not always support?

      In California the public unions spend an estimated $20 million per year on political support.  Where is that money going?  Why are the workers of California being robbed of $20 million per year?  What value are they accruing from that investment? 

      Unions have become little more than a political money laundering operation.  Supporting unions is supporting the corruption of the political process.

      • Bob Armstrong

        Andrew asks a question and Jim replies “I don’t know”

        — and there he goes – avoiding the question and running away while repeating his moronic talking points. What an idiot.

        “I don’t know…” then “blah blah bullsh&t”

        • jim_m

          Read the post asswipe.  It’s called sarcasm.  Andrew asked how we liked supporting parasitic CEO’s and my response was that unions are worse parasites.

          Reading comprehension.  A talent you lack.

    • Go ahead and build a neighborhood without capital.

      Go ahead and put phones in people’s homes, cars and pockets without capital.

      When you’ve done that you can claim that capital isn’t essential to employing labor productively. Until then you’re just plagiarizing your Commie college professors.

      • jim_m

        Imagine how much better California would be with $20 million per year spent on their neighborhoods instead of on political payoffs.  Unions are parasites.

    • If your workers are so special, why don’t they create their own company instead of trying to extort money from someone else’s?

      You thugs are real brave in groups when you can intimidate – not so much one on one, like any cowardly bullies.

    • Anonymous

      And the executive parasites that run the unions all day work without bonuses or AC?

      I find that difficult to believe –

      Maybe we should protest the high pay and perks that go to the union executives, especially in light of their current performance.

  • daveinboca

    The only union I was forced into membership with was the Brewery Worker’s Union back in Milwaukee for Schlitz in the sixties.  The sweetheart contract had the members [not “workers”] actually doing some sort of labor for five hours a day, with all the beer you could drink during lunch hour and the two half-hour breaks, not to mention “wash-ups” and other 15-minute bench-warming episodes.   Plus, you could buy a case of beer a day at a nominal price.    Average life-expectancy:  fifty-four years old, when the normal male had close to sixty-seven….

    Dionne leaves out how unions and various drug & ethnic mafias cooperate and how unions mainline other criminal elements into politics and serve as conduits for corruption.

    Not to mention their squadrons of thugs.   And the dwarf E.J. talks about Tea Party violence?   As does Mr. Napolitano at the head of Homeland Security?  

  • Anonymous

    In other union news the peace loving leader of the Teamsters, Jimmy Hoffa,  calls tea party people sons of bitches and asks his goons to take them out. Gotta love the unions. Oh and he did this at a rally that included our president. More tolerance from the left!

    And before you start with your crap Bob,  it’s true go look it up for yourself.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s the quote from Hoffa, love that new tone!

    “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong,” Hoffa added.

    • Bob Armstrong

      It’s about time – and he’s right. It’s time to kick some tea party butt. Woot!

      • Don’t write checks your tiny little webbed foot can’t cash.

      • Anonymous

        Give it a try see how it works out for you. I love how liberals can’t tolerate opposing points of view and default to violent language when they have nothing of value to add.

      • You won’t have to look hard to find us, Zippy – bring it on.

    • Bob Armstrong

      It’s about time – and he’s right. It’s time to kick some tea party butt. Woot!

  • herddog505

    Personally, I’ve never understood why a worker has to pay a union for the right to have a job, but some people seem happy with that arrangement.  Meh…

    Unions had their purpose a century ago.  In the intervening decades, however, many things have changed.  Workplace safety rules are now the province of the state and federal governments, as are working hours and some laws about wages and benefits. Our population is much more mobile, so people are not stuck living their lives in a mill or mining town and at the mercy of the local company.  What purpose, then, do unions serve? 

    The answer is that they serve none beyond being what amounts to a protection racket: a tiny, privileged class of employees pay union goons a fee for helping ensure that they keep their generous (!) pay and benefits packages.  “Nice job ya got dere.  Be a shame if sumpin’ happened to it…”

    • Bob Armstrong

      Paying union dues is in the union contract that the company signs with the union.

      Paying union is a contractual obligation, required  by contract, and the employee knows this when they’re hired and it’s no surprise, They can choose to work elsewhere if they don’t like it.

      Nobody is forced. You don’t want to be a union member? Then don’t work for that company, work for a different company that doesn’t require union membership.

      >>”Workplace safety rules are now the province of the state and federal
      governments, as are working hours and some laws about wages and benefits”

      Union contracts provide protection above and beyond and better than OSHA, states, etc.

      >>: “Our population is much more mobile, so people are not stuck living their
      lives in a mill or mining town and at the mercy of the local company. 
      What purpose, then, do unions serve? 

      Red Herring. It makes no difference that these are not “mill workers” – waht relevance does that have? none.

      If you work for the phone company you may be required to climb telephone polls or work underground and in areas of high voltage. Many of today’sunion jobs are more dangerous than working in a mill.

      And you know what? During the Bush administration Republicans had an opportunity to shut down the “protection racket” – it didn’t happen, you know why? It doesn’t exist, it’s another red herring lie. It’s bullshit.

      Any relation to Jim the Moron?


      • jim_m

        Yes people are forced.  You can choose not to belong to the union, but then in many cases you are forced to pay a fee that amounts to the union dues anyway.

        It’s interesting to note that in the wake of the Indiana state government stopping the automatic withholding of dues that dues payment has fallen off dramatically.  90% fewer members are paying their union dues.
        You can say that union dues are not coerced, but when that many members stop paying it is hard to argue that it isn’t.

        • Bob Armstrong

          If you know going in when you’re hired that you have to pay union dues and you CHOOSE to take that job it’s not coercion. It’s a free choice.

          You remember freedom of choice? You claim to support it – you just apparenlty aren’t intelligent enough to recognize that anybody who takes a union-dues paying job has the CHOICE to not take it and take a non-union job somewhere else instead.

          But no, folks like you would agree to take the job, then claim that you were being “coerced” into paying dues.

          You’d be lying, but there’s nothing new there.

          • jim_m

            Then I take it that you support right to work laws?  After all those laws are all about freedom of choice.

            I agree that as a worker you do have some choice about working for a nonunion shop.  In some professions like teaching that is a little difficult also there are reports of union violence against nonunion shops (mostly in the trades). 

            But, as I noted above, when given a choice most union workers choose not to pay their dues.  That speaks volumes about the willingness of members to pay their dues and the value they see that they get from the union.

            When Walker put it into the Budget Repair act that the state would no longer withhold union dues I knew that more than anything else the unions wanted that.  In fact the withholding was one of the things they wanted o keep when they offered their concessions.

            As I said, the fact that 90% of Indiana union members stopped paying their dues when the withholding stopped does indicate that a certain amount of coercion is required to get the members to pay up.  Without automatic withholding the workers just don’t pay.

            My claim was that union dues were coerced.  But understanding that would require reading comprehension, something multiple people here have mentioned you lack.

          • Bob Armstrong

            And you can’t be “coerced” into paying union dues unless you’ve accepted a union job,

            “But understanding that would require reading comprehension, something multiple people here have mentioned you lack.”

          • jim_m

            I agreed that a person has some amount of choice as o a job but, I also mentioned that you are presenting what amounts to a false choice for many people.  I used he example of teaching where the vast majority of jobs are union.  If you want to teach you have to join the union.  You are saying that a person must therefore change professions.  It’s a false choice.  You also ignored my comment about the threats of violence against nonunion shops.

            Even so you still missed my main point which was not that the job choice was coerced but that the union dues payment was.  That’s why I referred to the reading comprehension issue.  You’ve missed the point twice in a row. 

            I suppose the irony is that in a post saying that I missed the point you actually did.  I agreed with the point you tried to make, with caveats, and made a further point which you either could not understand or were incapable of addressing.  Irony indeed.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, I’m under the impression that teachers in mass are required to pay union dues even if they aren’t union members.

      • And if the company doesn’t want to deal with a union, the company should have the right to tell its employees, “Sorry, no certification vote here.”

        • jim_m

          Indeed.  Why then the drive for Card Check or a law that allows unions to avoid a secret ballot?  The unions want to be able to coerce but the laws have constrained them in some of these activities. 

          The real evidence is in the decline of unions.  They are down to some 9% of workers from close to 12% just a few years ago.  If unions were really doing a needed job they would be more successful. The unions are failing to convince workers that they provide value. If they were then workers would welcome them. 

          I have seen employers that deserved to be unionized where the workers voted it down. That tells me that the unions aren’t able to argue a case to the workers that they  will provide a return on the dues being paid.  Workers aren’t going to cast a vote for the unions unless they feel that they are going to get a return on that investment.

          • Bob Armstrong

            And companies don’t threaten workers with job losses if they vote the union in?

            Oh yes they do – but that’s not coercion in Jim’s book. 

          • jim_m

            So if labor costs go up the company is supposed to just suck it up?  That fact is that management is responsible to the shareholders for maintaining profitability.  Unlike the government, when costs go up the company needs to find a way to compensate.  They can do that by raising prices, but that is difficult in a competitive market, or they can cut costs.

            Yes, there may be an element of retaliation involved, but such retaliation is illegal.  Any employer threatening retaliation would be reported to the NLRB. 

            This then brings me back to the Wisconsin unions and the effect of the new Budget Repair Act.  In school districts where new contracts were not signed before the act took effect the savings were significant and even resulted in more teachers being hired, which in turn means a better student:teacher ratio and hence a better work environment.

            Sometimes union demands are actually detrimental to the worker’s own best interests.  They serve the union itself first and the workers only incidentally.

            Also you are comparing a threat of job losses to a threat of bodily harm. The two are not really equivalent.

  • Anonymous

    Bring it Bobby Sock, bring it.