Union Thug Posts Names of Non-Union Workers at Workplace, Denies Intimidation

A union thug in Michigan was wide-eyed with faux shock when he was told that publicly posting the names of workers who opted out of the union was viewed as an intimidation tactic.

Union thug Lawrence Roehrig, international vice president of AFSCME and secretary treasurer of Michigan AFSCME Council 25 (that is a government worker’s union, folks) defended the practice of outing the workers who opted out of the union under Michigan’s new right to work rules saying that it was just a way to educate workers.

In the same way a business owner is paying for “protection” when a mobster demands payment to make sure nothing “happens” to them, thug Roehrig said, “You’re not harassing them. It gives you an indication of who’s paying and who isn’t.”

Of course, sensible human beings would understand that posting these names of workers who opted out of the useless, expensive, and tax-wasting union is meant solely for union members to see who is a “traitor” and so that such employees could be at the least ostracized and at the worst directly targeted for violence–the sort of violence that unions have such a long history of perpetrating.

The story is centered on the list of opted out employees posted by the thugs at the AFSCME Hurley Medical Center Employees Local 1603. The list of employees that opted out of the union was posted there for all union members to see and to get upset about.

Michigan Capitol Confidential spoke to some of the people on that outed list and they all agreed that it was an intimidation tactic. Not just a way to attack them personally, but also a way to warn others who may be thinking of opting out of the union that if they do their names will be posted publicly, too.

One employee told MCC that she quit the union because she has to cut corners on her growing budget and quitting the union saves her $40 a month. “I had to make some tough decisions. I don’t see why I should be punished. Just because I signed an opt-out form, that means I opted out to my right to privacy, too?”

Again, note that AFSCME is a government employees union, the sort of organization that never even existed until the 1960s when states started allowing government workers to unionize. AFSCME is also one of the many reasons that our governments have become bankrupt, why our government pension plans are billions in the red, and why taxes have gone up and up and up all across the land.

These government unions should be eliminated, America. They are destroying this country.

Shortlink:

Posted by on March 4, 2014.
Filed under Barack Obama, Big government, Constitutional Issues, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Liberals, News, Unions.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    “I had to make some tough decisions. I don’t see why I should be punished.

    You are being punished because you are an apostate.

    Because you violated the leftist way and placed your family above the needs of the party. A true believer would have known that the problem is that you aren’t giving enough to the union and that if you gave more to the union then you would ultimately get a bigger paycheck. A true believer would know that the reason you are not getting what you want is because you are not being left wing enough.

    Muslims kill apostates. She should be glad that unions haven’t reached that point yet.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      As they get less and less influence, I figure they’ll be getting more and more extreme until they get slapped down hard.
      Union here at the plant just had a strike vote, to protest the unfair conditions of the new contract. 20% voted to strike – guess the other 80% remembered what happened when they did strike about 10-12 years back, when we did most of the fabrication work in-house. Workers lost about a month’s worth of wages and ended up taking the contract, only to have the company outsource a lot of the fabrication jobs. (Which they weren’t doing too well anyway, lots of rework orders…)
      Of course, the union officials didn’t lose anything. I think the rank and file know the score – which was why the vote failed.

  • ackwired

    If someone thinks they can intimidate me by publicizing my actions, let them. Seems like pretty weak “intimidation”, hardly worthy of the knee jerk thug label.

    • jim_m

      Thuggishness is more about intent than about outcome. Funny how lefties always want to be judged by their intent until they get caught doing something immoral or illegal and then they want to be judged by how successful they were (ie, I wasn’t successful so judge me leniently for my lack of success rather than the ill intent).

      Hypocrites all.

      • ackwired

        Same could be said of “righties”. No difference in the thought patterns of either extreme.

        • jim_m

          I think that it has been pretty well established that the left constantly claims that they should not be held to account for the unintended consequences of their crappy policies because they were trying to do something good.

          This is why the left constantly demands that we “do something for the children!” because only by claiming some irrational “good intent” can they get cover for the negative consequences of their policies.

          As CS Lewis stated

          “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

          This perfectly encapsulates today’s left. It doesn’t matter what oppression they institute, they did it for our good.

          • ackwired

            I don’t think it is valid to say that you either need to live under the tyrannies of the robber barons or the tyranny of the do-gooders. Both extremes are oppressive. Forcing people to choose between only two alternatives is another form of tyranny. There is always a third, better alternative and usually more. We don’t have to settle for over- regulation nor non-regulation of the robber barons. Corporate officials need to consistently do what maximizes shareholder value. Our government is responsible to create an environment in which Corporations acting to maximize shareholder value will benefit the maximum number of citizens.

          • jim_m

            You missed the point that you and the rest of the left seek to impose tyranny based on the claim that you believe that you are acting in the best interest of others.

          • ackwired

            Back up, wait 30 seconds and re-read what I wrote. If you are reading it correctly, you will see that I am in agreement with that point (about what the leftists believe, not what I believe). What you missed is that both conservatives and liberals are simply looking at the regulation question from the wrong frame of reference. Therefore both are wrong and talking past each other.

          • jim_m

            No. I think I understood you. The point is not that some regulation is beneficial. It is. The point is that the left regulates from the standpoint of the notion that they are doing others a favor so it is nearly impossible for them to draw a line on where to stop.

            The whole ideology of the left is premised upon the idea that people are incapable of making good decisions for themselves so the government must make those decisions for them. But the government is not composed of super intelligent people. More often then not government is composed of the bottom half of the intelligence bell curve. So we get the stupid people making decisions for everyone but feeling morally superior because they make these horrible decisions for the benefit of others.

            As I have argued with Bruce, it is better to let people make decisions for themselves because even if some people get it wrong, some will get it right and that is more than happens when the government gets it wrong for everyone, which is nearly always.

          • ackwired

            I didn’t really expect you to hear me, and I know you won’t listen to this either. Jim, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT THE LEFT. That simply does not make your right wing arguments correct. Both you and the left completely misunderstand the rightful purpose of regulations.

          • jim_m

            Sigh. No I do see the legitimate purpose of regulations and by no means am I one of these false characterizations of the conservative who believes that there ought to be no regulations at all. That is something you have made up all on your own.

            I simply deny that there are any on the left that know when to stop controlling other people’s lives. Unlike a more conservative libertarian viewpoint, which sees regulations as necessary but potentially abusive, the left sees regulations as an end in themselves. Because the left apply regulations on others to determine what they will eat and drink and how much and who will be allowed to sell those things and under what circumstance etc, etc, etc.

            You do so with the fullest belief that you are doing everyone a favor but almost every time you only succeed in making everyone’s life miserable, everyone except yourselves because you have the satisfaction of thinking that you are morally superior and some sainted individual for caring so much for your fellow man that you extend to them your self declared superior wisdom to help them run their lives. But the reality is that you are no wiser and no more likely to choose correctly than anyone else (and more often than not you are less wise and choose more poorly than anyone else).

            As I commented before, the left sees regulations as necessary to help others run their lives. I see regulations as a necessity to ensure quality of what is produced but not as a means to determine what and by whom. Too often regulations are meant as a means to restrict competition in the marketplace.

            You and other leftists are fond of declaring that conservatives want zero regulation. This is a lie and you know it. We want sensible regulation that protects but does not dictate, regulation that serves but does not enslave. The problem is that you see regulation as controlling others lives and in that sense you are correct that we want zero regulation. We want people to be free and not to be your slaves.

          • ackwired

            Between the left and the right, there is a majority of reasonable viewpoints. Looking at only the extreme left or extreme right makes you sound as unrealistic as Limbaugh

          • jim_m

            The bottom line in my comment was that the left’s viewpoint on regulation, that they can improve people’s lives by regulating their behavior, is a slippery slope that inevitably leads to totalitarian control of people’s lives.

            Contrary to that the conservative view, that regulation should be minimal and what is required to maintain certain reasonable standards. The danger here is that things become under regulated but it preserves liberty whereas the left wing view point inevitably destroys liberty.

            The question is which is more important to you? Controlling other people or being free? The left has made clear their choice.

          • ackwired

            Yes, I got that the first time and each successive time. The bottom line in my comment is that the left is wrong and you are wrong. We should base regulations on their pragmatic effect, not upon some abstract moral view.

          • jim_m

            We should base regulations on their pragmatic effect, not upon some abstract moral view.

            How does that differ materially from what I said? I said that regulations should define a minimal level of quality etc., that regulations for the most part should not be dictating choice, and that people should be be left to make informed decisions (whether they make informed decisions or not should not be the subject of regulations).

            I disagree with your statement that it is the government’s obligation to ensure that companies produce the greatest amount of good for the most people. There are companies that specialize in tiny markets, so they benefit only a small customer base. Perhaps you meant to say that government should produce an environment that encourages a multitude of companies that serve the needs of people in multiple ways thus creating the maximum benefit to all. That I would agree with.

            If we look at CE Marking as an example, the regulations are really very simple and our government would do well to emulate them. It literally takes years of additional effort to bring a product to the US where it can be offered in the EU and the rest of the world very easily.

          • ackwired

            I said what I meant.  Corporate managers and officers must do what will result in the greatest shareholder value.  Government regulation should create an environment in which those action are beneficial to the citizenry.  That is quite a different criteria than you recommend.  Yours seems rather foggy and based on moral values.

          • jim_m

            What a load of ideological BS. Since when was it required for corporate execs to be amoral? You don’t need government regulation to make people moral.

            Funny how ignorant lefties are constantly going on about how ” you can’t legislate morality” when it comes to abortion but when it comes to business, legislating your leftist morality becomes the sole purpose of government. Your hypocrisy makes me sick.

            Go look at Apple if you think that execs have to maximize shareholder value. They are spending millions on left wing boondoggles.

            You are completely ignorant.

          • ackwired

            I’m afraid the ideology and ignorance are both yours, JIm. If you have purchased a few stocks you know that certain law firms exist by filing class action suits on behalf of shareholders against corporations and corporation officers who make decisions that do not maximize shareholder value. This is a very common practice. I estimated I receive an invitation to participate in the suit for an average of 1/10 to 1/5 of the stocks I purchase. The suits are always settled out of court (it’s cheaper). But one of my former employers went through one of these and it was very expensive and very time consuming (a real pain in the ass and well worth avoidance). So when you are through throwing up, face reality. It’s not about morality. It’s about reality.

          • jim_m

            Just because they file suit doesn’t mean they are right. Of course you can’t see that because as a far left constituency, the trial lawyers association is by definition always correct.

            I see that you did not look at the Apple shareholder meeting where their idiot CEO told shareholders to F off if they disagreed with his spending millions on bogus climate change window dressing. Where’s your lefty outrage that he isn’t maximizing shareholder value? Just more bullshit hypocrisy from you.

            The fact that it is cheaper to settle these suits than defend against them is a calculation by these parasite lawyers who don’t ever intend to have to try the cases.

            SO this isn’t about reality at all. The lawsuits you cite as proof are only proof of a corrupt legal system that is built for the benefit of corrupt lawyers and no one else.

            CEO’s do have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. They must balance short term vs long term gains. What the left wants is to use the system to force them into focusing on short term gains and then to crucify them for ignoring long term gains. If you don’t like the way that CEO’s run their companies you have only yourselves to blame.

            The average CEO wants to run the company to balance both short and long term gains but lefty lawyers want to sue them so they only focus on the short term. Idiots like you are too uneducated to understand how business is really run.

          • ackwired

            You poor blind fool. The suits are not offered as proof of anything. They are the cause. I realize that telling you for the fifth time that I am not saying that the corporate officers are “bad” or “immoral” will simply be ignored again by you. But if you could ever just peek around those blinders of your left vs. right paradigm, you could get a glimpse of reality. I know it won’t happen. You seem to have a need to prove that everyone who does not see the world your way is evil.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          It could be said. Especially given that the left has no compunction about lying as long as it serves their purpose.

    • Jwb10001

      So if this tactic doesn’t threaten you it shouldn’t threaten anyone? Do you work in a union shop or in a shop that is under union pressure? If so is everyone that opposes union membership so sure that they are not in any jeopardy for opposing unionization? If you’re not in this situation I’d suggest you don’t know if it’s intimating or not.

  • rufedup2

    Public Worker unions are gutting every town, city, county, state and federal budget in this country. Unions are responsible for rising taxes to support ludicrous pensions and benefits in the public sector. Private unions have destroyed many US industries by forcing companies to seek foreign labor to remain competitive. The US auto industry faced bankruptcy – compliments of the UAW – and was bailed out by every tax payer.
    So the next time you pay your taxes or buy union made products, think about where your money is going. Then call your congressman and ask them what they plan to do to stop the bleeding.