![]() |
Author Archive Send to a Friend Print Version June 9, 2003, 11:30 a.m. The Union Way Punishment-free violence - and the legal loophole that allows it. rmed militants advance their agenda by bombing their opponents' property, assaulting their persons, and even attempting to murder them. This is a case for the Department of Homeland Security, right? Wrong. Though they sometimes resemble terrorists, these non-state actors enjoy legal protection. Federal law lets labor zealots threaten and commit violence that promotes sanctioned union goals. In the 1973 U.S. v. Enmons case, the Supreme Court exempted unions from the 1946 Hobbs Anti-Extortion Act, which forbids the obstruction of interstate commerce through violence or blackmail. Thanks to the Enmons loophole, organized labor can escape federal Hobbs Act prosecution, provided its mayhem furthers "legitimate union objectives," such as higher wages. At least 15 states similarly shield labor brutality. Hence, unions have rained terror upon their enemies, primarily lawful strike-replacement workers and salaried staffers. Unfortunately, those who feel union muscle often remain unavenged. As Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) explains, "the failure of overwhelmed or politically neutralized [local] police and prosecutors to enforce the law against union militants" leaves labor's victims hungry for justice. Also distortive are union donations to elected officials who supervise law enforcement. In an August 6, 1997 letter, for instance, Houston Police Patrolmen's Union president Terry Martin urged his 1,100 members to "help our union brothers and sisters" in a Teamsters's strike against United Parcel Service. Martin asked them to target UPS trucks with non-union drivers. "Go out there and deal with the 'scabs' in the 'zero tolerance' mode that all criminals deserve to be treated with," he wrote. "Whenever the UPS strike ends I will let you know so that we may end our 'zero tolerance' against the 'scabs.'" NILRR has found that victims of union henchmen rarely find justice in local, state, or federal criminal courts. According to media accounts NILRR has analyzed, 2,193 incidents of union violence occurred nationally between 1991 and 2001. Only 62 individuals were arrested and 10 people punished for these promised or actual attacks on people and property, yielding a reported conviction rate of just 0.45 percent. (Events the media missed would boost these figures.) Consider these examples of union impunity: Labor Ready manager Matthew Kahn helped guide replacement workers to Hollander Home Fashions after its Los Angeles-area plant was struck by the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees in March 2001. Ramiro Hernandez and several UNITE organizers allegedly ambushed Kahn on May 18, 2001 in Labor Ready's parking lot. Khan suffered a concussion and multiple head lacerations. According to Women's Wear Daily, Hernandez's lawyers said he was arrested, but all charges against him were dropped. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters was on strike against Overnite Transportation between October 1999 and October 2002. In Overnite's resulting RICO lawsuit against the Teamsters, Memphis-based federal District Court Judge Bernice Donald said that 55 shootings and additional brick and projectile attacks against Overnite's non-striking drivers were "related to attempted murder." 20-year Overnite employee William Wonder was shot in the abdomen while driving a company vehicle near Memphis, Tennessee on December 1, 1999. "Overnite bears a heavy responsibility here," Teamsters president James Hoffa Jr. said in a statement that appeared to capitalize on Wonder's near-fatal injuries. "Overnite can end this strike at a moment's notice with a binding agreement." To date, no one has paid for shooting William Wonder. As David C. Horn, vice president and general counsel of AK Steel Corporation, testified before the House Education and Workforce Committee last September 26, negotiations with the United Steelworkers of America and AK's Mansfield, Ohio plant faltered in March, 1999. A company billboard soon sported a poster that read: Wanted - good reliable small arms, unused explosives (C-4 preferred) names and addresses of all salary employees. Payback time! The following September 25, Horn testified, "two, 1-gallon explosive devices with nails are found on plant property. The fuses had been lit but failed to detonate the devices." After a Molotov cocktail burned beside an oxygen-hauling truck near the facility that October 15, one of two pipe-bombs tossed into the plant exploded the following November 11, luckily injuring nobody. On December 6, 9, and 11, 1999, the home mailboxes of three salaried AK employees exploded. On the 11th, another bomb damaged an S&S Transportation truck that indirectly supplied AK scrap metal, injuring Jamie King of Leesville, Ohio, then 22, who was asleep inside the vehicle. She temporarily ended up on crutches. After additional violence, a union representative anonymously told a reporter for a July 18, 2000 story: AK's "going to get somebody killed by not coming to the [negotiating] table." Rep. Joe Wilson (R., South Carolina) has had enough of this. His Freedom from Union Violence Act would end the Enmons exemption so the feds may prosecute labor hooligans who abandon peaceful union activism for intimidation and carnage. "One element of terrorism is instilling fear in the general public," Wilson says by phone. "This loophole instills fear in the workplace." Wilson, who describes himself as "a National Review Republican," adds: "I don't take this as an anti-union bill. It is an effort to increase safety for union and non-union workers." This is a perfect GOP issue. President Bush and congressional Republicans should offer Democrats this choice: Punish those who pursue union goals by force or polish the brass knuckles of the labor bosses who fill Democratic-campaign coffers. Will compassionate Democrats help stop this savagery, or will they wink at the thuggery practiced by too many unionists? After all, labor gave Democrats $89,882,124 for the 2002 elections, vs. $6,441,332 to Republicans (or 93 vs. 7 percent of donations), reports the Center for Responsive Politics' opensecrets.org campaign-finance database. Unions also gave Democrats generous, undeclared in-kind contributions. This would put Democrats in an incredibly tight spot out of which it would be fascinating to watch them try to wiggle. A vote on Rep. Wilson's measure will show Americans which members of Congress still want federal officials to snooze while union hoodlums bust jaws and send blood spurting across picket lines. - Mr. Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service. "Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Neal, Bluntly; "You're full of ****!" This is sent to you from a non-union person; ME. I was transferred to the NW because of my feeling for a Non-union environment. We started and ran a non-union Refinery. ARCO You have to be out of your "Cotton Picking Mind" to think that the Outsourcing of our Industry is happening to escape "Greed". It is being driven by Greed. The mentality of "Higher Profits", that is the Greed. If you can't see that, then you are one of those people "Blind because you refuse to See!" Be sure that you will see unions blossoming where this greed is taking place. Management Greed is the seed of unionism. The is what they feed on. As they feed and grow, corruption happens. Ole Thom |
108th CONGRESS
2d Session S. 2159 To amend section 1951 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the Hobbs Act), and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES March 3, 2004 Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. KYL, Mr. ENZI, Mr. MCCONNELL, and Mr. NICKLES) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend section 1951 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the Hobbs Act), and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Freedom From Union Violence Act of 2003'. SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY THREATS OR VIOLENCE. Section 1951 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `Sec. 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or violence `(a) PROHIBITION- Except as provided in subsection (c), whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion, or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for a term of not more than 20 years, or both. `(b) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this section-- `(1) the term `commerce' means any-- `(A) commerce within the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States; `(B) commerce between any point in a State, territory, possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; `(C) commerce between points within the same State through any place outside that State; and `(D) other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction; `(2) the term `extortion' means the obtaining of property from any person, with the consent of that person, if that consent is induced-- `(A) by actual or threatened use of force or violence, or fear thereof; `(B) by wrongful use of fear not involving force or violence; or `(C) under color of official right; `(3) the term `labor dispute' has the same meaning as in section 2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(9)); and `(4) the term `robbery' means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his or her will, by means of actual or threatened force or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future-- `(A) to his or her person or property, or property in his or her custody or possession; or `(B) to the person or property of a relative or member of his or her family, or of anyone in his or her company at the time of the taking or obtaining. `(c) EXEMPTED CONDUCT- `(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) does not apply to any conduct that-- `(A) is incidental to otherwise peaceful picketing during the course of a labor dispute; `(B) consists solely of minor bodily injury, or minor damage to property, or threat or fear of such minor injury or damage; and `(C) is not part of a pattern of violent conduct or of coordinated violent activity. `(2) STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTION- Any violation of this section that involves any conduct described in paragraph (1) shall be subject to prosecution only by the appropriate State and local authorities. `(d) EFFECT ON OTHER LAW- Nothing in this section shall be construed-- `(1) to repeal, amend, or otherwise affect-- `(A) section 6 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 17); `(B) section 20 of the Clayton Act (29 U.S.C. 52); `(C) any provision of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (29 U.S.C. 101 et seq.); `(D) any provision of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.); or `(E) any provision of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.); or `(2) to preclude Federal jurisdiction over any violation of this section, on the basis that the conduct at issue-- `(A) is also a violation of State or local law; or `(B) occurred during the course of a labor dispute or in pursuit of a legitimate business or labor objective.'. END "Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... In reply; Asking higher wages in an economy that is rising is not greed. GREED is when CEO's go from 1 million a year to 5 or 6 million. Pennies an hour doesn't even approach the greed of the ownership and top management. What in all that's Holy can any individual justify a 8 million dollar a year salary. Greed is to be the only reason When profits go down, Workers, both union and non-union loss money or their job. Upper management take their operation and set up outside our borders BUT not their retail outlets. They want to sell to the better paid people in this country, without having to pay the wages within that market place. That is what your Republic Government has made possible. You must correct your Myopic Vision and look at the total picture. Don't hide behind a alias and take things out of context |
****,
I have to answer Dave's post. Dave, Your story just about answers my opinion in the affirmative. I would with out a doubt want your brother-in-law. They looked after the product First. The product that the market wanted. Rather like Henry Ford or Hersey. If you go back and read my post, I said; "Looked after Both" That is what your brother-in-law has done. By looking at the market AND his product he made a lot of money. He/they were looking to sell Stock. They were looking to sell product. Thank you for the story. A very good example of what I was saying. :^) As a lawyer, I thought you were taught to not ask a question if you weren't sure of the answer (G) Ole Thom-----end of discussion |
Ole Thom, It amazes me how somebody as ancient as you are has failed to learn how the world works. Maybe it's all the alcohol that clouds a once-productive brain? Or, could it be the onset of senility? You make the absurd statement that outsourcing is occurring because of management greed. Duh! Check out management salaries sometimes. They get paid what they are worth and they are worth every penny of it. Companies are not forced to pay high salaries to managers. Companies pay high salaries to managers because they are worth the investment. Just like football players make huge salaries because they are worth every penny of it. The overhead that management represents to a company is small, indeed, compared to bloated and unrealistic union worker wage and benefit packages. The rank and file, by virtue of their far greater numbers, account for the lion's share of the total labor costs. That you parrot the liberal "greedy management" saw indicates to me that you are a liberal and too stupid to know it. That's sad. I hope you read Bob Crantz point about greedy workers. Funny how myopic some folks thinking is. Bwahahhahahahahhahahahahah! You are so naive - so stupid! Ole Thom = Mr. Magoo. You conveniently forget that a company, in order to survive, must operate at a profit and this profit must be higher than monetary investments in stocks and bonds or else the company may as well go out of business, sell its assets and invest in stocks and bonds of profitable companies. (i.e. non-union companies) Like Bob Crantz so truthfully pointed out in another post the profit margins of most companies are not as extravagant as you liberals seem to imagine. There are a few examples such as Microsoft where unions are not allowed and they are rousing success stories. But, on the other hand, some companies run in the red, year after year, and only manage to have a banner year from time to time or they would have gone bankrupt years ago. The airline industry has many examples of this sad state of affairs. The airline industry is also a good example of how labor unions have destroyed their own niche. Their way-too-high costs for salaries, benefit package and retirement package makes established companies such as American and United non-competitive with upstart airlines that have none of the above, union related expense. Get rid of unions, allow free-market economics to take control and we would have pilots making what they are worth, mechanics making what they are worth, flight attendants making what they are worth etc. We would have profitable airlines and cheaper fares. It is clearly and undeniably the union worker's greed and failure to understand that his recompense must be indexed to supply and demand that has caused the outsourcing. Labor unions are anathema to free-market economics as is any other socialist system. When a company looks at labor costs here because of union worker greed and unrealistic expectations and entitlement mentality they rightly throw up their hands and say, "That dog won't hunt!" So, they open a factory overseas or they outsource. Who, in his right mind, other than someone with an entitlement mentality could blame them. After all, they are not charities. They cannot compete in a world economy carrying on their backs greedy and lazy union workers and the carbuncle of the corrupt union bureaucrats. Try to remember that, in a capitalist country, businesses are not welfare agencies. You liberals, with your union worker entitlement mentality, are the direct cause of outsourcing. It is ironic that you liberals holler so loudly about something that is your own doing. It demonstrates to all open-minded people how bereft of logic and intelligence you fools are. Outsourcing demonstrates that, try as you might, you cannot force companies to give you a free ride. Grow up! Learn a little about free-market economics. Oh, before you get much blinder, may I suggest you read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. That tome will show you the light. Don't allow yourself to become one day older without taking steps to educate yourself as to your utter folly. You have been indoctrinated into the liberal party line to such an extent that you blindly parrot their propaganda. Shame on you! No wonder you hardly sail anymore. You're too dumb to realize which way the wind blows. The validity of my original treatise stands. Your feeble attempt proving otherwise, notwithstanding. CN "Thom Stewart" squatted and squeezed out the following: Neal, Bluntly; "You're full of ****!" This is sent to you from a non-union person; ME. I was transferred to the NW because of my feeling for a Non-union environment. We started and ran a non-union Refinery. ARCO You have to be out of your "Cotton Picking Mind" to think that the Outsourcing of our Industry is happening to escape "Greed". It is being driven by Greed. The mentality of "Higher Profits", that is the Greed. If you can't see that, then you are one of those people "Blind because you refuse to See!" Be sure that you will see unions blossoming where this greed is taking place. Management Greed is the seed of unionism. The is what they feed on. As they feed and grow, corruption happens. Ole Thom |
Now, THAT"S funny!
"Scout" made sucking sounds: Thom, you are living proof that with age, comes wisdom! Scout |
Dave, how much do you charge for an hour of your expertise?
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:07:17 -0800, (Thom Stewart) said: They want to sell to the better paid people in this country, without having to pay the wages within that market place. Whereas those on the other side of the fence want all of us to have a lower standard of living so they can get a bigger slice of the pie, even if it's a smaller pie. |
Capt. Neal=AE wrote: Ole Thom, My mast is Union made. Its ok, but most likely cost to much. Should I paint it? Joe changing the subject It amazes me how somebody as ancient as you are has failed to learn how the world works. Maybe it's all the alcohol that clouds a once-productive brain? Or, could it be the onset of senility? You make the absurd statement that outsourcing is occurring because of management greed. Duh! Check out management salaries sometimes. They get paid what they are worth and they are worth every penny of it. Companies are not forced to pay high salaries to managers. Companies pay high salaries to managers because they are worth the investment. Just like football players make huge salaries because they are worth every penny of it. The overhead that management represents to a company is small, indeed, compared to bloated and unrealistic union worker wage and benefit packages. The rank and file, by virtue of their far greater numbers, account for the lion's share of the total labor costs. That you parrot the liberal "greedy management" saw indicates to me that you are a liberal and too stupid to know it. That's sad. I hope you read Bob Crantz point about greedy workers. Funny how myopic some folks thinking is. Bwahahhahahahahhahahahahah! You are so naive - so stupid! Ole Thom =3D Mr. Magoo. You conveniently forget that a company, in order to survive, must operate at a profit and this profit must be higher than monetary investments in stocks and bonds or else the company may as well go out of business, sell its assets and invest in stocks and bonds of profitable companies. (i.e. non-union companies) Like Bob Crantz so truthfully pointed out in another post the profit margins of most companies are not as extravagant as you liberals seem to imagine. There are a few examples such as Microsoft where unions are not allowed and they are rousing success stories. But, on the other hand, some companies run in the red, year after year, and only manage to have a banner year from time to time or they would have gone bankrupt years ago. The airline industry has many examples of this sad state of affairs. The airline industry is also a good example of how labor unions have destroyed their own niche. Their way-too-high costs for salaries, benefit package and retirement package makes established companies such as American and United non-competitive with upstart airlines that have none of the above, union related expense. Get rid of unions, allow free-market economics to take control and we would have pilots making what they are worth, mechanics making what they are worth, flight attendants making what they are worth etc. We would have profitable airlines and cheaper fares. It is clearly and undeniably the union worker's greed and failure to understand that his recompense must be indexed to supply and demand that has caused the outsourcing. Labor unions are anathema to free-market economics as is any other socialist system. When a company looks at labor costs here because of union worker greed and unrealistic expectations and entitlement mentality they rightly throw up their hands and say, "That dog won't hunt!" So, they open a factory overseas or they outsource. Who, in his right mind, other than someone with an entitlement mentality could blame them. After all, they are not charities. They cannot compete in a world economy carrying on their backs greedy and lazy union workers and the carbuncle of the corrupt union bureaucrats. Try to remember that, in a capitalist country, businesses are not welfare agencies. You liberals, with your union worker entitlement mentality, are the direct cause of outsourcing. It is ironic that you liberals holler so loudly about something that is your own doing. It demonstrates to all open-minded people how bereft of logic and intelligence you fools are. Outsourcing demonstrates that, try as you might, you cannot force companies to give you a free ride. Grow up! Learn a little about free-market economics. Oh, before you get much blinder, may I suggest you read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. That tome will show you the light. Don't allow yourself to become one day older without taking steps to educate yourself as to your utter folly. You have been indoctrinated into the liberal party line to such an extent that you blindly parrot their propaganda. Shame on you! No wonder you hardly sail anymore. You're too dumb to realize which way the wind blows. The validity of my original treatise stands. Your feeble attempt proving otherwise, notwithstanding. CN "Thom Stewart" squatted and squeezed out the following: Neal, Bluntly; "You're full of ****!" This is sent to you from a non-union person; ME. I was transferred to the NW because of my feeling for a Non-union environment. We started and ran a non-union Refinery. ARCO You have to be out of your "Cotton Picking Mind" to think that the Outsourcing of our Industry is happening to escape "Greed". It is being driven by Greed. The mentality of "Higher Profits", that is the Greed. If you can't see that, then you are one of those people "Blind because you refuse to See!" Be sure that you will see unions blossoming where this greed is taking place. Management Greed is the seed of unionism. The is what they feed on. As they feed and grow, corruption happens. =20 Ole Thom |
"Bob Crantz" wrote
Thom, Help me with my myopia. Apply what you have said to this case: Microsoft. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. He's the CEO of Microsoft. 1. Does a union exist at Microsoft? 2. How many employees of Microsoft have become millionaires thanks to Microsoft? 3. How many layoffs has Microsoft had? 4. How many jobs have Microsoft moved offshore? 5. How many people have become millionaires owning Microsoft stock? 6. Point out 3 examples of greed at Microsoft. Despite their non-union philosophy, Microsoft plans to step up their outsourcing efforts, leaving hundreds, perhaps thousands of non-union American workers jobless within the next year. Microsoft still plans to sell to Americans who've managed to keep a job, but would like low paid Indians to replace spoiled non-union American workers. http://asia.cnet.com/news/systems/0,...9139020,00.htm Scout |
Alwgrip, is it best on the Mast or will any oil base paint be OK?
Thanks Joe |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com