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

Ole Thom has periods of lucidity. His reply to your post was not one of them.

CN


"Dave" wrote in message ...
Thom,

Sorry, but I'm totally confused by your answer. What does a brother-in-law
have to do with it? The story was about my father-in-law and his brothers.
And nobody was involved in selling stock. These were private businesses. As
a result, I can't make head nor tale of your message.



On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:20:22 -0800, (Thom Stewart) said:

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

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