# Look for the union label **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 2, 2012, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644 "2012-11-02T09:20:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/41 "2012-11-02T22:27:11Z")
Let’s think logically here,k everybody, what’s more likely? That the current reports of crews not being turned away are true, or that the original report is true and that Obama’s band of Chicago thugs has twisted arms, doled out big wads of cash and threatened to break kneecaps if they didn’t change their tune? Occam’s Razor, people! ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/42 "2012-11-02T22:44:38Z")
I think the lizard people might have gotten to the news network that originally broke the story… ---
**Author:** ![Erdosain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/erdosain/32/7284_2.png) [@Erdosain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erdosain)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/43 "2012-11-02T22:57:24Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Bricker appears to have been full-on wrong on this one, so it’s easy to jump on the pile and call him an idiot, but I don’t think it’s fair to cast him as a stupid ideologue. We all have a tendency to believe news that supports our worldview, and this wasn’t some blog post, it was an actual news story reported by an actual news outlet. I can’t say I wouldn’t have repeated a story about Mitt Romney being awkward and out of touch if it showed up on KRON, and I doubt many of you can either. I will agree to this IF he has the balls to come back into the thread and say, “Whelp, I really screwed the pooch on this one. Sorry!” I get that he is (or should be) embarrassed at being fooled by a false news story, but he’s got to put on his big boy pants and own up to it. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/44 "2012-11-02T22:58:41Z")
I think the Alabama crew may have stopped for…refreshment(?)…on the way and needed to come up with a plausible story. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/45 "2012-11-02T23:20:55Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > \*Then \*we can shit on him mercilessly. Literally! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/46 "2012-11-02T23:36:57Z")
> [@leftfield6](#): > > See, here is the thing. That story just _sounds_ like something that should be suspect. It just _sounds_ like a story that needs more evidence. > > Before starting this thread, a few hours of _“hmm, I wonder if the entire story is out, maybe I should hold off on posting until, you know, those things like facts, a corroborating source, or even a contradictory source, come forth”_ would have been a good idea. > > Now here we are, 6 hours or so after your regurgitation of an unsubstantiated story, and there are still no sources other than WAFF’s sensational report. It was not unsubstantiated. You may not trust the substantiation, but that doesn’t transform it into non-existence. ---
**Author:** ![Erdosain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/erdosain/32/7284_2.png) [@Erdosain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erdosain)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/47 "2012-11-02T23:39:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It was not unsubstantiated. You may not trust the substantiation, but that doesn’t transform it into non-existence. Is that seriously all you want to say right now? Do you think if you wait long enough this story will turn factual at some point? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/48 "2012-11-02T23:50:38Z")
He’ll be back when he finds that non-union guy who didn’t get a reach around. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/49 "2012-11-02T23:55:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It was not unsubstantiated. You may not trust the substantiation, but that doesn’t transform it into non-existence. If that’s all you’ve got to say then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/50 "2012-11-02T23:59:17Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Pretty much all of the above. > > It’s pretty sad when a SDMB poster falls for a load of crapola hook line and sinker. Especially when the story basically turns out to be more or less the opposite of that intended; > > Instead of mean old unions refusing an offer of help, it turns out that mean old anti-union folks refused to work. > > Pathetic knee-jerk posting there **Bricker**. Keep up the good work. Keep up this level of fact-checking and there may be a position at FOXNews for you. I’m willing to acknowledge that the story was not as egregiously toxic as the report I quoted – in good faith, I might add – led readers to believe. But even the revised story is not fairly summarized by “mean old anti-union folks refused to work.” They were asked to affiliate with a union, and they didn’t want to. It’s now unclear to me if they were then told they could not work, or if they assumed incorrectly that affiliating was necessary. But if affiliating with a union was necessary to render emergency aid, I stand by my point: that’s toxic. If, on the other hand, that assumption was incorrect, then I was headstrong and foolish to accept it on the basis of one source. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/51 "2012-11-03T00:10:38Z")
Forget it Jake, it’s **Bricker** town. (Sorry, I just HAD to do that. It just popped into my head. Carry on) ---
**Author:** ![leftfield6](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leftfield6/32/18780_2.png) [@leftfield6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leftfield6)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/52 "2012-11-03T00:23:01Z")
Unsubstantiated. I stand by that. adjective 1. not substantiated; unproved or unverified: unsubstantiated allegations. 2. being without form or substance. Weak sauce, bricker. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/53 "2012-11-03T00:32:09Z")
> [@](#): > > They were asked to affiliate with a union, and they didn’t want to. It’s now unclear to me if they were then told they could not work, or if they assumed incorrectly that affiliating was necessary. But if affiliating with a union was necessary to render emergency aid, I stand by my point: that’s toxic. What do you suppose “affiliating with a union” means in this case? I don’t know, and neither do you, what was in the paperwork they were sent. D’ya suppose that by signing that paperwork, they would then have to pay dues to the NY/NJ unions they were tied to in perpetuity and have to register in their own state as a “union shop”? Does that even sound reasonable? Do you suppose that by signing the paperwork that they would be agreeing, while they were working in NJ, to abide by certain safety standards and quality standards? Perhaps someone more familiar with such agreements could weigh in here, but given some of the quotes by the NJ workers, that seems like a possibility. > [@](#): > > If, on the other hand, that assumption was incorrect, then I was headstrong and foolish to accept it on the basis of one source. You were headstrong and foolish to accept it on the basis of one source regardless of the truth, and I’m sure you know that. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/54 "2012-11-03T00:37:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m willing to acknowledge that the story was not as egregiously toxic as the report I quoted – in good faith, I might add – led readers to believe. > … If, on the other hand, that assumption was incorrect, then I was headstrong and foolish to accept it on the basis of one source. Thank you. I’m impressed. Not a strong one, but a heartfelt admission nonetheless. I retract my earlier accusation of “ignorant partisanship”. Now, if you investigate whether your assumption was incorrect, and check back in, I’ll mail you a beer. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/55 "2012-11-03T00:41:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m willing to acknowledge that the story was not as egregiously toxic as the report I quoted – in good faith, I might add – led readers to believe. That’s mighty big of you, **Bricker**. Your magnanimity is simply breathtaking. > [@Bricker](#): > > But even the revised story is not fairly summarized by “mean old anti-union folks refused to work.” They were asked to affiliate with a union, and they didn’t want to. What is “affiliate”? The IBEW is on record saying they never, ever rejected aid from non-union groups, and the original reports that Decatur Utilities were “turned away” were uncatergorically wrong. So tell me, what were these men required to do that would be so against their principles that they wouldn’t help out? > [@Bricker](#): > > It’s now unclear to me if they were then told they could not work, or if they assumed incorrectly that affiliating was necessary. But if affiliating with a union was necessary to render emergency aid, I stand by my point: that’s toxic. What is “affiliating”? I’m curious to know how this backpedaling will go once we find out what exactly was required in the documentation (Documentation that did not, contrary to assertions, come from the IBEW or New Jersey as previously asserted), and I think your take on this “implied affiliation with a union” will prove just as flexible once the facts come out. It’s funny (not funny HaHa) how affiliation never made it into your OP. Let the backtracking begin! > [@Bricker](#): > > If, on the other hand, that assumption was incorrect, then I was headstrong and foolish to accept it on the basis of one source. No, you were headstrong and foolish no matter what. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/56 "2012-11-03T01:23:00Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > If this were the first time Bricker had problems with partisan hackery, I’d be a lot more inclined to cut him slack for making this “mistake”. But it’s not even close to his first time. > > Also, I highly doubt he’s up at 4:00 a.m. in Virginia watching the Huntsville, AL news on WAFF. I think it’s much more likely he found the headline on some partisan site and didn’t question it whatsoever, which, to my mind, is also blameworthy. I think this is the crux of the problem right here. I can’t imagine starting an OP with a news story from a paper I’m not familiar with without checking it out first with a source that I am familiar with. Righty blog hooks **Bricker** and reels him in. Now, having said that, I can’t tell you the number of times one of our lefty posters has done the same sort of thing, and the thread goes on to a full page or more before he gets called on it. There is much to what **Giraffe** said upthread, but it still doesn’t excuse the action. Would that all the poster in this thread were as eager to chastise and ridicule the lefty posters when they do this same thing. ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/57 "2012-11-03T01:39:37Z")
> [@leftfield6](#): > > Unsubstantiated. “Unsubstantiated” is overreaching. It’s perfectly reasonable to call it “Badly Substantiated”, however. Or “BS” for short. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/58 "2012-11-03T01:42:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think this is the crux of the problem right here. I can’t imagine starting an OP with a news story from a paper I’m not familiar with without checking it out first with a source that I am familiar with. Righty blog hooks **Bricker** and reels him in. > > Now, having said that, I can’t tell you the number of times one of our lefty posters has done the same sort of thing, and the thread goes on to a full page or more before he gets called on it. There is much to what **Giraffe** said upthread, but it still doesn’t excuse the action. Would that all the poster in this thread were as eager to chastise and ridicule the lefty posters when they do this same thing. Well, so long as there is Liberal Hypocrisy™ I suppose that makes Bricker not look like a twat. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/59 "2012-11-03T01:44:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m willing to acknowledge that the story was not as egregiously toxic as the report I quoted – in good faith, I might add – led readers to believe. > > But even the revised story is not fairly summarized by “mean old anti-union folks refused to work.” They were asked to affiliate with a union, and they didn’t want to. It’s now unclear to me if they were then told they could not work, or if they assumed incorrectly that affiliating was necessary. But if affiliating with a union was necessary to render emergency aid, I stand by my point: that’s toxic. > > If, on the other hand, that assumption was incorrect, then I was headstrong and foolish to accept it on the basis of one source. Considering your track record with your assumptions in this thread so far, you’ll understand why we won’t engage them further. Your defense that it was in “good faith,” (or in other words, “Well, _ **I’m** _ prepared readily to accept this account of bad behavior because it conforms to my pre-existing political beliefs”) is unavailing. After all, you posted a story that was promptly and easily debunked with minimal googling. That scotches any claim of a “good faith” defense. Until you are prepared to come with allegations that you are willing to stand behind without qualification, I think you should admit you were grossly in error and reproached others for “toxic” behavior. And that imagining, equally baselessly, still more alternative scenarios where you might yet be proven right is only digging yourself deeper. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644/60 "2012-11-03T02:16:21Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Considering your track record with your assumptions in this thread so far, you’ll understand why we won’t engage them further. > > Your defense that it was in “good faith,” (or in other words, “Well, _ **I’m** _ prepared readily to accept this account of bad behavior because it conforms to my pre-existing political beliefs”) is unavailing. After all, you posted a story that was promptly and easily debunked with minimal googling. That scotches any claim of a “good faith” defense. > > Until you are prepared to come with allegations that you are willing to stand behind without qualification, I think you should admit you were grossly in error and reproached others for “toxic” behavior. And that imagining, equally baselessly, still more alternative scenarios where you might yet be proven right is only digging yourself deeper. Ok. You tell me: what, if anything, happened? I will accept uncritically your version of this story. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-for-the-union-label/639644.md?page=4)