Pot meet kettle!!
[QUOTE=lance strongarm]
Prove that intimidation and yelling are “almost universal” at picket lines.
[/QUOTE]
So do you want to stick on point, a picket line is not “informational picketing”
Or are you going to jump off with another strawman.
More like when the pro-lifers surround an abortion clinic with signs and helpful vocal statements to inform the women walking in.
Small group is a protest. Larger group becomes a picket line that you have to cross while someone screams at you.
And if he had posted three cites, you’d say “That’s THREE incidents. You only proved that there were THREE incidents.” And I suppose if he posted 50 cites, you’d say the same thing. Nice trick, but no one else is fooled by it.
I’ve never seen a picket line that wasn’t intended to subtly intimidate the people who cross it, and I’ve seen lots that overtly intimidate people who cross it, often with violence to their vehicles or verbal threats.
As for voting for your union leaders… Politicizing the workplace sucks. We are politicizing far too much of our daily lives as it is. Putting matters in the realm of the political pits people against each other and creates a whole ‘grievance’ industry where agitators attempt to convince people that the ‘other side’ needs to be kicked out before their lives get better. It makes people cheap and small and mean. It’s one of the worst things about a large government, and bringing that same mentality into the work place is not a good thing, in my opinion.
Looking around at videos, I’m seeing some intimidating behavior, but I’m seeing a lot more of what I would call shaming behavior. Is shaming behavior objectionable?
Three sites also would not be a significant cite. Nor would 50. As long as we’re looking at videos intended to show intimidation or otherwise unacceptable behavior, we’ve got the very definition of a “skewed sample” and we have literally no reason to draw any conclusion at all.
Who knows of anyone who has looked at a wide variety of picket lines–a randomized, representative sample–and rated them for the kind of behavior you guys are talking about?
If no one has done this, then we are literally at square one. We haven’t even begun to gather evidence.
“We want them to feel ashamed. We do not want them to feel unsafe.” If this were one slogan by which unions shaped whatever guidelines they offer their members for picket line behavior, would it make all you guys (both sides) happy?
Hey, jtgain, I appreciate your very gracious reply. I admit I was nervous when I posted what I posted, because it’s never exactly nice and polite to question someone’s interpretation of their own attitude-shaping experiences. Thank you for taking what I said seriously and giving it some serious thought. I accept what you’re saying.
The bus driver may just be one of those guys who smiles when he’s nervous, but other than that, I am finding I must simply suspect that people (even teachers!–who I generally idolize, so this is hard for me to think about) can be worse asses than I assume.
It’s not a trick.
He said “almost universal.” That requires more than one, or 3, or 50. It requires at least 90%, I’d say.
You can’t be serious. You object to democracy in unions? Should we have dictators instead of elected union leaders? Does that go for our government too?
You’re getting desperate.
Of course it is, sometimes. What is your point?
The point of picketing, even in a strike, is not violence. That’s a crock of hooey.
Please stop. You’re throwing wild accusations out and then expecting others to shoot them down. It’s silly.
You have failed to posit a single reason except for intimidation that a picket line would exist.
They are basically allowed said threats of violence due to United States v. Enmons.
[
](http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/freedom-union-violence)
Note these are actual ACTS, reported to the NRLB not threats.
[
](National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Big Labor’s Top Ten Special Privileges - National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation)
I do not agree with the stances of the previous cites, but you have nothing but your flat denial on your side, you have provided not a single rebuttal that amounted more than a child yelling “NO”
So if it is so easy to find go provide it or concede that you have no evidence that the threat of violence is not an almost universal tool used by unions.
Despite your loud voice you have contributed nothing to show your point of view is real. Why not educate us if my claim is so wrong?
Enough already.
You’re a guy sitting behind a computer who doesn’t know what you’re talking about who is trying to justify his own prejudices.
False.
This decision does not make violence, or threats, legal.
Gee, right wing anti-union sites. There’s your problem right there.
I’ve explained why you are wrong already. You are failing miserably at logic. Others have noted this.
Enough.
You cannot assert something and then demand that someone disprove it. That is a logical fallacy.
Enough.
Me too.
And if someone asked whether the public narrative about the pro-life cause was advanced or hindered by such “corridors of shame,” I would readily acknowledge that it was hindered.
YOU shifted the goalpost!
You are really confused.
I am reminded of Poe’s Law.
There are actually some examples of good unions here, and I said before that I would have joined one had I not decided to move on to bigger and better things. Unfortunately these don’t make for exciting news. The bad stuff does, and defending it just fans the flames.
No, you can’t.
The claim was that violence is “almost universal” in picket lines. There is nobody whose personal experience with picket lines is universal - nobody has seen them all.
Nobody said there is no intimidation or threats. Of course that happens. I don’t deny that.
There is intimidation from management too.
That’s nice.
A teacher was a dick? Wow.
People are dicks sometimes. Anecdotes prove nothing. I can come up with all kinds of stories about teachers who are dicks, NOT while doing union business - does that make all teachers dicks?
Anecdotes are interesting, but they prove nothing.
Every strike I’ve seen has involved intimidation against scabs. Every single one. Now I haven’t seen 90% of them on the planet but I know what I’ve seen locally. Maybe you don’t consider intimidation a violent act.
We’re not discussing what teachers or any other union folks do while NOT on union business.
lance - you are now becoming the worst sort of Union promoter. Your complete unwillingness to see that the actions of some union members has hurt their cause only adds to the negative view that people have of unions. By refusing to see that there are picket lines that go beyond protest, that there are members that commit illegal acts, and that there are individual actors who would yell a school aged girl - you hurt the union cause.
I am personally ambivalent. My father was a Teamster in Chicago before he left for Vietnam, so I was raised in a pro-union household. My grandfather was one of the early organizers of the teacher’s union in California, and a negotiator for them at the table back when actual workers represented each other instead of paid union staff. My mother was in the nurse’s union.
But all of them were willing to call out their fellow members when they crossed the line. My grandfather would not have reacted to a teacher with a simple “wow.” He would have take that particular teacher out behind the shop class and ensured that they never again stepped over the line.
That shit should not be tolerated, excused, or ignored. By doing so, you only add ammo to the anti-union side by showing that you don’t care.
Either pick up your game, or stop hurting the cause you appear to want to support.