Labor Day has become a celebration of laborers and workers everywhere. And while we treat Labor Day as a day to honor workers, perhaps a day to celebrate workplace protections – and some take it as a day to extoll (or attack) organized labor and unions, perhaps we ought to treat Labor Day more like we do Memorial Day or Veterans Day.
You see, most of the protections that we take for granted today – the eight-hour work day, the 40-hour week, work place protections and collective bargaining – were achieved literally at gun point, stained in blood, in battles that were not all that different from the battles we celebrate in war.
We often hear terms like “scab” and “strike breaker” without a true understanding of how the words originated and the fact that companies and even the government would bring in replacement workers and the militia to literally break the strikes.
Perhaps the most deadly of all strikes in American History was the Southern Colorado Coal Strike, which lasted from September of 1913 to December of 1914.
The strike, organized by the United Mine Workers, took place against the major coal mining companies in Colorado, most notably the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company owned by John D. Rockefeller.
The biggest attack was the Ludlow Massacre, an attack by the Colorado National Guard which was said to be controlled by Rockefeller and the Fuel and Iron Company’s camp guards, who attacked a tent colony of roughly 1200 striking workers and their families in Ludlow, Colorado, April 20, 1914.
The result was the violent deaths of between 19 and 25 people, including two women and 11 children.
Over the next ten days, the miners armed themselves and attacked numerous mines, destroying property and engaging in armed skirmishes with the Colorado National Guard. Leaders of organized labor issued a call to arms and union officials would distribute arms and munitions to strikers.
Historians claim that the entire strike cost between 69 and 199 lives. However, it was a failure for labor. The union ran out of money and ended the strike at the end of 1914. The strikers would fail to get their demands – they did not gain recognition and most of the striking workers were replaced.
Hundreds were arrested and at least 332 were indicated for murder. However, according to one source, only John Lawson, the leader of the strike, would be convicted and his sentence would be overturned by Colorado’s Supreme Court.
Despite these failures, many have called the Ludlow Massacre a watershed moment for American labor relations.
Howard Zinn, a leftist historian known for his work, A People’s History Of The United States, would call the Ludlow Massacre “the culminating act of perhaps the most violent struggle between corporate power and laboring men in American history.”
The ultimate victory, however, would be won by the workers, not on the battlefield, but in Washington. John D. Rockefeller, Jr (as opposed to Sr. who was particularly unrepentant, telling the commission that despite knowing that guards on his payroll had committed atrocities, he would have taken no action to prevent them from attacking the strikers) ultimately worked with labor relations experts to help develop reforms, and many of these were ultimately handed down by the US Congress.
A commission conducted hearings in Washington, DC in 1916 and their report led the way for bills that established an eight-hour work day and a ban on child labor.
A few years earlier in Lawrence, Massachusetts, 30,000 textile workers walked off their job and, for nine weeks, engaged in a bitter battle with authorities as workers would march, picket, and violently clash in what became known as the Bread and Roses Strike of 1912.
According to an article by Christopher Klein at the History.com site, “The power looms that thundered inside the cotton weaving room of the Everett Mill in Lawrence, Massachusetts, suddenly fell silent on January 11, 1912. When a mill official demanded to know why workers were standing motionless next to their machines, the explanation was simple: ‘Not enough pay.’ “
The workers averaged about $8.76 per week in pay and the company was announcing that wages would be reduced by 32 cents. Mr. Klein writes, “For workers who only averaged $8.76 per week, every penny was precious, and 32 cents made the difference between eating a meal or going hungry.”
He writes, “In spite of arctic temperatures, bad blood boiled over. Knife-wielding strikers overwhelmed security gates and slashed machine belts, threads and cloth. They tore bobbins and shuttles off machines. Through the falling snow, rioting workers shattered windows with bricks and ice, and police beat them back with billy clubs. By the end of January 12, more than 10,000 workers were out on strike.”
His account continues: “Picket fences of state militiamen protected the massive brick mills with the spears of their bayonets pointed squarely at the picket lines of strikers who protested outside. Women didn’t shy away from the protests. They delivered fiery rally speeches and marched in picket lines and parades. The banners they carried demanding both living wages and dignity – ‘We want bread, and roses, too’ – gave the work stoppage its name, the Bread and Roses Strike.”
Lawrence at that time was known as Immigrant City, with citizens from 51 nations confined to the seven squares miles of the city.
The mill owners and city leaders would borrow tactics of other strikebreaking operations, with men hired with the specific intent of fomenting trouble, which included dynamite that was planted in an apparent attempt to discredit the strike.
Mr. Klein writes, “That afternoon, as police battled strikers, an errant gunshot struck and killed Anna LoPizzo. The following day, 18-year-old John Ramey died after being stabbed in the shoulder by a soldier’s bayonet.”
The families would then attempt to get their children out of the city, sending them to Manhattan to live with relatives or even complete strangers willing and able to provide food and shelter.
Writes Mr. Klein: “A cheering crowd of 5,000 greeted the children at Grand Central Terminal, and after a second trainload arrived from Lawrence the following week, the children paraded down Fifth Avenue. The ‘children’s exodus’ proved to be a publicity coup for the strikers, and Lawrence authorities intended to halt it. When families brought another 46 children bound for Philadelphia to the city’s train station on February 24, the city marshal ordered them to disperse. When defiant mothers still tried to get their children aboard the train and resisted the authorities, police dragged them by the hair, beat them with clubs and arrested them as their horrified children looked on in tears.”
It was the reaction to this attack that marked the turning point, and the President himself called upon his attorney general to investigate.
Mr. Klein notes: “Striking workers, including children who dropped out of school at age 14 or younger to work in the factories, described the brutal working conditions and poor pay inside the Lawrence mills. A third of mill workers, whose life expectancy was less than 40 years, died within a decade of taking their jobs. If death didn’t come slowly through respiratory infections such as pneumonia or tuberculosis from inhaling dust and lint, it could come swiftly in workplace accidents that took lives and limbs. Fourteen-year-old Carmela Teoli shocked lawmakers by recounting how a mill machine had torn off her scalp and left her hospitalized for seven months.”
This testimony would turn the public tide in the strikers’ favor. The mill owners finally cut a deal and acceded to many of the workers’ demands.
The two sides agreed to a 15-percent wage hike, a bump in overtime compensation and a promise not to retaliate against strikers.
This would not be just a victory for Lawrence workers, because by the end of it, over a quarter million of textile workers in New England would gain similar concessions, and other industries would follow suit.
This year marks the 100-year anniversary of the Lawrence strike and, according Mr. Klein’s account, the city is hosting special commemorations including some today during its annual Labor Day festival.
We need to remember as we celebrate today, that the history of labor strife in America is not what is often depicted in popular accounts. The protections that we have in place today were often achieved with the blood and toil of countless nameless people in our history.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Over the next ten days, the [b]minors[/b] would arm themselves and attack …[/quote]Think you might have Ludlow confused with Columbine….
It seems to me that one smart political choices the US labor movement did in embracing Labor Day on the first Monday in September was to disassociate itself from May Day, which, if I recall my history, was created by the Second Commmunist International in Europe, memorializing the May riots in Chicago’s Haymarket Square. The other smart move by US labor in this regard was to generally take on a centrist, albeit left-of-center point of view, one that fit in better with American politics than a more lefty, communist-type movement would have.
That said, US organized labor (other than government workers) has been in a steep decline for many years. I think in a few industries (notably autos), the unions played a part in their own demise (in that case by adopting work-rules which badly hurt productivity and by requiring excessively expensive retirement packages). But I think in most areas, the faults were with bad management (including autos), or with technological changes which replaced workers with machines or allowed workers in poor countries to take their jobs, or with national and global competition, which largely did not exist when US unions were at their peak.
[img]http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/3479/uniont.jpg[/img]
I don’t expect government sector unions, Wisconsin notwithstanding, to decline the same way. However, I do think the next 10 years, maybe even 20 years, will mark a period of loss of power for unions vis-a-vis local and state governments.
[quote]We often hear terms like “scab” and “strike breaker” without a true understanding of how the words originated and the fact that companies and even the government would bring in replacement workers and the militia to literally break the strikes.[/quote]
I’ve been a “scab” and experienced first hand what union tactics are like. I am not particularly in favor of unions based on my experience w them. IMO unions are less necessary, many have become too powerful, and as a result some are bankrupting this country. If unions were more reasonable, less militant against those who disagreed w them, I might feel differently…
Interesting reminder of some of our county’s important history. Nice article. We need to remember how dedicated union members risked So much to help bring reasonable pay and improved safety and other working conditions to the poorest and most mistreated workers in the country.
The movements also get just credit for their roles in our laws and agencies that assure continuing improvements in workplace conditions and worker treatment.
(I once walked through a picket line during a strike, something I probably wouldn’t do now that I know how critical it is for the public to support those standing up for worker grievances. Forgive me though, I was only 10 at the time and was accompanying my mother who had crossed the line to help her father–the local phone company’s manager–keep the community telephone system operating during the short-lived strike. It was a fun diversion for my sister and me, and non-violent since since everyone involved in the small town phone operation knew and respected each other.)
My own participation (required membership in a newspaper guild) was a positive one as well. The union handled the collective bargaining responsible for cost-of-living pay increases and incremental benefits improvements as the company’s fortunes improved, nothing too serious.
Given all our advances, however, I wonder about the need for unions today, particularly public worker unions and, more particularly, public safety employee unions.
The Davis firefighters union operation isn’t unique in exploiting public appreciation for those who risk their lives for the rest of us and in taking advantage of weak government leadership. Of course, it’s hardly just unions that buy off our elected leaders.
But, why should taxpayers continue to accept featherbedding masquerading as a safety consideration, pay and benefit bonanzas that far exceed that needed to recruit quality workers and retirement programs that essentially force out employees only halfway through their working lives?
In these cases, the greed and selfishness of public safety unions are killing the jobs of their less-favored public worker colleagues.
Could these brave folks and martyrs from a century ago even have conceived that the union movement could come to its current state?
“I’ve been a “scab” and experienced first hand what union tactics are like.”
Perhaps you’ll be a little more understanding having read the history of why you might have been treated as you were.
“The Davis firefighters union operation isn’t unique in exploiting public appreciation for those who risk their lives for the rest of us and in taking advantage of weak government leadership. Of course, it’s hardly just unions that buy off our elected leaders. “
I think both of these points are good ones. For me, there is a huge difference between fighting for people making just over $8 a week and those making $170,000 to $200,000 in total compensation. I’m a union guy, I grew up in a union household, and have been a member myself, I actually find it abhorrent that the firefighters are using unions to advance their own wealth.
[i]”The (workplace) protections that we have in place today were often achieved with the blood and toil of countless nameless people in our history.”[/i]
No doubt this is true.
One other important change not brought up in your piece, which has greatly improved working conditions for American workers but had nothing to do with strikes or organized labor, is with civil litigation claims. Many of us, myself included, may decry the excesses and abuses of plaintiffs’ lawyers who are willing to sue over any perceived harm done to a client, but the truth is these lawsuits have done a great deal to make workplaces safer.
If you have ever worked in a factory–it’s been a long time, but I have–or in any sort of workplace where chemicals are used or the labor is in the least bit physical, your employer will go to great lengths to make sure “safety is job one.” They don’t do so for fear of breaking OSHA standards or because they care all that much about your bodily health. What motivates employers is the fear of a lawsuit if a worker gets hurt. Between their insurance costs (for lawyer bills) and increases in workers’ comp costs, employers have a great incentive to protect their workers.
Before these suits, it was common for factory workers to be exposed to foul air which may lead to long-term breathing problems or cancer. But now, employers uniformly will have good ventilation systems in place and will provide good quality air masks (or more) to make sure their workers’ lungs are not compromised. It costs them far less to have safety equipment and other systems in place than the potential costs of defending themselves in lawsuits.
One big exception to this safety-first rule is with industries where the workers are largely illegal aliens who rarely will be in a position to sue their employers. That alone is a good reason why we need to better regulate our immigrant labor pool ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/the-end-of-illegal-aliens/[/url]).
[quote]Perhaps you’ll be a little more understanding having read the history of why you might have been treated as you were.[/quote]
I don’t think there was any excuse for me being treated the way I was…
“I don’t think there was any excuse for me being treated the way I was…”
Really? You don’t see that you were a threat to other people’s livelihood as a strike breaker and recognize that you put yourself whether knowingly or inadvertently into the line of fire? The history was that strike breakers were used to put down strikes – through violent means. You inserted yourself into that history.
A point that has not yet been addressed. Sometimes strikes are, at least in part, about the well being of those other than just the unionized employees or the company. One example from my own experience is the nurses union striking in part for lower patient to staff ratios. This is a patient safety concern that those who do not have experience with hospitals frequently do not see. Most patient’s just assume that the doctors and hospitals have the best interest of the patient in mind and will have adequate staff to take care of them adequately. This is not necessarily the case, since hospitals are business organizations and are looking towards their financial bottom line. They are frequently walking a very fine line between saving money by not overstaffing vs risking negligent care and thus incurring legal costs for “bad outcomes”.
One such strike took place while I was a resident in Ob/Gyn at Santa Clara. While as a doctor, I would never consider striking, I did have a great deal of sympathy for the striking nurses and ancillary workers whom I could see were plainly expected to do too much for too many patients. Despite the fact that I like all the other doctors, crossed the picket line daily, I was treated very well by the strikers who would walk a block out of their way to escort me in so that I would not be hassled by anyone who did not know my situation.
Since my individual experience with strikers, both in terms of goals and individual treatment is very different from what Elaine’s experience appears to have been, I am much more supportive of unions in general. However, I agree that there is a huge difference between enriching one’s self by demanding ever greater concessions, and demanding a living wage and benefits, or promoting the well being of a third party. I think it is our job as a society to admit that a middle ground still exists, stop pointing fingers and blaming, and work to promote that middle ground.
“Sometimes strikes are, at least in part, about the well being of those other than just the unionized employees or the company. One example from my own experience is the nurses union striking in part for lower patient to staff ratios. This is a patient safety concern that those who do not have experience with hospitals frequently do not see.”
Unions demands often are emphasized in terms of how they could affect the rest of us (better treatment, increased safety), rather than their impact on the workers and the unions themselves (increasing worker numbers and pay, fewer hours, lowered standards for disability retirement benefits). This seems very legitimate from both publicity and reality standpoints.
How did you feel about the large, recent nurse strike? Should certain groups be prohibited from refusing to do their jobs? Air traffic controllers and other critical public safety workers jump to mind. How about nurses and doctors? Or, should certain professions simply refuse to consider striking as a matter of their own standards?
JustSaying
[quote]How did you feel about the large, recent nurse strike? Should certain groups be prohibited from refusing to do their jobs? Air traffic controllers and other critical public safety workers jump to mind. How about nurses and doctors? Or, should certain professions simply refuse to consider striking as a matter of their own standards?
[/quote]
Excellent questions for which I have no easy answers. I am not conversant enough with the issues involving the recent nursing strike to make a judgement on merits.
Fortunately, I have never faced the situation where my own situation or that of my patients was so dire as to strike. However, several years before I arrived at the hospital at which I worked for two years in Arizona, the medical director was faced with such a situation. Despite multiple requisitions, orders, and pleas, the hospital had not been supplied with IVs. When he was informed that they were down to less than a couple of days supply, with no delivery anticipated, the director began transferring patient’s to other hospitals and shut the hospital down pending receipt of adequate stocks. He did not close the ER. This was in effect a medical strike and had the anticipated effect of getting the supplies to arrive within 24 hours. Most circumstances are less dramatic and so it becomes a judgement call about when the staff is not making enough money, is not staffed adequately, does not have acceptable ( safe ) work shifts or staffing ratios. My personal feeling is that as a physician, I am obliged to do what I can to help those in need of immediate care in my area of expertise so I would never strike an acute care unit. I am not opposed to “slow downs” so that when there are truly dangerous conditions ( such as not enough IVs) it is possible to remediate the situation without endangering patients by such a dramatic statement as a strike or temporary cessation of non critical functions such as clinic closures while still maintaining critical and acute care units at full staffing.
I recognize that unions may sometimes confound their personal preferences for increased pay or decreased hours with public safety. However, this does not mean that there are not public safety considerations. Again, the devil is in the details of getting the balance right.
David wrote:
> For me, there is a huge difference between fighting
> for people making just over $8 a week and those making
> $170,000 to $200,000 in total compensation.
I’m not a constitutional law expert, but my big problem with Unions (in non “right to work states” like California) is that they can force you to join AND force you to give them money. It does not seem fair that in a “free” country that a union can 1. force you to join and 2. force you to give them money. It seems like anyone that supports the union’s “right” to force people to should also support a business in Utah that “forces” you to join the Mormon Church AND give the church money. I’ve been forced to join two different unions (once when I had a part time job valet parking cars and another for a part time job at radio station) and when you are working part time and making $3.35/hour union dues are a big hit. On the high pay side of things I had a SF Firefighter cousin that was pushing 30 years on the force try and quit the union after he was passed over for promotions by people (from “underrepresented” groups) that scored lower than him on the tests (they would not let him quit). The union that was supposed to “help the worker” just told him to keep quiet and not make a big deal after he put in a ton of time studying for the promotion test and his high score didn’t make any difference.
> I’m a union guy, I grew up in a union household,
> and have been a member myself, I actually find it
> abhorrent that the firefighters are using unions
> to advance their own wealth.
I’m also from a union family (my Grandfather claimed he took some buckshot in the arm for the union on Market Street in the 1930’s when he and others would not back down from the cops). Back in the 1930’s the unions did not need laws to “force” people to join, people wanted to join. If we get rid of the (in my opinion unconstitutional) laws that protect unions we will be back to a more level playing field. If a bunch of skilled machinists go on strike asking for a $5/hour raise they will probably get it, but if the firefighters go on strike asking for a $150K a year raise we should be able to fire all of them and fill the jobs with highly qualified people who would line up 50 deep for every position at half the current pay…
“but my big problem with Unions (in non “right to work states” like California) is that they can force you to join AND force you to give them money. It does not seem fair that in a “free” country that a union can 1. force you to join and 2. force you to give them money. “
That’s not completely true. You can opt out. But there is also a secondary problem here – let us suppose you opt not to join the union, then under most circumstances you get the benefits of the collective bargaining contract, without the costs of membership. So in essence, you have the incentive to free ride.
MW: {i]”Sometimes strikes are, at least in part, about the well being of those other than just the unionized employees or the company. One example from my own experience is the nurses union striking in part for lower patient to staff ratios.”[/i]
Were you to argue that, compared with most other professions, nurses tend to be more magnanimous, I would agree. This may be, for some individuals, at the heart of patient to staff ratio disputes.
However, with nurses’ unions, the issue is far more mundane, far more about money, jobs and power than you may think. When hospitals increase nurse:Patient ratios, they are effectively replacing highly paid nurses with much less well paid aides, orderlies, certified nurse assistants, etc. The hospital may say the result is not just cost-savings, but better staff:Patient ratios, which helps patients. From the nurses’ union’s perspective, this kind of a management decision means more and harder work for their members, less money for their members, and less power for the union. It is for those three reasons that the unions (though not necessarily all nurses) call for strikes regarding nurse:Patient ratios.
From the perspective of the patient, who in our system of employer paid for health insurance, there is no reason to favor any cost savings. The patient does not pay more if he gets more nurses; he does not pay less if the hospital saves money. So the patient, given a choice in the matter, would take more RNs, more LVNs, and more CNAs and more of every type of healthcare professional on the job.
[quote]Really? You don’t see that you were a threat to other people’s livelihood as a strike breaker and recognize that you put yourself whether knowingly or inadvertently into the line of fire? The history was that strike breakers were used to put down strikes – through violent means. You inserted yourself into that history.[/quote]
I had a right to go to work – and a right to carry out my end of an employment contract in which I promised not to strike. My word is my bond. The strikers did not have the right to let the air out of my tires, bang on the hood of my car, spit at me, call me names, wish me ill health and far worse, bring students into the middle of the strike, etc.
[quote]That’s not completely true. You can opt out. But there is also a secondary problem here – let us suppose you opt not to join the union, then under most circumstances you get the benefits of the collective bargaining contract, without the costs of membership. So in essence, you have the incentive to free ride.[/quote]
I did not have the choice of whether to join the union or not – the dues were taken out whether I liked it or not…
“I had a right to go to work – and a right to carry out my end of an employment contract in which I promised not to strike.”
If you took the job knowing that you would be crossing the picket line, then you made an error.
“I did not have the choice of whether to join the union or not – the dues were taken out whether I liked it or not…”
Under California law you have the right to opt out.
[quote]If you took the job knowing that you would be crossing the picket line, then you made an error. [/quote]
I don’t have the right to work where I choose, because it might conflict with an illegal union strike? Really?
[quote]Under California law you have the right to opt out.[/quote]
I was living in MD at the time…
“I don’t have the right to work where I choose, because it might conflict with an illegal union strike? Really? “
You put yourself in a bad situation, just as you would if you exercised your freedom of movement by walking down the wrong street at night.
“I was living in MD at the time… “
So is that even current law in Maryland?
Rifs
[quote]However, with nurses’ unions, the issue is far more mundane, far more about money, jobs and power than you may think. When hospitals increase nurse:Patient ratios, they are effectively replacing highly paid nurses with much less well paid aides, orderlies, certified nurse assistants, etc. The hospital may say the result is not just cost-savings, but better staff:Patient ratios, which helps patients. From the nurses’ union’s perspective, this kind of a management decision means more and harder work for their members, less money for their members, and less power for the union. It is for those three reasons that the unions (though not necessarily all nurses) call for strikes regarding nurse:Patient ratios. [/quote]
Since I have worked with nurses first as a nurses aide starting at age 24, then as a medical student, intern, resident and finally as an attending physician, with many nurses as personal friends as well as coworkers, I think I have quite a good idea of what all is involved in the decision to strike. I don’t dispute that the factors that you quote are not motivators. But I think that your analysis that the work will just get done “effectively” by much lower paid staff makes the assumption that it will be done as well. What you probably do not see which is apparent to me in my role of very low level management, is that some of these duties are beyond the education, training and competency of the individuals being asked to assume these duties. It is not unusual for a medical assistant or LVN to come to me and state that she is not trained adequately or passed competency in a duty she is being asked to assume.
With regard to your statement that the patient has no incentive in our system to control cost, this is true.
However, we are not talking about buying a jacket hand stitched by a seamstress vs machine stitched in a sweat shop, we are talking about our health and sometimes whether or not we will survive. As a strong patient safety advocate, I again believe that there is a fine line between providing cost effective care, and providing care that may cost less, but at the extremely high cost of being less effective. RNs have training, skills and judgement that frequently are not as well developed in LVNs and nursing assistants ( to which I can attest having been in this role) and yet there is a constant downward financial pressure to “do more with less” which I think it a dangerous tendency in the medical field.
I have a somewhat different view of “right to work” based on my family history. My father, a staunch anti union man, rejected a much higher paying job in California than the work he accepted in Washington State because he did not believe that he should be forced to pay into the union ( this was circa 1948) so the rules may have changed. However, the pay was so much lower in Washington, that he had to supplement our family food supply by hunting and fishing. This worked fairly well since he was a great hunter and fisherman and we certainly never lacked for food, if the other amenities were a little lacking, while he was alive. Unfortunately, for some of the poorer folks in the rural town in which I was raised, this “right to work” would have translated into the “right to starve” had it not been for the charity of my dad when the take was good or that of farmers who had a good season. It is not only the unions that have a lock on greed, some companies do as well. I think it is important to understand that there is a balance here between workers making a living wage ( which is not always a priority for their employers) and workers unions essentially using extortion and de facto bribery to maximize their profits. Also it is important to recognize that both unions and lawyers will “buy” political influence where they can. One major difference is that people tend to call them “thugs” when they represent unions but “lobbyists” when they represent businesses.
[quote]”Really? You don’t see that you were a threat to other people’s livelihood as a strike breaker and recognize that you put yourself whether knowingly or inadvertently into the line of fire? The history was that strike breakers were used to put down strikes – through violent means. You inserted yourself into that history.”[/quote]Geez, we start the day honoring heroes and we fall to blaming the victim of union violence because you claim these many years later that she was a “threat to other people’s livelihood”?
This reflects a selfishness and approval of violence that I’ve never sensed in my contacts with union people.
I’m sure glad you weren’t on the line when my Mommy went in to help Grandpa keep the telephones operating. Were my sister and I considered targets, “knowingly or inadvertently into the line of fire”?
It’s important to undertand why that happen JustSaying. The subject of this article was celebrating the accomplishments and honoring the sacrifce of labor. But Elaine couldn’t allow that to stay the topic. Instead she had to make it about her, about how she supposedly was wronged thirty years ago in Maryland. I’m sorry, I don’t have sympathy for her here because she turned the subject from labor into being about Elaine. Now I have never met Elaine, but having red her comments on here, I can’t help but think she probably at least partially brought that upon herself. Oh I know Don, we’re supposed to focus on the issue at hand, but Elaine turned the issue at hand into Elaine and so in my view she deserves whatever criticism she gets.
I wrote:
> My big problem with Unions (in non “right
> to work states” like California) is that
> they can force you to join AND force you to
> give them money. It does not seem fair that
> in a “free” country that a union can 1.
> force you to join and 2. force you to
> give them money. ”
Then David wrote:
> That’s not completely true. You can opt out.
I forgot that in recent years there have been court cases that will allow you go through steps to not “officially” join the union (and brand yourself as a trouble maker that does not want to get with the program), but since you still have to pay union dues (If you push even harder you can get a very small savings on your dues by not paying the “political” portion of the dues) so why would anyone bother to do this.?
> But there is also a secondary problem here –
> let us suppose you opt not to join the union,
> then under most circumstances you get the benefits
> of the collective bargaining contract, without
> the costs of membership. So in essence, you have
> the incentive to free ride.
The Catholic and Mormon churches could use the same argument. They take the money that people voluntarily tithe and work to make the world a better place (this is as debatable as unions actually making the workplace a better place) and care for the poor and people with AIDS, giving the non-believers who are in bed on Sunday mornings a “free ride”. If we are going to let unions force people to pay why not let anyone that works to make things better for a group of people force the group to pay?
I wrote:
> My big problem with Unions (in non “right
> to work states” like California) is that
> they can force you to join AND force you to
> give them money. It does not seem fair that
> in a “free” country that a union can 1.
> force you to join and 2. force you to
> give them money. ”
Then David wrote:
> That’s not completely true. You can opt out.
I forgot that in recent years there have been court cases that will allow you go through steps to not “officially” join the union (and brand yourself as a trouble maker that does not want to get with the program), but since you still have to pay union dues (If you push even harder you can get a very small savings on your dues by not paying the “political” portion of the dues) so why would anyone bother to do this.?
> But there is also a secondary problem here –
> let us suppose you opt not to join the union,
> then under most circumstances you get the benefits
> of the collective bargaining contract, without
> the costs of membership. So in essence, you have
> the incentive to free ride.
The Catholic and Mormon churches could use the same argument. They take the money that people voluntarily tithe and work to make the world a better place (this is as debatable as unions actually making the workplace a better place) and care for the poor and people with AIDS, giving the non-believers who are in bed on Sunday mornings a “free ride”. If we are going to let unions force people to pay why not let anyone that works to make things better for a group of people force the group to pay?
[quote]”Now I have never met Elaine, but having red her comments on here, I can’t help but think she probably at least partially brought that upon herself.”[/quote]True that that’s the argument David’s making–that she put herself in a bad situation, that she choose to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, that she was asking for it by walking on that street, that she needs to understand just why she was assaulted and her property vandalized, that she doesn’t appreciate her attackers and their feelings, that she “made an error” by accepting her job.
It’s pretty much the way we used to discredit people when they were raped, isn’t it? David resisted making any comments about how Elaine dressed at the time, but all the other bases got covered.
I do think you failed to notice that it was David who kept picking at Elaine, trying to draw out more information after her one-sentence “all about Elaine” comment, all the better to ridicule her and justify the way she was treated.
Too bad for Elaine that your only knowledge about her comes from David’s baiting. There’s probable much more to her than the “she must have been asking for it” characterization you’ve read here today.
I’m a little concern that all this effort to justify the union thugs who attacked Elaine might come back to haunt David. How can we be too critical if the firefighters let his house burn down because of his abhorrence of their union and the fact that he’s chosen to threaten their livelihoods by inserting himself this way into union history?
Actually, I think David may have laboring too hard today and, upon getting some rest, will realize the utter offensiveness of the embarrassing exchange with Elaine and offer up a full-throated, unambiguous apology for his unconscionable behavior. Then I’ll agree with you that she’ll deserve what she gets.
JustSaying: Couldn’t disagree with you more. My comment has nothing to do with David’s baiting Elaine. I grew up with my father a teamster and we learned you don’t cross picket lines. You sure as hell don’t take jobs as scabs unless you want to get you butt kicked or worse.
I have read enough Elaine to know:
A. Not to take her account without a huge grain of salt
and
B. To have to wonder how much of her problems she brought on herself.
Don’t believe me, google Elaine Roberts Musser, Senior Citizens, Saylor, and youtube and watch the video. That lady is no victim. That is both too her credit and detriment.
David:
“Under California law you have the right to opt out.”
Being a retired union member in CA you only had the right to opt out for the political portion of your dues which only came to a few bucks. My union would then post in our breakroom a monthly reminder of who those political dues objectors were. Obviously it was for intimidation purposes.
Good morning. This has been quite surprising. It’s not that I didn’t know that there’s a violent side to union history, violence on both sides. But, that’s history. I’m just astonished and disappointed that this behavior against one of us is let stand without apology after a little reflection. I’d thought better.
[quote]Good morning. This has been quite surprising. It’s not that I didn’t know that there’s a violent side to union history, violence on both sides. But, that’s history. I’m just astonished and disappointed that this behavior against one of us is let stand without apology after a little reflection. I’d thought better.[/quote]
I would say it is indicative of the very union tactics/intolerance I’m talking about… 😉
[quote]I grew up with my father a teamster and we learned you don’t cross picket lines.[/quote]
Since when do you have the arbitrary right to take away my right to work?
[quote]Don’t believe me, google Elaine Roberts Musser, Senior Citizens, Saylor, and youtube and watch the video. That lady is no victim. That is both too her credit and detriment.[/quote]
After a lot of soul-searching and many mistakes in my life, I learned how not to be a victim anymore… 😉
Funny how the left always deplores violence except when it benefits one of their causes.
The left is not monolithic. You can find lefties that espouse violence and lefties that deplore violence. And just because members of the left opposed various wars does not make even them all pacifists.
[quote]Funny how the left always deplores violence except when it benefits one of their causes.[/quote]
Yes, union tactics and civil disobedience come to mind… and left unchecked becomes anarchy…
David wrote:
> And just because members of the left opposed various
> wars does not make even them all pacifists.
I’m pretty sure this union guy is not a “pacifist”:
(don’t play the video at work or anywhere that children can hear it)
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/longshoreman-assaults-local-news-crew-with-f-bomb-tirade-nsfw/
“Since when do you have the arbitrary right to take away my right to work? “
You seem to believe you had an arbitrary right to cross the picket line and therefore harm the chances of the other employees succeeding and therefore harming their right to earn a living or improve their working conditions. I fail to see much difference.
[quote]”I would say it is indicative of the very union tactics/intolerance I’m talking about… 😉 “[/quote][i]Au contraire[/i], you’re conflating violent, old history with the David’s comments just yesterday. Ruthlessness usually has a short half life.
What’s really at stake when we’re trying to have a conversation on the [i]Vanguard[/i]? I was surprised at the level of antagonism stirred up an excellent, straight-forward historical account.
[quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mh5aO-gVRw%5B/quote%5D
Surely looks like union boss/organizer to me. In the tradition of James Hoffa and Mother Jones. She very well could have had someone outside slashing Ruth’s and Stephen’s tires while she held them entranced for eight minutes.
Siegel, thanks for the reference. I think I’ll start taking her side in the future.
[quote]You seem to believe you had an arbitrary right to cross the picket line and therefore harm the chances of the other employees succeeding and therefore harming their right to earn a living or improve their working conditions. I fail to see much difference.[/quote]
I do have a [b]legal right[/b] to cross a picket line!
[quote]Surely looks like union boss/organizer to me. In the tradition of James Hoffa and Mother Jones. She very well could have had someone outside slashing Ruth’s and Stephen’s tires while she held them entranced for eight minutes.
Siegel, thanks for the reference. I think I’ll start taking her side in the future.[/quote]
LOL
[quote]Don’t believe me, google Elaine Roberts Musser, Senior Citizens, Saylor, and youtube and watch the video. That lady is no victim. That is both too her credit and detriment.[/quote]
Just so you are aware, had I not given that uTube speech you are referring to in front of the City Council, this city would have no Senior Citizens Commission, and the elderly would have no voice in this city…
On the issue of the balancing of rights, I am not sure what the controversy is here.
Union members have a right to strike to better their conditions ( or those of someone else).
“Right to work” advocates have the right to cross the lines to improve their financial situation.
I don’t think the facts here are in dispute. The problem is ….what happens next.
If the ” bad treatment ” by the strikers directed at the line crossers is only verbal, my response would be that this is their expression of their right to free speech. If you cross their line, you can expect that they will feel threatened and attacked by you since it is their livelihood that is at stake. I think that one can hardly expect that they would have kind thoughts towards those that they see as threatening their jobs. I see no legal problem with calling a “scab” by the commonly used term even if it happens to offend them.
If the attacks are physical or against the property of the line crosser, then the perpetrators are breaking the law and should be treated accordingly.
Speaking from my admittedly left of center point of view, there is a bigger picture here. What we really have is a situation where those who control assets ( whether earned or not) are in control of the size of Jeff’s proverbial “ladder of success”. By limiting not only the pay and benefits of the workers ( sometimes necessarily, and sometimes just to maximize their own wealth), what the folks who control the assets manage is to create a situation in which there are a tightly controlled number of available handholds on the rungs on that ladder. This of course leaves those who need that bottom rung as their means of moving themselves and their families up squabbling over their grasp on the rung. This belies that great fallacy that those who just work hard enough will succeed economically and to me is the true basis of what Jeff likes to call “class warfare”.
Medwoman: I think we have broader agreement on these points. My only problem here is this point: “If the attacks are physical or against the property of the line crosser, then the perpetrators are breaking the law and should be treated accordingly.”
The problem here is that we are taking Elaine’s representation of what happened. But let us observe for a second that Elaine’s mannerisms here have been shrill, pointed, she likes to get in people’s faces and she likes to twist their words. So it seems to me at least possible even probable that Elaine’s own conduct rather than her action of crossing the picket line is what led to the harassment. We certainly cannot preclude it. And yet, I still don’t understand what her anecdote has to do with this article.
“The problem here is that we are taking Elaine’s representation of what happened.”
When did you decide that this was the problem? David’s reactions (along with all the rest of our comments) assumed that her account was true. But, that matters not a whit.
In this story, the victim was law abiding and engaged in legal activity, yet was assaulted and her property vandalized. The strikers broke the law, violating her rights, her property and her body.
David, followed by others, responds with a series of redundant personal attacks–claiming that she was asking for it and attempting to justify the strikers’ violence against her.
Just how far would you and David take this unconscionable, permissive view? To broken kneecaps…arson…brain concussion…murder?
As medwoman points out, the line really was crossed by the attackers.
Instead of seeing David’s apology for his personal attacks and the “she asked for it” rationalization for assault and vandalism, we get you doubling down with a “you know how she is” observation.
Do you really agree with his contention that it’s okay for union thugs to attack her in the tradition of the miners who “armed themselves and attacked numerous mines, destroying property and engaging in armed skirmishes….”?
Too much. Way too much.
I don’t think either myself or David argue in the hypothetical situation described above that it would be okay for unions to respond to strike breaking with violence. However, she needed to be aware that her efforts would be frowned upon and she herself probably played a role in the escalation of responses.
Hypothetical? You’ve gone from 1. accepting her story and attacking her to 2. suggesting that she was lying and attacking her to 3. labeling my summary of her story as “hypothetical” and attacking her.
I don’t get how you and David think that Elaine was anything but a victim of illegal violence. But, at least you’ve been consistent by attacking her no matter what she or others have pointed out about the facts and that “she asked for it” is offensive on many levels.
“I don’t get how you and David think that Elaine was anything but a victim of illegal violence”
I’ve watched her conduct herself here, at the very least that gives me reasonable doubt that I should not accept anything she says at face value. You disagree?
[quote]”I’ve watched her conduct herself here, at the very least that gives me reasonable doubt that I should not accept anything she says at face value. You disagree?”[/quote]I’ve disagreed with her many times, especially since she’s been a prolific, valuable contributor to the [i]Vanguard[/i].
However, I’ve never disagreed with her remotely as much as I do with you and David now.
Shame on David for starting this. Shame on you for pursuing it to such an extreme. Shame on Don Shor for ignoring the slurs and not stopping David’s and your runs of nasty, personal comments about Elaine.
Shame on the [i]Vanguard[/i]. But, I’m through.
Wow, I hadn’t paid attention to this thread since yesterday. I’ve removed several comments. Thanks to the Vanguard participant who brought this to my attention.