I have posted on here about my distaste for unions and their tactics. Typically I get a lot of pushback from people here defending unions and calling my charges of violence nonsense and typical right wing talking points.
Here’s a story on MSNBC about Longshoremen in WA state commiting overt acts of violence and threatening that it will continue. How can this be defended?
Hundreds of Longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the center of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha.
Six guards were held hostage for a couple of hours after 500 or more Longshoremen broke down gates about 4:30 a.m. PT (7:30 a.m. ET) and smashed windows in the guard shack, he said.
Held hostage? Isn’t that a very serious felony?
Most of the protesters returned to their union hall after cutting brake lines and spilling grain from car at the EGT terminal, Duscha said.
The International Longshore and Warehouse Union believes it has the right to work at the facility, but the company has hired a contractor that’s staffing a workforce using other union laborers.
Are they just acting out the Teamster’s Union’s remarks from 3 days ago…
“Everybody here has a vote,” Hoffa said Monday. “If we go back and we keep the eye on the prize. Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.”
Now I’m not saying that Hoffa was instructing his union thugs to go out and kill people but this is exactly the kind of over the top rhetoric we all condemned back when Congresswoman Giffords was shot. I wouldn’t call it a kumbaya moment but I think there was general agreement between both parties to tamp down the violent/acrimonious words.
There has been a disturbing return of such language from Maxine Waters and recently Hoffa… and I think this criminal activity by the Longshoreman needs to be nipped in the bud.
Duscha said. “A lot of the protesters were telling us this is only the start.”
…
The Longview blockade appeared to defy a federal restraining order issued last week against the union after it was accused of assaults and death threats.
What say BMGers, especially those loyal union supporters? Is violence ok?
So is war, and one could also make a pretty good case for, say, massive corporate downsizing by people who got rich off the labor of some of those union members.
Um, no. We didn’t all condemn it. The left condemned it, virtually blaming the right, which eventually roused the right from its sheepish, guilty silence into saying both side do it. No, both sides don’t do it. (Personally I think the left overreached, irresponsibly.)
Here’s a thought: Why should rhetoric have to accounted for or explained? It’s all free speech, and the marketplace of ideas is going to get unpleasant at times.
But sorry John, I’m not going to throw unions under the bus. “Instructing his thugs” tips your hand a bit.
I kind of think you are.
“Did you hear how many times I said ‘cocaine?”” — Former Clinton adviser Mark Penn, as quoted in Game Change
“…this is exactly the kind of over the top rhetoric we all condemned back when Congresswoman Giffords was shot.”
Please explain what “2nd Amendment remedies” means. Since you think “Everybody here has a vote. If we go back and we keep the eye on the prize. Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to America where we belong” is exactly the same kind.
I hope this time I don’t lose it again.
James Hoffa, Jr. gave a speech on Labor Day. The right-wing is trying to make it an issue. They’ve tried to get Obama to condemn it. Hoffa is the president of the Teamsters.
A completely unrelated union, the ILWU, the president of which is Bob McElrath, has been in a protracted struggle with management. Contract negotiations broke down in April and management hired a contractor to supply workers to do the longshoremen jobs. Here’s the union’s stated argument.
There’s no connection between the speech and the union members’ actions, which began before a speech few, if any ILWU members heard or even knew about. Asserting that’s the case is ridiculous.
The violence and unrest, however, appears to be real. There is currently a restraining order against the union for blocking traffic to the dock and there has been property damage and the events JohnD discusses.
I thought. The right-wing even fabricated Hoffa’s alleged call to violence. FoxNews selectively edited Hoffa’s speech. Can you believe it?
It’s true that “sons of bitches” would have been grammatically correct, if a little hurtful to the differently-winged. It’s one thing to get your opinions from right-wing sources, but for facts, it’s like trying to drink clean water out of a dirty toilet.
Sad, but true. I have done due diligence until I find someone who “heard that speech.” I started doing that after I was horribly edited into a position I don’t take myself – by the Globe no less – back in 2004. A 30 minute interview used two quotes 20 minutes apart of mine, as if they were a single sentence. Folks, it happens and journalists as a result earn my trust one at a time, and personally.
However, it’s not at all clear that anyone was ‘held’ against their will and it’s very clear that no one was hurt. Did 500 union members storm the yard, dump the grain and show that they’re not going to let their jobs be stolen? Hell yeah, and I commend them for their bravery.
the right way to handle things.
That being said, does seem hypocritical for the political party that honors those that dumped the tea, expressing outrage at those dumping grain?
I love it Sue!
This has been another edition of “regularly scheduled condemnations”.
of Scott Brown. Let’s return to talking about his dirty tricks, loose control over campaign workers and whatever else is being thrown at him… blah, blah, blah. That issue seems to have been beaten to death here but…
With all the commotions about unions this year, including the widely publicized Wisconsin circus and the recent recall elections, I think something as serious as this criminal action by the Longshoreman was worth talking about.
The level of discourse was too high and I don’t think it should return.
I’m not saying that the violence is right. But it is the very likely outcome for these longshoremen because they are being stripped of rights and their livlihood.
Look at the facts:
1) EGT Development signs a lease with the Port of Longview, getting tax breaks, to build a grain elevator. The lease clearly stated that the workers on this elevator would be from ILWU Local 21 due to the Port’s contract with ILWU.
2) EGT builds the facility by importing non-union labor from out of state. It’s their right, but definitely a swipe at the local unemployed trade union members.
3) Once the facility is built, EGT announces that they will not honor the clause in the lease to hire ILWU Local 21 workers.
4) ILWU Local 21 workers picket the facility and ask to negotiate with EGT. EGT ignores them, won’t meet with them.
5) Pickets grow in size. EGT still ignores them.
6) Picketing starts to escalate. A fence is torn down by union workers.
7) Picketing union members block shipment of grain via train by blocking the tracks.
8) EGT hires a different union to work the port.
9) Contractor drives through the picket line, striking two picketers.
10) Picketer is arrested for damaging vehicle that crosses the picket line.
11) Court order against ILWU Local 21 to stop aggressive picketing.
12) ILWU Local 21 members block the train tracks again. Police show up and pepper-spray the protest, and beat the picketers.
13) Union members dumped grain and damaged railroad cars at the terminal.
I would believe that this union is seeing their livelihood slip away, and their legal remedies are being removed as this country gets more and more anti-union.
When people are hungry, they will do things that are wrong. When you back people into a corner, they will do things that are wrong. When you treat people like less than crap, they will do things back to you that are wrong. When a large corporation flexes its muscles like EGT is doing, people are going to flex back in any way they can. EGT is not doing the right thing here – they have taken an aggressive stance against the union when this was not necessary. They could have hired the ILWU Local 21 and gone to the courts to dispute the lease arrangement. They didn’t do that. They gave the ILWU the middle finger and then they figuratively jammed it up their ass by hiring another union. They basically said “screw you, you don’t matter”. Is the response surprising in that context? It’s not right, but not surprising, and perhaps the only way this union is going to be able to survive against this massive multinational conglomerate because laws and courts have been very anti-union lately.
I wouldn’t sympathize with the ILWU if they did this simply because EGT used non-union labor to build the facility. I wouldn’t sympathize with them if they just walked into this business and demanded that the jobs go to them. But they had an agreement with Longview, and although EGT was not part of that original agreement, they entered into a lease with Longview with full knowledge of the agreement. That makes their actions pure union-busting in bad faith.
Upon further review, the article that I based that description on has a different account of things than the official union statement of events. I concede that the union is probably more correct in its description; EGT did talk with ILWU, however EGT would not budge from a demand to require 12 hour shifts without overtime, so talks broke down. That is when EGT hired non-union workers to staff the facility.
The labor-management relationship is clearly all about balance of power; in this case, it is similar to a lockout with replacements being hired, something that was never that common but is becoming more commonplace. With that remedy at their disposal, management is more free to dismiss union concerns.
Bottom line here is that unions are necessary because without them, corporations require more and more work at less and less pay. Unions need leverage too, because if a company can just say “sorry, we don’t choose to negotiate with you anymore” without penalty, that means unions are irrelevant. And without relevant unions, that means workweeks get longer and pay gets smaller.
is the same as Willy Wonka said to Mike Teevee: “Stop. Don’t. Come back.”
I know many people turn a blind eye to events/issues which go against their ideology. I’ve been guilty of this in the past as much as anyone. But whether you support unions or are anti-union (as I am and have never denied), we cannot stand by when violence occurs.
Rather than justifying violence, we should condemn it. Tea Party protestors were angry and energized last year which I thought was a great display of American freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom to gather and protest. When union and other supporters gathered in Wisconsin, I disagreed with what they were rallying about but I totally supported their rights and freedom of speech… again. If Tea Party protestors were violent then I would support their arrest and prosecution without question.
But we cannot let these freedoms devolve into violence, no matter what the reason. We can’t excuse violence by saying people are fighting for their jobs. Would you also suggest laid of workers start burning down factories, should office workers having their hours reduced hang the office manager out the window by his feet, threaten his/her family, hold hostage… until he/she restores their reduced hours?
Protest all you want, picket according to the law to your hearts content, organize boycotts… but violence has no place in our society!
We do not condone violence in any way, shape or form. Those who commit violent acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Some people don’t understand that violence doesn’t help the situation, it makes it worse. These are idiots, and hopefully idiots who will be chain-ganged breaking rocks somewhere for a while.
But this whole union thing you got is the issue, and you are wrong people are not union or anti-union, it’s not one or the other. But your blind anti-union fanaticism is what people are responding to and you are not getting it.
If I had a post about Tea Party thugs committing violent acts, I would think some would cry foul and note that the Tea party isn’t build on violence, etc.
But for some reason, you don’t get it.
I’m glad we agree that violence has no part anywhere! I also agree that my wishes are any law breakers end up breaking rocks.
As for not getting it, maybe I just disagree with you vs “not getting it”. I am not a fan of unions however I wouldn’t label it “blind anti-union fanaticism”. I don’t like the way unions operate but I would not try to outlaw them or ban them. I also don’t like “union only” contracts which are aplenty here in MA.
As for the Tea Party, many a post has happened here echoing Maxine Water’s feelings about them. This is only a guess but I believe a similar story as I reported above, transposing the longshoreman for Tea Party protestors would certainly draw serious charges from many BMGers.
rhetoric for the Giffords shooting.
As far as the illegal actions of ILWU people go, I have no problem with their arrest and prosecution. The courts were already involved and the investigation into these events will begin.
I’m probably farther to the left than pretty much anyone here when I say this, but labor, organized and unorganized, is at war with (for lack of a better word) capitalism. I don’t mean that we should be violent, but it is us against them. This kind of thing is going to happen.
And both parties will push and squeeze as hard as they can to get the best results. The sad part of this war is both organized and unorganized labor loses big time. Businesses push hard for profitability, as they should, for maximum return for stockholders AND for survival. If we aren’t competitive then someone else will be. The higher the cost of labor, the higher the demand to increase productivity to replace labor. The result is robots instead of workers, MS Word on every desktop instead of secretaries, computers predicting and simulating instead of laboratories and experiments…
The fight will continue but in most cases the businesses hold all the cards. And just when the unions think they win, the business closes its doors and opens them in another state or worse another country.
I wish we could figure out a better way to fight this war (I don’t know the answer either) but I know violence isn’t it.
to agreement on the reality of the situation. I also don’t know how things will pan out.
Right now, capitalism is eating everything in its path. That’s the nature of the economic system at the time. It take and take from workers until there’s nothing left to take or until people fight back. Part of Obama’s disgrace is that he would sacrifice Medicare and Social Security for what is ultimately an anti-worker program.
Most workers want stability and safety and some measure of self-direction. If unions, and at least some Democrats, weren’t fighting for workers, we’d have privatized profitized government and put every worker completely at mercy of profit. No benefits, no retirement, nothing.
Next week, a bill will be filed to attack pensions for teachers, perhaps among others. The details are unknown at this time. From the point of view of workers, this is another attempt to reduce the standard of living for people. Here are some facts on teacher pensions, which actually save the Commonwealth money (because the state doesn’t have to contribute to social security for us).
not sure what to say about this. I’m against violence too, but I am also against robbing people of a way of life in the interest of greater profits, executive pay increases, and dividend disbursements. It’s really no different thatn defending yourself and your home from robbery. A little pepper spray can really help you protect yourself and your home. Just don’t want everyone to start packing guns, as the Tea Party was encouraging it’s people to do in 2010. Perhaps it was the Tea Party rhetoric in 2010 that inspired these union people to start defending their livelihoods a little more agressively.
So if I own a small grocery store and Wal Mart builds a place down the street… out come the howitzers? The Solar panel company I work for installs robots for manufacturing… should I torch the building? Aren’t we a nation of laws? Sounds like George Bush’s Texas style justice!
Justifying violence with any excuse or reason is just wrong, whether it’s a Tea Party person, a union person or just a regular unemployed person.
I dislike violence too, which is why I HATE the death penalty (see: “Justifying violence with any excuse or reason is just wrong…”). If someone had been been hurt, I would be more concerned about the situation. I don’t think union workers should be walking around with pepper spray; I was trying to compare it to the act of dumping grain. Pepper spray is far less violent than loading up the howitzer or setting the place on fire. Pepper spray is probably a bad analogy. Dumping grain is is a crime against money or value, not a crime against the physical nature of the human being.
Really happened 🙁
Violence is not acceptable – and unions should not be exempt from their actions. But they actually are due to the Clayton anti-trust act and a Supreme court ruling.
Our nation was founding on violence. The complaint of my Canadian friends has been that, from their perspective, the American revolutionaries were a “bunch of thugs” who worsened, rather than helped, an already bad situation. I’m not saying I agree, mind you, I’m simply observing that our founding fathers were themselves violent by the standards you imply here.
I’m not sure any of the workplace protections we take for granted now would have ever happened if the labor movement had always been as nonviolent as you like. The US is not India, and while I applaud the pacifism of Gandhi, I am not convinced it would have been remotely effective against the hired “security” thugs that protected US business interests in the early part of the twentieth century.
The truth is that people on both sides were KILLED and INJURED, and significant property damage was done to both sides. Some of us are of the opinion that this investment of blood and sweat equity is what bought the workplace freedoms we now assume — and many of us are of the opinion that the right wing and GOP is steadfastly and relentlessly working to make that investment worthless.
No sane person likes violence. Almost every man or woman has a limit, and WILL commit violence when pushed beyond that limit.
Just saying.
Our nation had lots of things like violence, slavery, women couldn’t vote… in our past but they do not justify the actions of today’s world.
This is not the “Old West” anymore. We don’t shot people for insulting us or dishonoring us… unless we want to go to jail or get the death penalty.
Many criminals will give you the “reason” why they robbed the jewelry store “I had to feed m kids”, “my house was going to be foreclosed on”… doesn’t matter to me.
Problem is when the perpetrator themselves define the “limit” they are pushed to. I’m Sure Sal DiMasi or Ted Stevens could give you volumes as to why they had to commit their crimes too. The prisons are full of “victims”, just ask them.
I think what’s missing from Tom’s argument is that the reason for worker violence in the past is due to management owning government, particularly in West Virginia during the Blair County War.
When you said, business holds most, if not all, of the cards, you may have been acknowledging they have the money to fight in the courts, they have the lobbyists, and they have the Kochs and the Coors and a host of other patrons including well-heeled think tanks. Workers have a compromised Democratic Party and the declining power of unions. That’s it.
I don’t know how much of this applies, in the ILWU case, but when the opposition owns or can buy much of the peaceful means of redress, the option of violence or criminal mischief increases in appeal. It’s the same motivation for guerilla war and terrorism.
I just disagree on the redress.
I don’t like that fact that the Yankees can buy the best team int he league while the poorer teams can’t afford so should they turn to violence? I don’t like it when a political candidate can reach into their own pocket while other candidates have to raise campaign funds, so should they go steal money for the campaign?
I am not saying that I don’t “see” why the longshoreman resorted to violence… but that does not make it any less wrong or any more right.
As for the terrorism comparison, I agree. Timothy McVey may have said the same thing concerning “… money to fight in the courts, they have the lobbyists, and they have the Kochs and the Coors and a host of other patrons including well-heeled think tanks…” so he resorted to violence. He was wrong and so were the longshoreman, at least in the America that I believe in.
for extra-legal action. I can’t condone harming a person, but I can theoretically see a place for destructive protest as in the 1960s or denial of service attacks on websites. Our country, after all, was founded on violence and sedition. Our Declaration and Constitution are wonderful documents, but without the violence of the the Revolution, they would have remained wonderful documents.
With that said, theory is different than practice, and I can’t see myself engaging in this kind of stuff. And if I can’t engage in it, I don’t believe I can advocate for it.
Is it warranted in the ILWU’s case? I don’t really know, probably not. I don’t know enough of the details.
As in my previous post many hero’s earn their creds breaking unjust laws.
Samuel Adams and friends that dumped the tea – criminals or patriots?
Henry David Throeau – tax cheat or war protester?
John Brown – murderer or saint?
Rosa Parks – criminal or courageous?
Dick Cheney – war criminal or vice president
Julian Assange – sabateur or whistleblower?
Often the answer has more to do with how well the laws correspond with your personal values.
I also condemn selective overgeneralization.
When are you going to condemn Nikki Haley’s bitter sexism after a reporter had the gall to report on her waste of taxpayer money on French luxuries?
I think we could have a dedictaed thread to all the people doing the “wrong” thing(s).
However, I’m trying to point out an act of violence, serious violence. Do you remember the reaction when Congresswoman Giffords was shot towards our level of discourse being too severe. I think this attack by the longshoreman was very similar… violence.
So thank you for joining me in condemning violence which luckily did not result in any deaths.
From the report you cited:
“No one was hurt, and nobody has been arrested.”
From one report of the terrorist attack against Gabrielle Giffords and the people of Arizona:
“Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head Saturday when an assailant opened fire outside a grocery store during a meeting with constituents, killing six people and wounding 13 others.”
Nobody in the episode we’re discussing walked to a public forum filled with children and started shooting.
Your attempt to conflate these two episodes is, in my view, reprehensible, especially so coming on the anniversary of 9/11.
… Guns deliberately pointed at people in the broadest of daylight, triggers pulled and death, injury, panic and mayhem. No reports of property damage, however.
on the other hand…
… deliberate property damage in the wee hours of a Thursday morning, with no gunfire, no injuries reported, no arrests made and none contemplated.
You want desperately for all unions to be as deranged as Gerald Loughner, it is as clear as if you simply wrote, ” all unions are as deranged as Gerald Loughner”. You did not, however write that, because the sane portion of your brain knows, with great immediacy, that such is clearly not the case. Calculated property damage as an act of civil disobedience does not nearly measure up to indiscriminate murder on any scale of deplorable violence. It’s like saying I’m in favor of capital punishment because I once gave my children a spanking.
you applaud Nikki Haley’s sexism. I can tell this because you did not condemn it when you had the opportunity.
Good to know.
… that your conflation of Hoffa’s speech and the actions of the union in question does a certain measure of violence to the processes of rational thought and logical consistency.
What’s clear to me in this instance is that the three (3) parties involved here, the management, the union and the police are devolving into a mutually reinforcing animosity and that the situation is unlikely to get much better unless, at the least, two of the three parties relent. So to place this squarely, solely and uniquely on the shoulders of the union, (who are squarely in the right, it seems to me, with respect to contract law and the laws involving picketing) is a peculiarly telling position for you to take. 16 months of negotiations, peaceful picketing and apparent harassment and overzealous police tactics, during the most dire economic circumstances of my lifetime, before a restrained demonstration of civil disobedience speaks of a great deal of commitment and patience on the part of the union. I myself would have dumped the grain. I would not have cut brake lines or smashed windows. Nor would I have countenanced physical injury done to any person. But property damage? I find it hard to get all worked up about it.
And before you accuse me of advocating violence, I will simply point out that poverty itself is violence, that poverty has killed and disabled more people, has spurred more crime and has generally done more damage than all the unions in all the world. And I will further add that union busting is an incitement to poverty… that is to say, an incitement to violence.
So if you really are against violence, in all it’s forms, you ought to be decrying poverty just as loudly as you decry unions.
This seems to be a jurisdiction issue, which union gets the rights to the jobs. So if the protesting union wins, the losing union would have the right to commit the same act?
read a newspaper article. But I’m not sure (and I mean not sure) that that is the case.1
The employer hired a contractor whose employees happened to be unionized. Management did not negotiate with another union.
The union vs. union meme seems like a management canard made to make unions look stupid and greedy–not that a union local can’t greedy or stupid at times. It’s just very difficult to know what’s going on from the outside.