Striking Union Workers Hurl Racial Epithets

[bripat9643]

White people are white people, what do you expect?

It's rare that you see such obvious bigotry in print.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you not study American History? This seems to be a running theme with you tea party people.

Yep, I study American history, not the communist party version of American history.

 

[daveman]

"The introduction of scabs" is not "the primary cause of violence in labor conflicts." Union thugs committing criminal acts of violence is the primary cause.

I laughed out loud when I read that pile of horseshit. "Those scabs made us beat them up!" "The nerve of people working for living!"

"Those scabs attacked us! They repeatedly slammed their faces against our tire irons!"

 

[daveman]

White people are white people, what do you expect?

It's rare that you see such obvious bigotry in print.

Dood's all proud of it and shit.

 

[bripat9643]

This is all part of the TeaTard Koch brothers plan - to destroy unions.

I hope they succeed.

 

[bripat9643]

You still havn't answered the question of if violence is OK to use against people going to work.

To pose the question in such simplistic and diluted form indicates that you don't understand the situation. So I'll explain it.

My understanding of the news report is the striking employees are unionized and have a contract which is under renewal. All of the renewal terms have been agreed on but the union's lawyer has found language in the terms submitted by the company which would permit arbitrary dismissal (layoff) and replacement of union workers, thereby enabling the company to gradually replace the entire union work force with non-union (scab) labor. The union is demanding removal of those terms and the company has not only refused but has commenced to exercise the proposed intention by bringing in scabs in conflict with terms of the existing contract.

This is boldface union busting. So the situation is not as simple as you either think it is or are trying to present it as.

So you think that justifies beating people up? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Immanuel]

"a murderous level of violence"? The only violence I see is the hate directed at replacement workers. The rest of the world is not stupid. We won't buy into your shit. Racial epithets, destruction of property and taking security guards hostage is YOUR level of violence.

You seem to have forgotten the cutting of brake lines on trains. I wonder how many children's lives at the bottom of the mountain that put in danger. But that seems to be okay since those kids parents probably were not union members. They might even have been scabs!

Can you not see what you are saying Mikek? I know you don't feel that way, but damnit, that is what you say when you defend this shit!

Immie

They didn't endanger any lives by cutting brake lines. Train brakes are fail-safe -- if they lose air pressure, the brakes engage. They can be disengaged, but it takes someone manually turning a hand wheel on each car.

Until the lines are fixed, the trains aren't going anywhere.

There's plenty to criticize union thugs here about. No need to make it out to be worse than it is.

My apologies. I did not know that. Thank you for the information.

Immie

 

[daveman]

You seem to have forgotten the cutting of brake lines on trains. I wonder how many children's lives at the bottom of the mountain that put in danger. But that seems to be okay since those kids parents probably were not union members. They might even have been scabs!

Can you not see what you are saying Mikek? I know you don't feel that way, but damnit, that is what you say when you defend this shit!

Immie

They didn't endanger any lives by cutting brake lines. Train brakes are fail-safe -- if they lose air pressure, the brakes engage. They can be disengaged, but it takes someone manually turning a hand wheel on each car.

Until the lines are fixed, the trains aren't going anywhere.

There's plenty to criticize union thugs here about. No need to make it out to be worse than it is.

My apologies. I did not know that. Thank you for the information.

Immie

No sweat, guy.

 

[bripat9643]

I live in Tampa and I have to say it, my previous employers used the word all the time. Of course, it was never in front of the minority staff, but they used it regularly. They thought it was funny too.

Immie

I lived in Tampa for 10 years, and I never heard anyone use that word.

I just love all these unprovable anecdotes libtards whip out when they are accusing Republicans of racism.

However, my older brother and my father were both big pro-union liberals, and I heard them use the N-word all the time.

 

[bripat9643]

What does the fact that you're now resorting to ad-hominem personal insults reveal?

The simple reality is you and a few others in this discussion are not the kind of men who could possibly belong to the kind of union which is most likely to engage in violent conduct if provoked, such as the ILA, UMW, Teamsters, etc. Because members of those unions are of a different type from you. They are violence-prone, you are not. You would not survive in the kind of work environment they function within.

Your comparatively timid nature is a simple fact of life and my acknowledging it is not intended to offend you. It simply means we are discussing a situation which you should not concern yourself with because it is well outside your sphere of existence.

So you're OK with the ILA, UMW and Teamsters using violence? Is that what you're saying?

 

[daveman]

What does the fact that you're now resorting to ad-hominem personal insults reveal?

The simple reality is you and a few others in this discussion are not the kind of men who could possibly belong to the kind of union which is most likely to engage in violent conduct if provoked, such as the ILA, UMW, Teamsters, etc. Because members of those unions are of a different type from you. They are violence-prone, you are not. You would not survive in the kind of work environment they function within.

Your comparatively timid nature is a simple fact of life and my acknowledging it is not intended to offend you. It simply means we are discussing a situation which you should not concern yourself with because it is well outside your sphere of existence.

So you're OK with the ILA, UMW and Teamsters using violence? Is that what you're saying?

That's exactly what he's saying.

 

[Immanuel]

I live in Tampa and I have to say it, my previous employers used the word all the time. Of course, it was never in front of the minority staff, but they used it regularly. They thought it was funny too.

Immie

I lived in Tampa for 10 years, and I never heard anyone use that word.

I just love all these unprovable anecdotes libtards whip out when they are accusing Republicans of racism.

However, my older brother and my father were both big pro-union liberals, and I heard them use the N-word all the time.

Funny, your anecdote is as unprovable as mine, yet you seem to think you have a point.

Also, did I state that they were Republicans? No, don't think I did. So where do you get off with this bullshit accusation of yours?

Edit: Nor did I state that I had heard anyone else in Tampa use it, although, I have but they were African-American.

Immie

 

[MikeK]

You seem to have forgotten the cutting of brake lines on trains. I wonder how many children's lives at the bottom of the mountain that put in danger. But that seems to be okay since those kids parents probably were not union members. They might even have been scabs!

Can you not see what you are saying Mikek? I know you don't feel that way, but damnit, that is what you say when you defend this shit!

Immie

They didn't endanger any lives by cutting brake lines. Train brakes are fail-safe -- if they lose air pressure, the brakes engage. They can be disengaged, but it takes someone manually turning a hand wheel on each car.

Until the lines are fixed, the trains aren't going anywhere.

There's plenty to criticize union thugs here about. No need to make it out to be worse than it is.

My apologies. I did not know that. Thank you for the information.

Immie

Here's something else you didn't know:

(Excerpt)

Soon after the seizure of power (mid-April 1933), Reichsleiter Robert Ley was directed by Hitler to smash the independent unions. Reichsleiter Ley, in his speech to the Nurnberg Party Congress of 1936, declared:


"*** My Fuehrer! When you, my Fuehrer, ordered me in mid-April 1933 to take over the trade unions, I could not understand why you gave this order to me since I could not see any connection between my task as Organizational Leader of the Party and my new task. Very soon, however, your decision, my Fuehrer, became clear to me and I recognized that the organizational measures of the Party could only come to full fruition when supplemented by the organization of the people, that is to say, by the mobilization of the energies of the people and by their concentration and alignment. If the Party represents the concentration of the Political Leaders of the people -- as you, my Fuehrer, have told us again and again -- then the people is the retinue and must be organized and trained according to the same principles. Leader and retinue, elite and community at large -- these were the clear directives for my work."

The Nazi Party Leadership Corps (12 of 12)

(Close)

 

[MikeK]

What does the fact that you're now resorting to ad-hominem personal insults reveal?

The simple reality is you and a few others in this discussion are not the kind of men who could possibly belong to the kind of union which is most likely to engage in violent conduct if provoked, such as the ILA, UMW, Teamsters, etc. Because members of those unions are of a different type from you. They are violence-prone, you are not. You would not survive in the kind of work environment they function within.

Your comparatively timid nature is a simple fact of life and my acknowledging it is not intended to offend you. It simply means we are discussing a situation which you should not concern yourself with because it is well outside your sphere of existence.

So you're OK with the ILA, UMW and Teamsters using violence? Is that what you're saying?

I am okay with whatever a labor union needs to do to prevent its being undermined and eliminated by the introduction of scabs.

 

[Immanuel]

What does the fact that you're now resorting to ad-hominem personal insults reveal?

The simple reality is you and a few others in this discussion are not the kind of men who could possibly belong to the kind of union which is most likely to engage in violent conduct if provoked, such as the ILA, UMW, Teamsters, etc. Because members of those unions are of a different type from you. They are violence-prone, you are not. You would not survive in the kind of work environment they function within.

Your comparatively timid nature is a simple fact of life and my acknowledging it is not intended to offend you. It simply means we are discussing a situation which you should not concern yourself with because it is well outside your sphere of existence.

So you're OK with the ILA, UMW and Teamsters using violence? Is that what you're saying?

I am okay with whatever a labor union needs to do to prevent its being undermined and eliminated by the introduction of scabs.

I take it then that you would resort to murder. That is so disappointing.

Immie

 

[westwall]

What does the fact that you're now resorting to ad-hominem personal insults reveal?

The simple reality is you and a few others in this discussion are not the kind of men who could possibly belong to the kind of union which is most likely to engage in violent conduct if provoked, such as the ILA, UMW, Teamsters, etc. Because members of those unions are of a different type from you. They are violence-prone, you are not. You would not survive in the kind of work environment they function within.

Your comparatively timid nature is a simple fact of life and my acknowledging it is not intended to offend you. It simply means we are discussing a situation which you should not concern yourself with because it is well outside your sphere of existence.

So you're OK with the ILA, UMW and Teamsters using violence? Is that what you're saying?

I am okay with whatever a labor union needs to do to prevent its being undermined and eliminated by the introduction of scabs.

So how about this scenario, a friend of mine used to work as the regional director of security for Safeway and when they had a strike he caught a union woker who had sabotaged a tractor trailer rig so that the trailer would pull free while driving down the road. Are you OK with that?

 

[MikeK]

You still havn't answered the question of if violence is OK to use against people going to work.

To pose the question in such simplistic and diluted form indicates that you don't understand the situation. So I'll explain it.

My understanding of the news report is the striking employees are unionized and have a contract which is under renewal. All of the renewal terms have been agreed on but the union's lawyer has found language in the terms submitted by the company which would permit arbitrary dismissal (layoff) and replacement of union workers, thereby enabling the company to gradually replace the entire union work force with non-union (scab) labor. The union is demanding removal of those terms and the company has not only refused but has commenced to exercise the proposed intention by bringing in scabs in conflict with terms of the existing contract.

This is boldface union busting. So the situation is not as simple as you either think it is or are trying to present it as.

So you think that justifies beating people up? Is that what you're saying?

If you are opposed to people being beaten up and murdered in union conflicts you really should endeavor to educate yourself on the history of labor unions in America. Because the occurence of violence in these conflicts is not one-sided. Far from it.

If you'd like to read about it tell me and I'll post a list of books.

If you don't wish to read I'll post a list of movies which are entertaining as well as very educational.

 

[Moonglow]

anti-union activities still occur to this day, using spies, red flags and legislation to destroy unions.

 

[MikeK]

So you're OK with the ILA, UMW and Teamsters using violence? Is that what you're saying?

I am okay with whatever a labor union needs to do to prevent its being undermined and eliminated by the introduction of scabs.

So how about this scenario, a friend of mine used to work as the regional director of security for Safeway and when they had a strike he caught a union woker who had sabotaged a tractor trailer rig so that the trailer would pull free while driving down the road. Are you OK with that?

And there are some interesting stories of strikebreakers murdering the wives and children of striking mine workers in West Virginia. If you'd like to know the details Google up info on The Matewan Massacre. The bottom line in this argument is no unions have ever perpetrated the amount or the kind of violence on union busters as has collectively and historically been perpetrated against union members in the history of labor conflicts in America.

How many early Teamsters were crippled and beaten to death by company goons before Jimmy Hoffa made a deal with the devil and turned it around by bringing the Mafia in? Not a good thing, but necessary. If he hadn't done it the union movement might have been strangled in its crib and today's American worker would be on the same pay and benefit level as those in Mexico.

But I'm sure you don't believe all this -- or would rather not believe it.

So much for anecdotes.

 

[Unkotare]

I grew up in the city of Boston and lived there my entire life ]

Whereabouts?