24 thoughts on “The conservative definition of a union thug

  1. That’s exactly right. Their hypocrisy was shining when it came to the MPD and MFD unions fighting against furloughs, etc.

    And just for full disclosure…*I* do not belong to a union.

  2. Yes and how dare those union members go against the wishes of the union! Watch out if they do! That is where the term union thug comes in Zach. You have much to learn!

    Funny Anon how over the years you claimed to be an independent and you are more and more liberal.

    1. Jeff, there’s plenty that my union does that I’m not fond of, but just like life in general, I take the good with the bad. Clearly, you have much to learn about me.

    2. “Yes and how dare those union members go against the wishes of the union! Watch out if they do!”

      Jeff, I’ve spoken out against plenty of things that my union has done (though to them, not on this blog) and I’ve never felt I had to “watch out” simply because I voiced an opinion contrary to that of union leadership.

      I remember being labeled a “union thug” during my school board campaign, and for the life of me I can’t remember a single instance in which I’ve acted like a thug, so I’m trying to understand what exactly makes me a “union thug.”

  3. Geez…JeffN…”over the years”?? Have I been commenting on blogs that long already?? I’m not sure what I said in my comment that could be construed as “liberal”…since I was just pointing out the hypocrisy. Do you not see the hypocrisy of the conservative bloggers attacking all the unions except for the MPD and the MFD unions?

    BTW…I don’t think I ever claimed to be an independent…but if I did please feel free to correct me.

      1. Yup. They are so transparent. After all…there are other police and fire unions facing cuts/pay freezes/lay-offs and I don’t hear anything from the conservative bloggers about them. They are so self-serving and pathetic. They have no authenticity. Just the same garbage over and over again.

  4. The liberal definition of the rich: anyone making a dollar more than they do, and therefore should be taxed heavily for use by those who pay no taxes.

  5. Sure, if they are receiving bailout dollars.

    Also those who are all in favor of something like “free” health care, because what do they care, they won’t be paying for it. Hey, they might even catch on that they can keep voting for people who give them things from other people. I’d like a new car and my mortgage forgiven, can Big Daddy Government tax somebody else and give me one? What happens when we run out of the other people to provide all of the goodies? Whoops, game over.

    1. Not just bailouts, but TIFs and other tax breaks as well. Why do they get these special breaks, and the average tax payer doesn’t?

      Oh, and another one that doesn’t pay his taxes: County Supervisor Paul Cesarz.

  6. Well you see no matter which way you cut it, when it comes to companies paying taxes, you are going to pay. You can only tax people, you can’t tax a rock and expect to get anything out of it. If you tax the heck out of a company, you can be sure you will see the cost of that tacked on to the product you buy. Not sure why you would want to tax them heavily anyway, seeing as how they are providing all of the jobs (well, not those temporary stimulus ones).

    It’s a gross misconception that the rich pay no taxes. According to the IRS, the richest 1% pay 39% of all taxes, and the top 25% pay 86% of all taxes. So even if they take advantage of “special breaks,” (and could you blame them?!) are they really skirting paying taxes?

    I know they teach that “hate the rich/the company I work for/class warfare” mentality in union thug school, but the facts are the facts. Too bad they don’t teach economics.

    1. “I know they teach that “hate the rich/the company I work for/class warfare” mentality in union thug school…”

      Hmmm….I haven’t been to union thug school, and I’m pretty involved in my union. It’s weird that they’ve never mentioned union thug school to me.

  7. Must you take everything so literally? lol… I’m sure if there was such a school, you would have passed with flying colors!

    1. forgot, my point was to show just how idiotic it sounds for you to talk about “union thug school” as if such a thing actually exists.

      See, this is precisely what’s wrong with too many folks….you see everything as a black and white issue instead of realizing things can have a bit of nuance. You call all union members “union thugs,” and I say there are plenty of us who realize unions have their positives and negatives and who don’t always toe the union line.

      For example:

      Do unions protect some workers who are lazy and who shouldn’t be allowed to keep their jobs? YES.

      Are all union members lazy? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

      I know it’s easy for conservatives to demonize labor unions as an example of everything that’s wrong with this country right now, but let’s just remember that this nation is what it is in large part thanks to the contributions of union members.

  8. My point was how idiotic it is for you to pose that definition of all conservatives. Isn’t that seeing everything in black and white, as you criticize me of doing? I never said all union members were thugs.

    I just meant there is a mentality among many union workers that they are always getting the shaft, that they are the “little guy” and someone else is to blame for them not getting more. “Union school” would be the union bosses fostering that kind of atmosphere. But they have to. In order for them to stay in charge, they need to create dissatisfaction so that they can go out and deliver year after year. I wonder if there is ever a point where utopia would be reached, or would the unions keep fighting for a four day weekend, health benefits for the dog and cat, and a hot tub in every backyard.

    I would call benefits the auto workers received pretty generous, but I still bet some of them spent a lot of time complaining that they got a raw deal. In fact some of those benefits were so generous they helped tank the company (one factor, not the only factor).

    Unions had a time and place, but I think that time has passed. I do think unions protect some who do not deserve protecting, but I do not think all union workers are lazy. My problem is more with the unions themselves, who use union dues for political purposes and members who disagree have little choice, and the strangehold they hold over members, the intimidation tactics and environment they create. And yes I have a problem with union members who buy into it all and the thugs who will defend such an institution at all costs.

    And before you say unions have created unity and looking out for your fellow worker, I have seen time after time that members with more seniority are more than willing to sacrifice the guys at the bottom losing their jobs in exchange for increased benefits (one example, Doyle and the furloughs). Sure unions gave us the 40 hour work week, but since then they have done more harm than good to American manufacturing.

  9. Sorry for that missing tag – really wish there was a preview option here. Not complaining – I appreciate the forum for discussion, just a friendly suggestion. 🙂

  10. I see I’m late to this party, but what the heck: As a conservative, I can tell you that your definition is all wet. A “union thug” is a thug who happens to show (largely unthinking) allegiance to unions generally, and his or her union specifically. A “union thug” uses any or all of these “tactics:” thuggery, intimidation, extortion, bullying, shouting-down others, and outright violence as a means of getting his or her union’s preferences to prevail. A “union thug” will stand outside a corporate exec’s home picketing, even if there are small children there. And we know that unionists never turn into mobs and break store windows, etc.), which is a real concern if their standing outside someone’s home. Thus, not all unionists are thugs, but if you are OK with those who are, you might as well be labeled as such. And I would say virtually every single union thug (and most every “loyal” unionist) is a liberal, progressive, socialist, communist hack, who has no idea about how to compete in the market in a mode of self-reliance.

  11. Voice an opinion contrary to the union: have your business boycotted (even if that position is to stay netural and not take a political position). If you are an elected official and have a opinion that differs from the union you will be unnecessarily recalled. Union memeber can’t voice an opinion that is contrary to the union because their money is confiscated and used as the union sees fit. At least under the new law public workers can choose to be in the union and choose to have their money deducted (now if only private workers had that choice). What great pro-choice legislation!

  12. Here we have a country driven into debt by conservatives and their policies. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6982/12-15-LongTermOutlook.pdf
    These policies have destroyed the middle class. Wages have stagnated, while productivity has increased. We have ultra-wealthy people (Koch Brothers, anyone?) funneling billions into right-wing PACs, Ayn Randian think-tanks, and campaigns in order to kill what few programs still exist to help working America.
    And these shitheads above are spouting Fox News talking points about union thuggery?
    I repeat my assertion that being a right-winger means one is a member of a cult. They all say the same lies. They all use the same lying talking points. They all believe they are correct and everyone else is wrong.
    Not one of these people above have read history that hasn’t been adulterated by some right-wing shithead. Isn’t that the truth, fellas? I bet you all believe Sarah Palin’s version of Paul Revere’s ride, too.
    I don’t argue with these idiots anymore. They’re entrenched in their beliefs. Nothing will change their minds.

Comments are closed.