Indiana RTW: Union protester wants legislators “tarred and feathered”

posted at 11:35 am on January 12, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Indiana is slowly but surely working their way through the legislative hoops and hurdles required to attempt to move the Hoosier State into the Right to Work column, but it’s not happening without plenty of fireworks. The latest development in the process came when the legislation cleared the House Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee and a first vote on amendments in the full body is scheduled for next Tuesday.

The measure, if approved, would ban businesses and unions from negotiating contracts that require all workers to pay fees to unions for representing them. Most House Democrats boycotted the chamber four out of the first five days of the 2012 session to slow work on the bill.

The scheduling of Tuesday’s vote came after Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma sent a letter Wednesday to Democratic House Minority Leader Patrick Bauer saying that fines of $1,000 per day were “most likely unavoidable” if Democrats continued stalling.

But even this small step didn’t take place without its fair share of drama. As HoosierAccess reports, the Democrats have brought trouble on themselves by walking out of negotiations and refusing to even debate in some cases. Further, union protesters showed up at the committee meeting and vented their anger at Republicans supporting the measure in a somewhat less than civil way.

It should also be noted, that if Democrats had not walked out, they would have been able to submit amendments to the Joint House and Senate Committee hearing last Friday. But in an utter disregard for anything remotely resembling a coherent thought, Minority Leader Pat Bauer and most of the Democrats walked out, preventing a quorum and preventing their participating in a hearing that lasted over five hours and produced quite a bit of testimony.

But the fireworks weren’t done with the Democrats. Before the gavel even fell on the hearing protestors erupted on the House Floor claiming everything under the sun you’d expect to hear from a union protestor. One even called for legislators (presumably only the Republican members who voted for the bill) to be “tarred and feathered”.

Let’s close by going to the video. You can see the “peaceful protesters” tossing out the most incendiary rhetoric at around the 45 second mark.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

ROFL Why do these demorats always walk out when they don’t get their way, do they understand the way this Republic works, that taking your ball and going home isn’t an option?

Welcome to The United States of Liberal America. One party for all and if you don’t like it, well too bad.

Bishop on January 12, 2012 at 11:40 AM

But would they be OK with non-union tar and featherers doing the work? Or would the tar union and the feather union have to work out a joint agreement on specific duties, wage scales, pension, health and retirement benefits before any tar and feathering could take place?

jon1979 on January 12, 2012 at 11:40 AM

ROFL Why do these demorats always walk out when they don’t get their way, do they understand the way this Republic works…

Bishop on January 12, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Only when they get their way, Bishop.

Washington Nearsider on January 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM

I don’t get it…..you can still be unionized in a RTW state, you are simply no longer forced into the union or to pay dues.

Where is the “democracy” in forced union membership?

I’m getting pretty damn sick of the hypocrisy.

Mord on January 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Instapundit is now a Union Protester?

Mr. Bingley on January 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM

jon1979 on January 12, 2012 at 11:40 AM

heh. YOu’re right.

Most of those feathers would be coming from chicken processing plants–most of whom would likely NOT be union shops, IIRC.

ted c on January 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM

could a unionized tarrer or featherer file a grievance against management if the hours/wages/benefits of said tarring and feathering were not inline with the Local Brotherhood of Tarrers & Featherers demands?

ted c on January 12, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Only when they get their way, Bishop.
Washington Nearsider on January 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM

I know I know, it’s just so….juvenile, like your kid sitting at the table for hours and refusing to eat that last Brussels sprout on their plate. The state GOP would do better to openly ridicule the ‘rats, call out their foot-stamping, pouting behavior in public.

Bishop on January 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that forced unionization violates the 1st Amendment’s protections of freedom of association. Does it not?

Charlemagne on January 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM

ROFL Why do these demorats always walk out when they don’t get their way…

Bishop on January 12, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Just democrats?

Nutball Paul supporters…
Nutball Palin supporters…
Nutball Romney supporters…
Nutball Gingrich supporters…
Nutball Perry supporters…
Nutball Bachman supporters…
Nutball Santorum supporters…

cozmo on January 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM

The irony of the idiot yelling “you should be ashamed” is that he doesn’t even begin to grasp the concept of shame. Shame requires some consistent moral foundation that when broken causes that person to not want those actions brought to light or when brought to light to feel bad out them.

What he is really saying is that I’m not getting my way and can’t be bothered to play by the rules so I’m going to make my own rules and yell at everyone who disagrees with me. I’m pretty sure he never took a debate class (or maybe anything besides shop class?) in school.

Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM

More fleabaggers and do-nothing democratic legislators.

Wigglesworth on January 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM

See, Debbie Blabbermouth Shultz is right. There goes those darn, dangerous Teaparty folks making threats in Indiana.

What? Unions you say?

Sorry—Power to the People!!!

dirtseller on January 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Thank goodness our founding father never resorted to anything violent, like tarring and feathering.

AngusMc on January 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Idon’t get it…..you can still be unionized in a RTW state, you are simply no longer forced into the union or to pay dues.

Where is the “democracy” in forced union membership?

I’m getting pretty damn sick of the hypocrisy.

Mord on January 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM

“…no longer forced into the union or to pay dues.”

There is the key. If unions can’t extort dues, too many people won’t pay them for the unions to be viable.

Obviously too many people don’t believe they are getting their money’s worth.

Actual democratic processes and market forces = unions and Democrats lose.

novaculus on January 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM

ROFL Why do these demorats always walk out when they don’t get their way [emphasis mine]

Bishop on January 12, 2012 at 11:40 AM

He’s union guy. That’s what union guys do: walk. out.

Axeman on January 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM

But would they be OK with non-union tar and featherers doing the work? Or would the tar union and the feather union have to work out a joint agreement on specific duties, wage scales, pension, health and retirement benefits before any tar and feathering could take place?

jon1979 on January 12, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I bow to your wit sir

Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM

I’d love to see legislators tarred and feathered as well.

Dante on January 12, 2012 at 11:53 AM

The state GOP would do better to openly ridicule the ‘rats, call out their foot-stamping, pouting behavior in public.

Bishop on January 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM

This course of action requires a state GOP with the stones to be called ‘meanie heads’.

Washington Nearsider on January 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I’d love to see legislators tarred and feathered as well.

Dante on January 12, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Any and all or just ones of a certain stripe?

Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM

I love videos like this….they’re exactly like putulant 5 year old children, and they deserve the same response.

St Gaudens on January 12, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Did you notice that several NFL players “with Indiana roots” wrote to lawmakers to vote against the bill? Jay Cutler and Rex Grossman. The Chicago Way lives!!!

That said, I would be curious as to why they think it was a “political ploy to punish workers”.

dboley on January 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM

I want all the bastedges from the Democratic politicians, that walk out on any votes tarred and feathered AND put on a rail,
to be paraded in front of the media!

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM

… because I don’t see how it punishes workers by giving them more choice.

Wait, what? I thought lefties were in favor of choice? Or is that only certain choices?

dboley on January 12, 2012 at 12:06 PM

ROFL Why do these demorats always walk out when they don’t get their way, do they understand the way this Republic works, that taking your ball and going home isn’t an option?
Bishop on January 12, 2012 at 11:40 AM

It’s similar to calling for a third party, or sitting out on election day, when one’s favorite candidate doesn’t win nomination.

Akzed on January 12, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Welcome to The United States of Liberal America. One party for all and if you don’t like it, well too bad.

Bishop on January 12, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I seem to recall a country during my youth with a one party system. They had a pretty good olympic hockey team so how bad could it be?

Lost in Jersey on January 12, 2012 at 12:09 PM

That second quote is mine, not Bishop’s. 8-|

Akzed on January 12, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Enh. Every time you mock the supporter of another candidate, you give them another reason not to vote for your candidate.

And, unlike unionization issues, every adult citizen of this country does have an equal vote.

Scott H on January 12, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Most of those feathers would be coming from chicken processing plants–most of whom would likely NOT be union shops, IIRC.

ted c on January 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM

And in my state, the chicken farms are largely staffed by – shall we say – persons of questionable immigration status.

So the tar-and-feather endorsing unions are basically supporting illegal immigration. I guess that’s consistent with their party leadership.

UltimateBob on January 12, 2012 at 12:10 PM

The irony of the idiot yelling “you should be ashamed” is that he doesn’t even begin to grasp the concept of shame. Shame requires some consistent moral foundation that when broken causes that person to not want those actions brought to light or when brought to light to feel bad out them.

Actually shame simply requires a very strongly held opinion with jeopardy for not going along. Teenagers are ashamed of their parents, because that’s not cool. You can’t tell me that teenagers have any consistent moral foundation.

There used to be this theory in Anthropology noticing the relative advancement of “Guilt cultures” over “Shame cultures”. Multiculturalism wiped all that out with shame that it’s not pro-diversity enough. America has replaced a well-established Guilt culture with a media shame culture: “Shame on you for wanting the Earth to boil!”

Guilt is the lament that you aren’t standing up to your own ideals. Shame is the fear and reaction that people aren’t conforming to yours. That people now confess to “Eco-sins” is an example of a guilt advancement in the eco shame culture. But across paradigms, there is only shame as a tool.

Axeman on January 12, 2012 at 12:11 PM

These union members need to hire non union personal trainers. They seem a little soft to me.

LeftCoastRight on January 12, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I seem to recall a country during my youth with a one party system. They had a pretty good olympic hockey team so how bad could it be?

Lost in Jersey on January 12, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Ya – but after the game, if wanted to celebrate a win, you’d have to stand in line for 5 hours to get a loaf of stale bread and a government ration of vodka.

dentarthurdent on January 12, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Guys, don’t you know if unions are weakened that they will not be able to protect working people? They might lose jobs!!

/sarc NewtPerryObama

antisense on January 12, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I’m always surprised when these stories come up. Shouldn’t be, but it’s still shocking that in some places you can be coerced into joining a union and de facto funding the Democrat party.

CorporatePiggy on January 12, 2012 at 12:12 PM

If we can’t enslave part of your paycheck, no one is free. Remember you’re paying for protection from your worthless employers’ ability to fire everyone who doesn’t live up to their arbitrary standards of “productivity” and “attendance”. Evil corporations hate that everyone deserves their money for just showing up.

/s

I got into it a few weeks ago with an Occutard who’s actually ashamed of himself for working at Wal-Mart. He dropped something or another on his foot while he was at work, and was literally livid that he didn’t have a union to “protect him” and force the company to pay for his clumsiness.

Here’s your damn protection. Learn to lift, learn your limits, stop thinking about what you’re going march about when you get off the clock instead of paying attention. Best part is, you get to keep more of your money, too.

PXCharon on January 12, 2012 at 12:12 PM

And, unlike unionization issues, every adult citizen of this country does have an equal vote.

Scott H on January 12, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Adult legal citizens only get one vote – dead or illegal immigrant Democrat voters get to vote as much as is needed to get the election…..

dentarthurdent on January 12, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I’d love to see legislators tarred and feathered as well.

Dante on January 12, 2012 at 11:53 AM

For doing their job?

Del Dolemonte on January 12, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Del: If you think ‘lying to their constituents’ is their job, then yes, I do, at least. :p

Scott H on January 12, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I want all the bastedges from the Democratic politicians, that walk out on any votes tarred and feathered AND put on a rail,
to be paraded in front of the media!

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Let’s tar and feather the media and put them on the rail alongside–after all, birds of a feather, even tarred ones!

stukinIL4now on January 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM

And, unlike unionization issues, every adult citizen of this country does have an equal vote.

Scott H on January 12, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Adult legal citizens only get one vote – dead or illegal immigrant Democrat voters get to vote as much as is needed to get the election…..

dentarthurdent on January 12, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Big brouhaha here in New Hampshire today about that very issue. This incident is just one of several that took place Tuesday.

The Boston Herald reports that “A mystery man trying to vote in the New Hampshire primary using a dead man’s name got caught by an eagle-eyed voting supervisor in Manchester, then disappeared before police could corral him.”

“We take a lot of pride in this primary,” Gloria Pilotte, the Ward 9 supervisor who stopped the voter fraud, told the Herald. “I’m very confident about the way we do this in New Hampshire.”

The unknown man, dressed in a suit and tie, did not say why he was trying to vote as the recently deceased person and would not identify any group he was representing. “He said ‘You’ll soon find out,’ ” Pilotte tells the Herald.

In past primaries, some candidates or groups have tried to challenge the results or demand recounts based on claims of voting irregularities.

The man, who admitted being from Texas, almost got away with the fraud. He came in to the polling place in a community center and gave election officials the name of a man who was still on the voter list. Voters here don’t have to present any ID to vote if they are registered.

Del Dolemonte on January 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Screw that pile of goat dung.

rplat on January 12, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Only one minute?

Must have been break time.

forest on January 12, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Threats of violence from union members – what else is new?

disa on January 12, 2012 at 12:20 PM

But would they be OK with non-union tar and featherers doing the work? Or would the tar union and the feather union have to work out a joint agreement on specific duties, wage scales, pension, health and retirement benefits before any tar and feathering could take place?

jon1979 on January 12, 2012 at 11:40 AM

And would there be requirements on the number of workers needed to apply the tar as well as rules defining how much tar a worker would be expected to lift. We will need to document all this so you will need to pay for an onsite tar and feather administrator to be present throughout.

The EPA would like to talk to you about the use of an obviously greenhouse emitting chemical. They would like you to submit your environmental impact study for public review and comment.

Oh I forgot to mention an anonymous caller complained to OSHA and they are coming in to inspect the tar shop.

The DNR would like you to prove that all feathers come from non wildlife sources. No a simple receipt from a chicken farm will not suffice. You must do a manual inspection of each one to ensure compliance.

Also, ATF called and has declined your permit for an automatic feather gun. It seems some of your union workers have prior felonies and are disqualified from gun ownership.

Umm BTW your taxes are due…

Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 12:21 PM

oh, and p.s. it’s the Tea Party which is supposedly promoting violence?

disa on January 12, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Where is the “democracy” in forced union membership?

I’m getting pretty damn sick of the hypocrisy.

Mord on January 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM

democ’rats have very little to do with Democracy. unions force ‘contributions’ to ‘rats, ‘rats make sure unions get whatever they want, follow the money

keithofboston on January 12, 2012 at 12:25 PM

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place…

sniff, sniff

forest on January 12, 2012 at 12:28 PM

I want all the bastedges from the Democratic politicians, that walk out on any votes tarred and feathered AND put on a rail,
to be paraded in front of the media!

KOOLAID2 on January 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Bastedges and ice-holes, all of them! Prepare for fargin war!

/JohnnyDangerously

No wonder Northwest Indiana is empty today, the unions who run this part of the state must have bussed everyone down to Indy to kick and scream like five-year-olds.

JimLennon on January 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM

The unions and democrats don’t have a leg to stand on. The bill allows people to choose whether they want to join a union instead of being forced.

I thought the left was all about choice anyway.

darwin on January 12, 2012 at 12:31 PM

The moral high ground is not with the unions on this, and every Republican should be shouting that from the rooftops. These union members don’t care about the unemployed in IN. They are only looking to protect high wages and benefits for themselves, and find a way to extort another pound of flesh from anyone that is foolish enough to start a business in IN.

does anyone recall how the auto bailouts that favored the unions left bondholders without their fair share. Guess who were some of the bondholders? The pension founds for IN firefighters and teachers.

Unions over and over again have accepted layoffs of their more junior members rather than take a pay or benefit cut for themselves.

earlgrey133 on January 12, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I want federal judges who “invent” new things in the Constitution using the commerce clause and who consult sharia or any other kind of foreign law tarred and feathered.

Simple choice: Give up your lifetime job, and any pensions or benefits, or the tar and feathers.

wildcat72 on January 12, 2012 at 12:35 PM

The man, who admitted being from Texas, almost got away with the fraud. He came in to the polling place in a community center and gave election officials the name of a man who was still on the voter list. Voters here don’t have to present any ID to vote if they are registered.

Del Dolemonte on January 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM

He was likely part of James O’Keefe’s crew (The Acorn Pimp). They were trying to punk the primary to highlight the lax voting requirements.

Here’s the article

Rod on January 12, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I think you missed the point (and I dissagree that shame requires a very strongly held opinion with jeopardy for not going along). Lets say I’m the legislator. In order for me to fell the ‘shame’ that the union thug wants me to I must have some common moral basis on this subject with the man. e.g. an insane psychopath may feel no shame for murder because he does not have the same moral basis or I feel no shame for starting a fire in the fireplace last night regardless of how the loony greens may feel about my actions and wish me to feel shame over them.

As for the teens the use of consistent was not intended to denote a timeframe. In fact just the opposite (so it was a poor word choice). At the moment shame is felt it is exactly because the person is operating outside of the norm they or society imposes on them (and they must by definition in some way acknowledge that norm in order to feel shame about it). My point is I feel no shame (nor should I) just because some union thug wishes me to (i.e. I share no moral basis on this topic with him).

Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Sorry,

Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM

was in response to:

Axeman on January 12, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Thuggery at its best. And unions wonder why they are losing favor.

Rick013 on January 12, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I wonder if the Democrats in Indiana will run away to Urbana again.

This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnLNnGDzV3c&feature=player_embedded

22044 on January 12, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Union thugs. Get a real job and base your pay on your own performance and not by intimidating the employer or threatening to shot them down. Most of you would not be able to keep your jobs, that’s how ill prepared you are to keep up with the changing job enverionment. Pukes!

rjulio on January 12, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Anybody besides me notice that the legislators are wearing coats and ties, whereas the protesters are dressed like they’re going to a ball game?

radjah shelduck on January 12, 2012 at 1:13 PM

But would they be OK with non-union tar and featherers doing the work? Or would the tar union and the feather union have to work out a joint agreement on specific duties, wage scales, pension, health and retirement benefits before any tar and feathering could take place?

jon1979 on January 12, 2012 at 11:40 AM

You should direct your questions to Resident Zero’s “Feather Czar.” Of course, one will be required to meet the “Feathers of Color” quota. Your tar-related questions should be addressed to the EPA, who banned Tar and mandated that it be replace with the boiled-down syrup of exploded Volt parts.

TheClearRiver on January 12, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Any and all or just ones of a certain stripe?

Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Most of them.

Dante on January 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM

cozmo on January 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM

watsa matter cosmo…u maaaaaaaaaaddddddddddd???

lol @ derpacrats…if only derpacrats would only get out of that pre-pubescent stage, maybe we could get some business done lol. But noooooo…they keep throwing temper-tantrums lol, and walking out. Pretty grown-up thing to do, there…walk out on a meeting. Taking your toys with you too? You taking all your Go-Bots? All your Little Ponies? Cant play with your Barbies?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL…man derpacrats are just ridiculous. Like the ridiculous where you just cant fathom how a person would think that their actions are worthy of an audience. That kind of ridiculous…

MooCowBang on January 12, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I’d be ok with tar & feathering any legislators who fail to fulfill their oath of office by skipping out on a vote and running off to hide in another state.

dentarthurdent on January 12, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Since tar is a petroleum product, has the EPA published any new regulations regarding the manufacture and use of tar so we can save the earth?

dentarthurdent on January 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM

My home state.

These are the same people that scream about voter suppression because we passed a law that requires you have a photo ID in order to vote. Never mind that the state provides one for free if you don’t drive.

My son got his first job at Kroger gathering carts. The union came to him the first day and made him join. It was $400. They took it out of his first 3 paychecks. He worked for this fine union. No way he could have even gotten that good of a job without the union. $6.25 an hour and no benefits. I never had to have even the first discussion on unions. He dislikes them more than I ever will.

“We have met the enemy and he is us” – Walt Kelly

acyl72 on January 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Why are the Dems and unions so upset? Won’t O,Solis & the NLRB just sue Indiana once RTW passes? That’s their MO, right?

thelarryd on January 12, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Total bullshit!! To do away with private sector trade unions will lower living standards for many families. Heads of households will be reduced to competing for a spot in the back of a pick up with illegals!!! I lived in FL for many years RTWS.Living standards in FL are very low. I moved to NJ in 2007 and worked in the Carpenters union and had decent health insurance,vacation and pension for the first time in my life. I’m 59 yo. Public sector jobs should never be union but to tell private enterprise not to form unions borders tyranny.

sonnyspats1 on January 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Public sector jobs should never be union but to tell private enterprise not to form unions borders tyranny.

sonnyspats1 on January 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Uhmm…nobody is telling anyone that they can’t form unions. The issue here is whether one can be forced to join the union or not.

Calm down Sonny.

NapaConservative on January 12, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Union protester wants legislators “tarred and feathered”

I live in Oregon, and have often felt the same way.

For different reasons, of course…

kakypat on January 12, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Total bullshit!! To do away with private sector trade unions will lower living standards for many families. Heads of households will be reduced to competing for a spot in the back of a pick up with illegals!!! I lived in FL for many years RTWS.Living standards in FL are very low. I moved to NJ in 2007 and worked in the Carpenters union and had decent health insurance,vacation and pension for the first time in my life. I’m 59 yo. Public sector jobs should never be union but to tell private enterprise not to form unions borders tyranny.

sonnyspats1 on January 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM

you are correct. my son never could have gotten a $6.25 a hour job without benefits if not for that wonderful union. I’m sure is safe in speaking for him and advising you to go F*&k yourself you union exec money grubbing thug. You’d sell your mom for 30 pieces of silver.

acyl72 on January 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM

sonnyspats1 on January 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Actually it would improve the living standards of many people, because companies could increase the pay of more productive workers and reduce pay or get rid of the poor performers – and overall productivity would improve and costs for everyone else (their customers) would go down.
But the reality is – this bill is about allowing workers to decide for themselves whether to join the union – instead of being forced to join a union they may not want to join. So if you’re against the bill, you’re against workers having that choice.

dentarthurdent on January 12, 2012 at 3:16 PM

acyl72 on January 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM

In comparison, my 19 year old son got a job a year ago as a (non-union) waiter for $5.50 / hour base plus tips from a shared tip pool (which sucks). Since he was good at it, in 10 months he was promoted to trainer, and a month later promoted to assistant manager – now making over $10 / hour. And he just graduated from high school last May. Unions would not allow for that kind of promotion and pay raise based on actual MERIT.

dentarthurdent on January 12, 2012 at 3:21 PM

My grandfather started a company in our hometown in southern Indiana. Most everyone in the family worked there at one time or another. It was a manufacturing plant unionized by the U.A.W. Every year when the contract negotiations came around (my dad was VP of HR so he was the “bad guy” haha), they would go on strike, put sugar in gas tanks, shoot at homes, break windows and cause general chaos until the contract was settled. Despite this, the company grew and started competing internationally. Finally, they moved manufacturing to Texas to get away from the unions. It cost a lot of people their jobs in an already economically depressed area- 25 years ago. It takes some people a LOT longer to learn than others!!

hoosierma on January 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM

I think you missed the point

Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM

I think you might have missed that I wasn’t trying to rebut your post, but just chime in on shame. (It could be because I didn’t make that too clear. :)) I think most of the times that I respond to a post, it’s to agree and comment.

(and I disagree that shame requires a very strongly held opinion with jeopardy for not going along). Lets say I’m the legislator. In order for me to feel the ‘shame’ that the union thug wants me to I must have some common moral basis on this subject with the man.

Yes, but “you should be ashamed” is often a recognition of your lack of shame and a second attempt at making you feel shame.

It’s often nothing but a feckless assertion that I’m right and you’re wrong and that if you were a reasonable person, instead of the zealot/bohemian that you are you would feel the same way too.

I get your point, about if he were really serious. But in the context I was using it, you’re talking about “guilt”. If a Japanese man feels “shame” because he failed to bring honor to his family, is there always a moral case that he is guilty of some moral transgression. Yet he is ashamed and “feels shame” because he knows that people will dishonor his family. It’s true that in a Western context the main thing to feel shame about is moral failure but the dynamics of shame is more interesting.

Especially when you get the liberal “No one should put his morals on another”. Their answer is to throw us back to what middle-20th century Anthropologists thought of as a “more primitive” system where only public humiliation can control a man’s actions. And what’s even more interesting than that (to me), is that it then throws a whole different light on what the liberal media is engaged in, in badmouthing, caricaturing, scape-goating, and distorting about conservatives: If you don’t comply to our rules, we will make you look bad.

I know that I’m not a racist. I know that I don’t want poor people to starve. I know that I’m not half of what the press makes me out to be. It doesn’t matter. The press has said to us “No one will hear you scream.”

Doesn’t Hot Air itself exist as a result of the attempt of this usurping shame culture? That doesn’t understand the least thing about a consistent moral grounding? Battling the traditional shame with avalanches of their own brand of shame?

I hope you don’t find the following argumentative.

When it all mounted up, the only “Guilt culture” was the Judeo-Christian culture. To call it “advanced” was to admit what the multiculturalists couldn’t have. Then near the turn of the 20th century, when Bertrand Russell wrote “Why I am Not A Christian” his main recommendations were shame. Although he couldn’t construct a morality with any soundness, you could rely on him to be moral because 1) he didn’t like to feel bad about himself, and 2) he didn’t want to land in jail. Then Russell progressed through he 20th by campaigning that 1) you had no right to make him feel bad and 2) that things he didn’t think should be illegal shouldn’t be illegal. To this day, progressives and atheists–although they may offer cogent criticisms on morality–are pushing us to a reflexive shame culture that says “I’m going to make you look bad/silly if you don’t capitulate.” Because without a consistent system of morality, it’s all we have across paradigms.

The lack of modern people to realize that we are at a crisis of terms on which to have a dialog is quite alarming when I think about it.

Axeman on January 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Indiana RTW: Union protester wants legislators “tarred and feathered”

Of course I’ve never read conservatives on blogs talking about tar and feathering anyone./

Guess it come down to which ones folks think should be tarred and feathered.

(Personally, I would never participate in such a thing-figure of speech as far as I’m concerned).

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 12, 2012 at 4:16 PM

You’d sell your mom for 30 pieces of silver.

acyl72 on January 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM

He did sell his mom. I believe it was 25 cents a throw. I ran into her in the late 80′s in NJ. I wonder???

Old Country Boy on January 12, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Thuggery at its best. And unions wonder why they are losing favor.

Rick013 on January 12, 2012 at 12:51 PM

You’re right.

Personally, I support organized labor and unions in general though the actions of some make me sick. These big union bosses are basically politicians and act accordingly-not much different than those in Congress or in the various states.

I was brought up in a conservative household and my dad grew up in west Pennsylvania coal mining country, had an uncle who was a coal miner, friends, etc. Even though my dad was a Democrat and basically had good things to say about unions, I do remember him saying that unions had a knack for striking themselves out of jobs. I also remember him getting ticked off about a worker in a factory somewhere getting paid an ungodly amount of money to slap labels on bottles or something.

To me it’s about two groups in an economic arrangement trying to get the most they can out of each other, just as companies try to get the best contracts they can for materials, goods and services. The downside for the company is that they can pick and choose to do business (usually I would think) with several different suppliers, but are “stuck” with their at home labor force and can’t simply negotiate with a different union for their pool of workers.

Of course, outsourcing is a way out of the labor predicament, as we have seen. But, how does that help our country? Looking at union membership numbers it doesn’t seem that most of the companies that have gone under or shipped jobs elsewhere could have had any union problems to begin with.

Bad behavior is bad behavior-criminal actions are criminal actions-and I will never support workers telling their employers how to run their companies, or support protecting the jobs of lazy workers.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 12, 2012 at 4:39 PM

As for the teens the use of consistent was not intended to denote a timeframe.

Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM

But could an actually consistent system vary so much over time? Isn’t the inconsistency over time (which neither was I talking about) illustrative of a lack of seriousness or consistency? Yet peers feel “ashamed” all the same. I know I did.

In fact just the opposite (so it was a poor word choice). At the moment shame is felt it is exactly because the person is operating outside of the norm they or society imposes on them

Right, but that is orthagonal to a degree of consistency.

My point is I feel no shame (nor should I) just because some union thug wishes me to (i.e. I share no moral basis on this topic with him).

Agreed. There are people in every culture that cannot be shamed, it’s because they have an interest in more than public appearance. Please don’t take this as a swipe at your character, but perhaps they simply don’t have enough power to make you feel any serious jeopardy–but they want it. Unions want card check so they know who they can bully and harass and shame. Greenies want power so that they can harass and shame and perhaps even jail dissenters who are “killing our planet” (Why, shouldn’t that be as serious as murder–or at aiding and abetting a murderer?) And the press wants to be the director on who deserve our scorn in both these causes.

Axeman on January 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Sounds like there are a lot of protesters at the Indiana statehouse. Bet it’s really bringing down the accident/injury/drunkeness rates at their workplaces.

86 on January 12, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Of course I’ve never read conservatives on blogs talking about tar and feathering anyone./
Guess it come down to which ones folks think should be tarred and feathered.
(Personally, I would never participate in such a thing-figure of speech as far as I’m concerned).
Dr. ZhivBlago on January 12, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Why do liberals have such a problem following the plot? Libs are the ones who started this whole violent language inspires violence thing. I think most conservatives used to realize that if you say “that person should be tarred and feathered” you were just being a bit bombastic. Kind of like the way that most cultures use a double and triple negatives to reinforce the negative character, only the English culture turned every statement into a logical proposition. So yeah it can be misunderstood (as wrong)–but you’re not stupid enough to misunderstand are you?

When we turn whiny to point out your whininess–not to mention sillyness and inability to heed your own criticisms, then somebody comes on to say that conservatives are “just as guilty”. When that should have been realized prior to the time that you said that saying “armed and dangerous” is incivil and can only be meant to incite violence.

The main danger is to become so involved in the counter case when faced with stonewalling opposition that you start to believe in the validity of the whiny complaint in the first place.

Meanwhile, we’ve just recently had the chair of the DNC hearken back to the incivility of the Tea Party when they spoke loudly at townhalls. Guess it comes down to which one folks think ought to be allowed to speak loudly.

That’s the show so far. Try to keep up.

Axeman on January 12, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Quoting myself here:

somebody comes on to say that conservatives are “just as guilty”. When that should have been realized prior to the time that you said that saying “armed and dangerous” is incivil and can only be meant to incite violence.

I think it would have been more illustrative to say that that relative guilt (“just as guilty”) should have been taken into account before making judgements. As often is mentioned to his credit Nobel laureate Paul Krugman ignored the context of Bachman’s “armed and dangerous” statement to call it “eliminativist rhetoric” when Bachman had been talking about reading and information. Which is why if you ask me why Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman’s weight behind something doesn’t phase me, I’ll cite intellectual blunders/dishonesty/mischaracterizations-from-Mars like that. His immense hack-ness is largely why he didn’t catch it, I believe.

Axeman on January 12, 2012 at 5:13 PM

unions had a knack for striking themselves out of jobs. I also remember him getting ticked off about a worker in a factory somewhere getting paid an ungodly amount of money to slap labels on bottles or something.

To me it’s about two groups in an economic arrangement trying to get the most they can out of each other, just as companies try to get the best contracts they can for materials, goods and services. The downside for the company is that they can pick and choose to do business (usually I would think) with several different suppliers, but are “stuck” with their at home labor force and can’t simply negotiate with a different union for their pool of workers.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 12, 2012 at 4:39 PM

These parts of your post are exactly why I am totally against unions. The societal need for unions went away many years ago as the government implemented more labor laws, OSHA standards, and such. Now unions are all about maximizing pay and benefits, and hence their own income, no matter what the quality of the workforce may be or what is economically feasible for the company. When a company cannot compete in the labor market for quality people, then they will improve their pay/benefits and/or management culture until they can get the right people – or they will fail as a company. If a company screws over their people, they will lose the best people to other companies. Likewise, as an employee, if your company doesn’t treat you well enough, you have the option to go elsewhere. If noone else wants you, then perhaps your skills and productivity are only worth what you’re getting. That’s how a free labor market works – and unions destroy that in favor of socialist leveling of the workforce to the lowest common denominator.

dentarthurdent on January 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Axeman on January 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Good read I appreciate your depth on the subject. Wish I had more time to digest and reply but I have to run.

Thanks,

Bunsin2 on January 12, 2012 at 5:38 PM

The US has the 2nd highest corporate income tax rate in the world ( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html?_r=1 ).
The federal government is suffocating businesses with expensive and burdensom regulations ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html ).
Unions push for ever more costly compensation packages for less qualified and less productive workers, and get more destructive in their strikes when they don’t get their way (see ANY news article about union activity).
And people continue to cry about companies moving operations overseas. Seriously? You really can’t understand why that happens?

dentarthurdent on January 12, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Why do liberals have such a problem following the plot? Libs are the ones who started this whole violent language inspires violence thing. I think most conservatives used to realize that if you say “that person should be tarred and feathered” you were just being a bit bombastic. Kind of like the way that most cultures use a double and triple negatives to reinforce the negative character, only the English culture turned every statement into a logical proposition. So yeah it can be misunderstood (as wrong)–but you’re not stupid enough to misunderstand are you?

When we turn whiny to point out your whininess–not to mention sillyness and inability to heed your own criticisms, then somebody comes on to say that conservatives are “just as guilty”. When that should have been realized prior to the time that you said that saying “armed and dangerous” is incivil and can only be meant to incite violence.

The main danger is to become so involved in the counter case when faced with stonewalling opposition that you start to believe in the validity of the whiny complaint in the first place.

Meanwhile, we’ve just recently had the chair of the DNC hearken back to the incivility of the Tea Party when they spoke loudly at townhalls. Guess it comes down to which one folks think ought to be allowed to speak loudly.

That’s the show so far. Try to keep up.

Axeman on January 12, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I’ve stated the “tar and feather” thing myself, mostly just after Dear Leader got elected and the Pelosi/Reid Congress was shoving all manner of junk down the American people’s throats.

Jeez, sorry I’m not your clone and don’t think and phrase things exactly as you do.

The point is, I have seen other conservatives use the tar and feather statement, and of course sympathize. It’s like I said-it comes down to which politicians we dislike. Of course the Libtards are going to have an opposite view. Just think it’s stupid to play the pot calling the kettle black over what the Socialists say when I know for a fact many of us have used the same verbiage.

I hope you will come to understand that.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM

These parts of your post are exactly why I am totally against unions. The societal need for unions went away many years ago as the government implemented more labor laws, OSHA standards, and such. Now unions are all about maximizing pay and benefits, and hence their own income, no matter what the quality of the workforce may be or what is economically feasible for the company. When a company cannot compete in the labor market for quality people, then they will improve their pay/benefits and/or management culture until they can get the right people – or they will fail as a company. If a company screws over their people, they will lose the best people to other companies. Likewise, as an employee, if your company doesn’t treat you well enough, you have the option to go elsewhere. If noone else wants you, then perhaps your skills and productivity are only worth what you’re getting. That’s how a free labor market works – and unions destroy that in favor of socialist leveling of the workforce to the lowest common denominator.

dentarthurdent on January 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Sure…folks shouldn’t get hired just because they exist.

On the other hand, I don’t get this mentality where other people should get only whatever their employers want to give them, but I should get paid top dollar. I doubt anyone here is going to walk into their boss’s office tomorrow and say, “You know, I’ve been thinking. I’m concerned about the bottom line of this company so I’m volunteering to take a ___% and will work ____ hours a week extra without compensation.”

I don’t get the issue with the fact that some employees group together in order to bargain for the best contract they can get. Businesses negotiate with each other all the time, and I can’t see how a chamber of commerce is much more than a trade guild (though of disparate industries) collectivizing and lobbying for their best interests along the lines of a union.

It’s one-sided to only expect businesses and stockholders to maximize their profits, but to expect workers to have to settle for less than what they feel they should work for in silence. Give it a try, negotiate, and if they answer is still ‘no’ then find a better job elsewhere, or go into business for yourself.

Wages are regulated (should be anyhow) by market forces, just as prices are (or should be), not by the government, nor inflated by unions. The coziness with government has produced a relationship with the big unions, just as we’re seeing with crony capitalism, and needs to stop (but who’s going to do that and how?).

In my view, many businesses have in a sense sidestepped the effect of market forces on wages by hiring illegal immigrants, and outsourcing to other countries. From a Capitalist standpoint, that’s fine as profits are maximized. But what of the effect on real people and our country as a whole then?

I doubt most union members are socialists, though it’s rather obvious some of them are. I’m guessing most are oblivious to the bigmouths like Trumka and Stern. In fact, many union members are Conservatives and/or Republicans. To say that the two are mutually exclusive is propaganda worthy of anything spewed by the Libtards.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM

GAWD, I hate the left.

ultracon on January 12, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Jeez, sorry I’m not your clone and don’t think and phrase things exactly as you do.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Dude, mea culpa. I guess I really misread your post as from a lib hack.

The point is, I have seen other conservatives use the tar and feather statement, and of course sympathize.

Sorry, I didn’t get that. Again, misreading it like I did.

It’s like I said-it comes down to which politicians we dislike.

That’s where I disagree. I don’t personally dislike any politician. When I “dislike” a politician, it is usually a principled disagreement.

Of course the Libtards are going to have an opposite view. Just think it’s stupid to play the pot calling the kettle black over what the Socialists say when I know for a fact many of us have used the same verbiage.

I hope you will come to understand that.

I don’t really try to speak for other people. I don’t try to decide things for other people, as well. I get where you are coming from, and I think the point is valid. But I’ll state my difference of opinion all the same. When you offer the proposition that violent language and symbols get people killed, and you get personal to the point of characterizing your civil opposition as being in someway complicit and being “eliminativist” in their rhetoric, then I think it behooves you to examine your side first.

But conservatives didn’t come up with this crazy notion. Libs did. Since then they’ve insisted BOTH that violent rhetoric reveals the malevolence in conservative souls and that conservatives love making a “big deal” about liberal rhetoric which–okay–might be a bit over the top. And that’s about all you can get out of them unless they break and say “okay they both do it, but that shouldn’t excuse (the Republicans)”

I don’t understand the whole lack of seriousness, until I think …Alinsky.

Axeman on January 12, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Unions are gangs as well as a business, one that produces NOTHING but higher prices. They are like the bankers/financiers.
They are democracy…mob rule. Mob rule doesn’t mean majority.

John Kettlewell on January 13, 2012 at 1:39 AM

I wish the Republicans in the Senate had walked out on ObamaCare. Had they done so before the filibusters vote was taken, we would not have ObamaCare today. Why not take a page out of the democrat playbook and start walking out? Oh, wait, these are Republicans; responsible legislators. They do not act like children. Nor do they tar and feather those who oppose them.

gasmeterguy on January 13, 2012 at 10:22 AM