Helpful union surrogate vows to chase Gov. Rick Snyder’s daughter to soccer game

posted at 11:31 am on December 15, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

The great thing about Democracy – as I’m sure you’ll all agree – is that once the campaigns, debates and battles are over and the people have spoken, everyone can pick up the pieces and get on with productive work to advance the principles each side believes in. Clearly, such is the case in Michigan, where defeated but undaunted union advocates have already begun dusting themselves off and …

Nope.

LANSING — A speaker at a union protest against right-to-work legislation said if Gov. Rick Snyder signed the bill he would get “no rest” and that protesters would be at his “daughter’s soccer game.” …

The Rev. Charles Williams II made the comments Tuesday to loud cheers before a group of thousands of union workers. After his promises to harass Gov. Snyder, he introduced Rep. Richard Hammel, D-Mt. Morris Township, and House Minority Leader Tim Greimel, D-Auburn Hills. Williams is a Detroit-area pastor and left-wing activist.

Gov. Snyder later that day signed a bill into law making Michigan a right-to-work state. One of his daughters is a 16-year-old high school student.

Well, that’s just lovely. The truly ironic part of all of this is that Governor Snyder wasn’t even working on the whole Right to Work thing as the initial part of his term. He was pushing for some fiscal sanity and spurring job creation. It was the people of the state who elected representatives in the legislative branch who brought the issue forward. At that point the governor had to weigh the merits of the legislation and act upon it. And yet those who came out on the short end of the stick feel that democracy is best served by chasing his 16 year old daughter around to school events.

Should the governor be worried? Well, given the calm, reasoned welcome that Steven Crowder received from these guys, it should certainly give him pause. The governor, of course, should have access to some form of personal security which will hopefully keep him and his family safe from violence, but the same can not be said for everyone else in the state who may be hoping to find a job. But in the meantime, Reverend Williams and his flock will be hanging around the soccer field.

Unfortunately for this logistical brain trust, there was still one wrinkle in their plan.

It appears that union protesters would have little luck finding the governor at the soccer field. According to a player profile on AnnArbor.com, his daughter participates only in softball and volleyball.

Ah, well. At least your heart’s in it. Let’s go to the video on this chipper Saturday morning.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

Time for vigilante justice at the soccer games.

mixplix on December 15, 2012 at 1:40 PM

(If the Reverend had been a WHITE man…..for a ‘smart’ phone it sure ‘corrects’ what I want to say WRONG a lot)

easyt65 on December 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM

“Reverend”? Hardly.

Nice of the paper to helpfully direct him to the correct sports field.

PattyJ on December 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM

That sounds like a terrorist threat to me. Why hasn’t DHS arrested him?

woodNfish on December 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Governor Snyder wasn’t even working on the whole Right to Work thing as the initial part of his term. He was pushing for some fiscal sanity and spurring job creation

As much as I despise these union thugs, “Right to Work” means nothing more than a green light to drive down wages, open up more opportunities for illegal immigrants, and to create an environment where folks are working two or three jobs (and dropping off the unemployment rolls) thus numerically lowering employment and making these state politicians look good (oh, and BHO as well).

It is also political, because weakening unions naturally reduces the union contributions to Democrats. It has nothing to do with the freedom of individuals to join or not join a union.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Cindy Munford on December 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Cindy,

I agree that those of us who want to work will be pounding the pavement looking for work. When my government ‘contract’ job dried up, I took a cut in pay to stay employed and productive. I have filed for unemployment three times in my life but have never drawn a single unemployment check because I always have gained another job within two weeks. “I” definitely would not have time to attend any protests.

Hammie on December 15, 2012 at 2:06 PM

********************** ALERT **************************

The Associated Press ‏@AP

BREAKING: Okla. student, 18, arrested in alleged shooting and bombing plot at Bartlesville high school: http://apne.ws/WewAec -RJ

Dec. 15 1:58 PM EST
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/okla-teen-arrested-school-shooting-plot

canopfor on December 15, 2012 at 2:11 PM

protesters would be at his “daughter’s soccer game.” …

So these morons are advocating violence against innocent children at school.

FTG.

Kenosha Kid on December 15, 2012 at 2:13 PM

It has nothing to do with the freedom of individuals to join or not join a union.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM

It certainly does. Unions have no right to compel the collection of protection money. That is reserved for the government and criminals, but I repeat myself.

CorporatePiggy on December 15, 2012 at 2:13 PM

boy that topic picture certainly illustrated a group of vile hustlers that ought to receive the sort of treatment they are threatening against others.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Obviously, ‘democracy now’ means something completely different to Bolsheviks than to decent people.

locomotivebreath1901 on December 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Interesting story,on the AP Breaking News Story,…hmmmmmmmmm

Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew

Breaking yesterday: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20121214_11_0_BARTLE641724 … RT @AP: BREAKING: Okla. student 18 arrested in alleged shooting and bombing plot at Bartlesville HS
===================================

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20121214_11_0_BARTLE641724

canopfor on December 15, 2012 at 2:22 PM

It has nothing to do with the freedom of individuals to join or not join a union.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM

It certainly does. Unions have no right to compel the collection of protection money. That is reserved for the government and criminals, but I repeat myself.

CorporatePiggy on December 15, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I agree about closed shop-totally against it.

But I maintain that these politicians don’t give a hang about people being forced into unions. If unions were big contributors to the Republican Party, it’d be Democrats doing the same thing that Republicans are doing in the states they control.

If you believe that government is indeed a den of criminals, then I don’t see why you’d believe that there’s any altruistic motives behind union-busting?

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I disagree. It has everything to do with not requiring workers to support a POLITICAL organization they do not wish to be affiliated with.

It also has quite a bit to do with a worker getting paid what they are worth. All workers are NOT equal. Some of them will only do what is necessary to get by while others will naturally push themselves toward excellence.

I moved away from Indiana 32 years ago because I could not get a job unless I joined the union that gave millions of dollars to the democratic party. Plus I couldn’t join the union unless I was invited to join the union and then I would have to sign a contract giving said union full rights to decide when and where and for how much I would work. I refused to be a slave for and/or support that political machine then and I refuse to support it now. At that time, my father was a union boss and he and I responsibly chose not to discuss politics to save our relationship. He still almost disowned me over my beliefs.

Hammie on December 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Innocents are slaughtered in Newton,CT and these filthy union thugs threaten children? Theswe thugs must be stopped!

redware on December 15, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Hammie on December 15, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I know! And the one time the fiscally responsible banned together to make a stand (Tea Party) we were called everything but a child of God. The Left is very good at what they do and we better figure out a way to combat it or shut up and take it.

Cindy Munford on December 15, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Once it’s been signed into law, what good does it possibly do for union thugs to harass the governor’s family? My guess is that logic has never been their strong suit.

College Prof on December 15, 2012 at 2:37 PM

OT

The soldier’s name wasn’t immediately released. The investigation is ongoing.

Why is name withheld?

Schadenfreude on December 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM

As much as I despise these union thugs, “Right to Work” means nothing more than a green light to drive down wages, open up more opportunities for illegal immigrants, and to create an environment where folks are working two or three jobs (and dropping off the unemployment rolls) thus numerically lowering employment and making these state politicians look good (oh, and BHO as well).

It is also political, because weakening unions naturally reduces the union contributions to Democrats. It has nothing to do with the freedom of individuals to join or not join a union.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM

If you don’t have even the most basic grasp of economics, I suggest you spend your time learning basic economic theory instead of posting on a topic you clearly don’t understand. For example, if you drive down wages some, there will be fewer illegal immigrants.

thuja on December 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM

These goons kids will be the next Newtown murderers.

Mr. Arrogant on December 15, 2012 at 2:42 PM

If you don’t have even the most basic grasp of economics, I suggest you spend your time learning basic economic theory instead of posting on a topic you clearly don’t understand. For example, if you drive down wages some, there will be fewer illegal immigrants.

thuja on December 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM

So over the last several decades as factories have closed down and the same jobs have reappeared in China and elsewhere, illegal immigration has gone down? Americans have enjoyed ever-increasing economic opportunities? Really?

I disagree. It has everything to do with not requiring workers to support a POLITICAL organization they do not wish to be affiliated with.

It also has quite a bit to do with a worker getting paid what they are worth. All workers are NOT equal. Some of them will only do what is necessary to get by while others will naturally push themselves toward excellence.

I moved away from Indiana 32 years ago because I could not get a job unless I joined the union that gave millions of dollars to the democratic party. Plus I couldn’t join the union unless I was invited to join the union and then I would have to sign a contract giving said union full rights to decide when and where and for how much I would work. I refused to be a slave for and/or support that political machine then and I refuse to support it now. At that time, my father was a union boss and he and I responsibly chose not to discuss politics to save our relationship. He still almost disowned me over my beliefs.

Hammie on December 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM

For the second time, I agree with not forcing workers to join unions.

What I’m saying (yet again) is that the politicians in these right to work states really don’t care about whether you have to join a union or not…it’s all about weakening the political opposition. In fact, they don’t really care if you have a home or a job. All they care about is getting votes and getting money from somewhere, anywhere.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:56 PM

politicians in these right to work states really don’t care about whether you have to join a union or not…it’s all about weakening the political opposition. In fact, they don’t really care if you have a home or a job. All they care about is getting votes and getting money from somewhere, anywhere.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Politicians doing the right thing for the wrong reason is far preferred to the converse.

Kenosha Kid on December 15, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Politicians doing the right thing for the wrong reason is far preferred to the converse.

Kenosha Kid on December 15, 2012 at 3:05 PM

So, we on the right take a few pages from Saul Alinsky? I guess I could handle that if maybe we could have defeated an obviously unqualified candidate in at least one of the last two elections.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 3:09 PM

obama’s hired henchmen will stop at nothing – the unionist reign of terror is only beginning.

Pork-Chop on December 15, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I agree about closed shop-totally against it.

But I maintain that these politicians don’t give a hang about people being forced into unions. If unions were big contributors to the Republican Party, it’d be Democrats doing the same thing that Republicans are doing in the states they control.

If you believe that government is indeed a den of criminals, then I don’t see why you’d believe that there’s any altruistic motives behind union-busting?

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM

This is one of the most ignorant posts I’ve seen posted at HA – next, should we expect you to say that no GOP politician is really pro-life, too?

This reminds me of the clueless idiot leftists who say that people like Rush and Glenn Beck aren’t sincere about what they say they believe because they’re only manipulative entertainers, or those who say that Muslim extremism is due to poverty and lack of opportunity, and nothing else – you do not understand how Conservatives think or work, obviously.

Anti-Control on December 15, 2012 at 3:15 PM

This is one of the most ignorant posts I’ve seen posted at HA – next, should we expect you to say that no GOP politician is really pro-life, too?

This reminds me of the clueless idiot leftists who say that people like Rush and Glenn Beck aren’t sincere about what they say they believe because they’re only manipulative entertainers, or those who say that Muslim extremism is due to poverty and lack of opportunity, and nothing else – you do not understand how Conservatives think or work, obviously.

Anti-Control on December 15, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Sure, if you want to sit around and let government solve all of your problems and know that Rush and Beck have your back, go on ahead.

I’m fed up with all of them. They have and will sell us out in a heartbeat. The only one on our side who I would exclude from that list is Sarah Palin, but unfortunately it would seem that too many Conservatives don’t want “some skirt” in the White House.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 3:20 PM

What I’m saying (yet again) is that the politicians in these right to work states really don’t care about whether you have to join a union or not…it’s all about weakening the political opposition. In fact, they don’t really care if you have a home or a job. All they care about is getting votes and getting money from somewhere, anywhere.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:56 PM

I suspect you are a follower of Blago, which hardly gives you any credibility. However, your comment above goes both ways. The politicians in union-dominated states, like here in Illinois, don’t care if you have a home or a job, they just want your votes and money. I have been a member of three unions, and all they ever did was take my money, prohibit chances of advancement by achievement or merit, (only by seniority), and make sure the worst workers (whom everyone despised) never get fired.

Union bosses do not give a damn about the workers, only the worker’s money. They do not want workers to have free speech, self-determination or the right to choose a candidate. They take your money and give it to the candidate of their choice, and then tell you who to vote for.

Unions are no longer necessary, unless you want a socialist state. Sounds like you do.

southsidetom on December 15, 2012 at 3:22 PM

What I’m saying (yet again) is that the politicians in these right to work states really don’t care about whether you have to join a union or not…it’s all about weakening the political opposition. In fact, they don’t really care if you have a home or a job. All they care about is getting votes and getting money from somewhere, anywhere.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Not all politicians are like that (I agree a good majority are).

Yes it is about weakening the political opposition, but only to the effect of not allowing the opposition to use money that is not rightly theirs to use from individuals who have absolutely NO desire to donate to ANY political party (let alone the one that nearly ALL union money goes toward).

It is also about giving workers the freedom to choose to belong to that political organization. This is one of those situations where liberals choose to not believe in Freedom of Choice.

Hammie on December 15, 2012 at 3:23 PM

So, we on the right take a few pages from Saul Alinsky? I guess I could handle that if maybe we could have defeated an obviously unqualified candidate in at least one of the last two elections.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Which page is that? It’s not an ends/means Utopian argument, if that’s what you’re saying.

Anyway, defeating Unqualified Candidate is difficult when relying on electorate feeding on Unqualified Information.

Kenosha Kid on December 15, 2012 at 3:27 PM

If you believe that government is indeed a den of criminals, then I don’t see why you’d believe that there’s any altruistic motives behind union-busting?

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Funny. I don’t recall the law signed by the governor made any mention of ‘outlawing’ any union organization.

Hammie on December 15, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Sure, if you want to sit around and let government solve all of your problems and know that Rush and Beck have your back, go on ahead.

I’m fed up with all of them. They have and will sell us out in a heartbeat. The only one on our side who I would exclude from that list is Sarah Palin, but unfortunately it would seem that too many Conservatives don’t want “some skirt” in the White House.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 3:20 PM

So, Sarah is the only legit one of them all, is opposed by many on the Right because of her sex, and the GOP is covertly doing the work of big government when it pushes for RTW?

lol you are hopelessly demented if you believe what you wrote here – you sound like a paranoid, conspiratorial leftard!

Anti-Control on December 15, 2012 at 3:29 PM

They have and will sell us out in a heartbeat.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 3:20 PM

TRUE.

Kenosha Kid on December 15, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I suspect you are a follower of Blago, which hardly gives you any credibility. However, your comment above goes both ways. The politicians in union-dominated states, like here in Illinois, don’t care if you have a home or a job, they just want your votes and money. I have been a member of three unions, and all they ever did was take my money, prohibit chances of advancement by achievement or merit, (only by seniority), and make sure the worst workers (whom everyone despised) never get fired.

Union bosses do not give a damn about the workers, only the worker’s money. They do not want workers to have free speech, self-determination or the right to choose a candidate. They take your money and give it to the candidate of their choice, and then tell you who to vote for.

southsidetom on December 15, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Except for the ludicrous Blag accusation, no disagreement here.

Unions are no longer necessary, unless you want a socialist state. Sounds like you do.

You all are buying the smokescreen-unions are and have been pretty much irrelevant. I’ve given up on the GOP doing anything about controlling illegal immigration, or anything about government spending, or doing anything about raping the middle class.

But, if the unions are put in their place, the Republic is saved, right?

It is also about giving workers the freedom to choose to belong to that political organization. This is one of those situations where liberals choose to not believe in Freedom of Choice.

Hammie on December 15, 2012 at 3:23 PM

You’re too nice…I’d say Liberals choose to not believe in Freedom of Choice in any and all circumstances. They can’t stomach the thought of somebody, somewhere not thinking the way they do.

What is disheartening is that I’m noticing of late many Conservatives acting like that as well.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 3:33 PM

So, Sarah is the only legit one of them all, is opposed by many on the Right because of her sex, and the GOP is covertly doing the work of big government when it pushes for RTW?

lol you are hopelessly demented if you believe what you wrote here – you sound like a paranoid, conspiratorial leftard!

Anti-Control on December 15, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Yeah, leftards are such huuuuuge Palin supporters.

Please try to make some sense.

As for big government, how much smaller did government become under Bush? Please explain…

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Just like the Newtown shooting…

… Oh, wait!

Seven Percent Solution on December 15, 2012 at 3:35 PM

But, if the unions are put in their place, the Republic is saved, right?

Nice straw man.

CW on December 15, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Yeah, leftards are such huuuuuge Palin supporters.

Please try to make some sense.

As for big government, how much smaller did government become under Bush? Please explain…

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Do you know what “sound like” means? In your case, I meant that you screech like crazy leftists i.e. you have the same kind of whine and oblivious, fact-free, insane thought process as they do.

You are a miserable, self-righteous nut who is not as smart as you think you are, and hopefully, you will now accuse me of attacking you personally to top your foolish ranting off! :)

Nice straw man.

CW on December 15, 2012 at 3:38 PM

The dullard doesn’t get what you are saying.

You must not like Sarah Palin or something, you’ll now be told.

Anti-Control on December 15, 2012 at 3:51 PM

As for big government, how much smaller did government become under Bush? Please explain…

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 3:35 PM

What does GWB have to do with your incredibly stupid commentary about the GOP’s relationship to RTW?

Unions suck – most GOPers and GOP politicians understand this. That you don’t says something negative about you, and you should investigate what that is.

Anti-Control on December 15, 2012 at 3:59 PM

So, we on the right take a few pages from Saul Alinsky? I guess I could handle that if maybe we could have defeated an obviously unqualified candidate in at least one of the last two elections.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Which page is that? It’s not an ends/means Utopian argument, if that’s what you’re saying.

Anyway, defeating Unqualified Candidate is difficult when relying on electorate feeding on Unqualified Information.

Kenosha Kid on December 15, 2012 at 3:27 PM

It is just such an argument. But what I’m asking is, is it OK if it works out for us? Is it OK to publicly claim the reasons you’re doing something is not the reason you did it just as the Leftists do? I have a problem with that. I expect honesty. I get that most of you here are buying these GOP politicians at face value because they did something we agree with…I’m just saying that I don’t think they’re being honest as to their motivations.

As for information, we certainly know the Left controls the bulk of the media. But, the GOP couldn’t even inspire millions of its own party members to come out and vote. That’s obviously a problem, but now one I believe I can lay at the feet of the LSM.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Straight up racism.

SouthernGent on December 15, 2012 at 4:03 PM

If he does, shoot him as he has already stated that he is a threat to the child.

gDavid on December 15, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Perhaps it is time to talk about a union ban.

That’s the only way to stop the violence and the insanity.

It’s time for politicians to standup to the NEA and say no more.

Galt2009 on December 15, 2012 at 4:10 PM

What does GWB have to do with your incredibly stupid commentary about the GOP’s relationship to RTW?

Unions suck – most GOPers and GOP politicians understand this. That you don’t says something negative about you, and you should investigate what that is.

Anti-Control on December 15, 2012 at 3:59 PM

There are a lot of organizations I don’t believe in. It’s not my place to tell fellow Citizens which they can and cannot join, and it’s not those organizations’ place to tell Citizens they have to join, and certainly not the right of government. Can’t make it much more plain than that.

So, Sarah is the only legit one of them all, is opposed by many on the Right because of her sex, and the GOP is covertly doing the work of big government when it pushes for RTW?

My Bush comment came from the above quote. I voted for him, and would gladly do it again, but don’t tell me that only the Dems are for big government. If anything, the GOP is maybe for “smaller big government”?

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM

If you believe that government is indeed a den of criminals, then I don’t see why you’d believe that there’s any altruistic motives behind union-busting?

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Funny. I don’t recall the law signed by the governor made any mention of ‘outlawing’ any union organization.

Hammie on December 15, 2012 at 3:27 PM

“Union-busting” is any action taken by government to weaken unions. Doesn’t mean they’re outlawed.

I still don’t get why unions can’t negotiate contracts for their own members, and if non-members get better contracts, then obviously there would be no need for unions. Makes little difference if one negotiates their own contract or if it’s done collectively. It’s all simply basic economic principles of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement, and government needs to stay out of it.

The underlying word is “contract”. In my view, no employee should sell their labor without a contract, and no employer should hire labor without a contract. We contract for so many things in our economic system, except for much of our labor. Even indentured servants worked under a contract.

So, Right to Work has pretty much come to mean that an employee can be fired “just because” and an employee can leave “just because” and either way, there are no repercussions. There would be legal and monetary repercussions if I contracted to get a house built, and it wasn’t or if it wasn’t done as agreed. It’s not an efficient way of doing business.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 4:34 PM

So, Right to Work has pretty much come to mean that an employee can be fired “just because” and an employee can leave “just because” and either way, there are no repercussions. There would be legal and monetary repercussions if I contracted to get a house built, and it wasn’t or if it wasn’t done as agreed. It’s not an efficient way of doing business.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Damn near every state in the union is an “at will” state.

I’m in a union, total waste of human potential. I hate 95% of their uneducated and entitle lazy asses.

tom daschle concerned on December 15, 2012 at 4:44 PM

but don’t tell me that only the Dems are for big government. If anything, the GOP is maybe for “smaller big government”?

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM

That’s pretty much it.

And I didn’t mean to imply that they are all criminals. There are a handful of good apples, and the rest lack the worth ethic and dedication of professional criminals.

CorporatePiggy on December 15, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Damn near every state in the union is an “at will” state.

I’m in a union, total waste of human potential. I hate 95% of their uneducated and entitle lazy asses.

tom daschle concerned on December 15, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Yep, and they’re busy shooting themselves in the foot all the time. They never seem to get that’s what is good for their employer is maybe, just maybe, good for them as well. Astonishing.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I still don’t get why unions can’t negotiate contracts for their own members, and if non-members get better contracts, then obviously there would be no need for unions. Makes little difference if one negotiates their own contract or if it’s done collectively. It’s all simply basic economic principles of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement, and government needs to stay out of it.

“Collectively” put us right back into the same mess. A substandard worker does not deserve to get the same pay as an exceptional worker. I said individually and i meant individually.

If the government has no business getting involved in union business, then unions have no business representing government employees. This includes the ones teaching our children. How many hundreds of teachers are being paid because they are union members, yet cannot be allowed back into a classroom because they violated some law (the violation of which prevents them from being a room full of children) or failed to maintain their teaching credentials as required by law. Continuing to pay someone with my tax dollars when, by all rights, they should be summarily terminated is an aberration. Or how about the Chrysler workers video taped recently drinking and smoking weed during their break? There is actually a federal law on the books about operating any machinery in the workplace while under the influence of any substance (to include prescription drugs that alter the senses).

The underlying word is “contract”. In my view, no employee should sell their labor without a contract, and no employer should hire labor without a contract. We contract for so many things in our economic system, except for much of our labor. Even indentured servants worked under a contract.

This makes absolutely no sense. If that was the case and I was an employer, I would make each and every worker sign a contract with a clause allowing me to fire them summarily if I want to. I would also have a very shrewd lawyer on hand to ensure the contract was in my favor. I wouldn’t be hiring very many employees under this auspice. We have many RTW states and they seem to be doing just fine without mandatory union membership. In-fact, they are some of the least indebted states in the country.

Indentured servants did have a contract with their employer who paid to get them something or somewhere. They were contracted to work for a certain number of hours/days/weeks/years to pay for what was provided to them. This argument has absolutely nothing germane to this story.

Sorry folks, my soapbox is getting rather large today.

Hammie on December 15, 2012 at 5:02 PM

In my view, no employee should sell their labor without a contract, and no employer should hire labor without a contract.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I think it’s time for you to take off those “rose-colored” galsses

Hammie on December 15, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Because they are Democratic political machines, and the leadership has been heavily invested in the socialist mentality for decades. They stifle job creation and destroy the livelihood of workers to secure their own comfortable positions.

sharrukin on December 15, 2012 at 12:13 PM

The problem with that second claim is that it isn’t borne out in economic theory or economic fact. True, unionized-states have higher unemployment. However, they also have higher salaries. There is a trade-off to be sure, but so long as that particular political machine is tied to the Democrats, any attack against them will be perceived as an immediate threat to the livelihoods of the working class. The key to handling unions is to persuade them to join us rather than aligning themselves with the Democrats. That includes things like hammering away on certain GOP priorities, like the Keystone XL pipeline and fracking, but also in advocating and championing worker causes such as the minimum wage, guaranteed leave, worker safety conditions, and other causes where GOP opposition is destructive and serves nothing other than to act as the minions of corporate America.

Stoic Patriot on December 15, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Not being forced to pay union dues = kill off their ability to earn a living?

Utterly bizarre indeed.

VegasRick on December 15, 2012 at 12:16 PM

What’s at issue is two-fold: one is the free-rider problem, the second is the evasion problem.

The first is simultaneously a prisoner’s dilemma issue: it involves workers who benefit from, but do not contribute to, the union which secures greater pay and benefits for them. The problem with allowing this choice is that self-interest dictates that the marginal benefit of joining the union is outweighed by the personal cost of joining. However, if everyone takes this attitude then the union collapses and everyone’s worse off than if they had cooperated.

The second problem is the evasion problem. This involves the management of the companies which unions negotiate with. Worker choice allows them to get rid of their union employees and hire strictly from without, thereby making union membership a scarlet letter.

The consequence of these dual problems is lower worker compensation, lower benefits, and greater potential for exploitation.

Stoic Patriot on December 15, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Please try to make some sense.

Dr. ZhivBlago

You first.

xblade on December 15, 2012 at 5:33 PM

“Collectively” put us right back into the same mess. A substandard worker does not deserve to get the same pay as an exceptional worker. I said individually and i meant individually.

Yeah, and we “collectively” vote in these crooks all the time and how has that been working for us? No system is perfect. And contrary to the “rugged individualist” meme, we do depend upon others to some extent.

I don’t see the difference between negotiating a sweet contract where they can’t fire me by myself, or accomplishing that through a union. Either way, somehow forcing an employer into that situation is morally wrong and economically negative for the employer, and for the employee if that business folds. If it is a large employer, even more so as losses and possibly even bankruptcy affect the entire community.

But, what if we assume for a moment that said workers have some desirable skill and/or are good workers? It would be in the employer’s interest to “lock them in” as long as possible. We can’t automatically assume that everyone out there is lazy, but unrealistic contracts can certainly lead to that behavior.

In any economic system people are going to do what’s best for themselves, just as employers are. It’s give and take.

This makes absolutely no sense. If that was the case and I was an employer, I would make each and every worker sign a contract with a clause allowing me to fire them summarily if I want to. I would also have a very shrewd lawyer on hand to ensure the contract was in my favor. I wouldn’t be hiring very many employees under this auspice. We have many RTW states and they seem to be doing just fine without mandatory union membership. In-fact, they are some of the least indebted states in the country.

Indentured servants did have a contract with their employer who paid to get them something or somewhere. They were contracted to work for a certain number of hours/days/weeks/years to pay for what was provided to them. This argument has absolutely nothing germane to this story.

Sorry folks, my soapbox is getting rather large today.

Hammie on December 15, 2012 at 5:02 PM

If you wanted to maintain the right to fire someone summarily, and they signed on to it, then so what? At least they would know up front. So, as an employer you wouldn’t spell out what their pay is, their hours, their job responsibilities, and so on? Of course you would. What if you wanted them to rub your feet every day or get fired? If they signed on to that, then so be it.

Nothing “rose colored”(?) about people negotiating contracts between one another. We have certain responsibilities to those we contract with, and them to us…there’s nothing exotic or outlandish about that.

As for the system working well enough the way it is, it isn’t. Our system is collapsing. And there simply aren’t enough union thugs nor Libtards around to justify all the causes, though the damage they are doing is making things worse.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Please try to make some sense.

Dr. ZhivBlago

You first.

xblade on December 15, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Well, let’s see. I said I supported Sarah Palin, and the poster said I’m therefore a “leftard”.

I suppose you think that makes sense as well?

Thanks for jumping in there!

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 5:48 PM

No hate like liberal hate.

As always.

Moesart on December 15, 2012 at 5:50 PM

These guys may be labor leaders, but they are too fat to do labor. Why is it all these labor leaders and goons, including the fat pig leader of the teachers union, have never missed a meal. The guy that sucker punched Crowder also has never missed a meal. I also notice that that guy, after cowardly sucker punching 6 times, did almost no damage. What a woosy. The only thing that punk can lick is his upper lip.

Old Country Boy on December 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Shameless charlatans. Reverend? Hardly. This is the Christian message they send out? That politics and payoffs trump Christ’s love? Sounds like it’s time for restraining orders.

sgtstogie on December 15, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Hey, SWalker, you see this? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/gov-dossiers-on-us-citizens/

I know they got a file on you, you rabble rouser.

davidk on December 15, 2012 at 7:09 PM

What happened to leaving politicians’ children out of the politics? That applies only to Obamuh and the other libturds?

stukinIL4now on December 15, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Oklahoma is an”at Will” or “free enterprise” state. As long as you are not connected with an idiot human resources puke back in a blue state, you can fire anyone you want for almost any reason except the obvious gender, sexual preferences, and other things that have nothing to do with work place. “Free enterprise” employees are employed by the company and are eligible for benefits. However, there is no seniority. etc. These employees are normally the happiest because they don’t have to be paid the same as everyone else, can quit at any time without notice, and if they are valuable, can be kept on when the deadwood is floating out the door.

Old Country Boy on December 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Oklahoma is an”at Will” or “free enterprise” state. As long as you are not connected with an idiot human resources puke back in a blue state, you can fire anyone you want for almost any reason except the obvious gender, sexual preferences, and other things that have nothing to do with work place. “Free enterprise” employees are employed by the company and are eligible for benefits. However, there is no seniority. etc. These employees are normally the happiest because they don’t have to be paid the same as everyone else, can quit at any time without notice, and if they are valuable, can be kept on when the deadwood is floating out the door.

Old Country Boy on December 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Oh, I have no doubt about what you’re saying, and I’m not defending the artificiality of many aspects of union-negotiated pay scales and benefits.

But, would you let a company set up an oil rig on your land without a contract? Would a car dealership let you drive off with a financed vehicle with no contract? Would a bank let you live in a mortgaged house with no contract? Been in the military? Did you sign a contract? I know I did.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 8:06 PM

But, would you let a company set up an oil rig on your land without a contract? Would a car dealership let you drive off with a financed vehicle with no contract? Would a bank let you live in a mortgaged house with no contract? Been in the military? Did you sign a contract? I know I did.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Ayeah, heaven forbid that there should be a binding agreement spelled out in black and white.

I ran into this same mentality when I told my parents I wanted a prenup someday. These were people who wouldn’t buy a $50 appliance from a thrift shop, because it didn’t have any warranty, but somehow it was just SHOCKING that I wanted something to provide even the most trivial protection before entering into a lifelong contract before God Himself and around a hundred witnesses…

And I see you’re having no success with the conservatives who still think the GOP cares tuppence about them.

MelonCollie on December 15, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Leftist “reverends” and “ministers” to say Jesus was a union member in 4…3…2…

Left Coast Right Mind on December 15, 2012 at 8:35 PM

I wonder if the good “Reverend” has recently examined the details of his personal insurance policies? When you say things like this your insurance policy is void and will not cover your legal costs if you get sued.

Missilengr on December 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM

First of all, that should be taken as an outright threat, pure and simple.
2nd of all, I am certain the Rev will have lots of company looking over his shoulder and some just might decide they like you enough to follow you home and give you a little equal intimidation. Anything you can do, w can do better. You are so childish Rev.

j bo on December 15, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Ayeah, heaven forbid that there should be a binding agreement spelled out in black and white.

I ran into this same mentality when I told my parents I wanted a prenup someday. These were people who wouldn’t buy a $50 appliance from a thrift shop, because it didn’t have any warranty, but somehow it was just SHOCKING that I wanted something to provide even the most trivial protection before entering into a lifelong contract before God Himself and around a hundred witnesses…

And I see you’re having no success with the conservatives who still think the GOP cares tuppence about them.

MelonCollie on December 15, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Oh, boo hoo, the GOP doesn’t care about any of us! What a pathetic post – are you Holden Caulfield by any chance? You’re a paranoid baby, as you show by your retarded attempt to justify the “wisdom” of getting a prenup.

Unions suck, literally. Dense people like Dr. ZhivBlago, who sympathize with them, are delusional, weak people with sh!tty attitudes – know what I mean, MelonCollie? They make less-than-ideal employees, which is why they feel so drawn to unionization in the first place – no employer who’s thinking prefers to hire dingbats who have a tendency toward cultish group-thought like they.

Anti-Control on December 15, 2012 at 9:48 PM

I don’t give a doggone if he calls himself a Rev, he is a childish THUG making threats against a small child, the team mates and the parents and he deserves to be dealt with. I hope he gets a strong dose of whoop a$$.

j bo on December 15, 2012 at 9:52 PM

New Tone

WisCon on December 15, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Oh, boo hoo, the GOP doesn’t care about any of us! What a pathetic post – are you Holden Caulfield by any chance? You’re a paranoid baby, as you show by your retarded attempt to justify the “wisdom” of getting a prenup.

Unions suck, literally. Dense people like Dr. ZhivBlago, who sympathize with them, are delusional, weak people with sh!tty attitudes – know what I mean, MelonCollie? They make less-than-ideal employees, which is why they feel so drawn to unionization in the first place – no employer who’s thinking prefers to hire dingbats who have a tendency toward cultish group-thought like they.

Anti-Control on December 15, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Oh, yeah, the GOP is just doing soooooooo damn much for us. What’s cultish is this slavish attitude that the GOP is going to save us. Hell, I’ll vote for them because the Dems obviously suck way more and have been completely subverted by the Communists. But I’m not going to pretend that the majority of Republican pols really give a damn about us or our country.

We’re in big trouble if you haven’t noticed, and if attacking fellow Republicans/Conservatives who dare to even slightly disagree with you on some issue makes you feel better, then I guess that’s all we need to keep from sliding into Marxism. Keep up the good work, Bro!

What’s wrong with you, wake up.

You can wrap yourself up in your vitriolic hatred of unions and mumble to yourself and drool in a corner, and they can do the same in their equally vitriolic hatred of the TEA Party while our Republic crumbles.

Enjoy!

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 16, 2012 at 1:32 AM

1st of all, after some ‘pastor’s union thug threatens a Governor’s child in an attempt to intimidate & protect union power – especially after the CT school shooting, & you guys are arguing about politics there is something wrong with you. Politics has nothing to do with threatening children! There is no justification for it.

2ndly, this ‘what has the GOP done for us’ CR@p is a fool’s argument. President Johnson recognized blacks as an important source of new votes as Civil Rights legislation was passed. Johnson reportedly said in order to secure their votes Democrats needed to give blacks something…’but not enough to make a difference’…and that is what Democrats have done ever since. This past election more Americans than ever voted for ‘more stufc’ than ever before & had to give up more for it than ever before. Food stamps, welfare, unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, free cell phones….& people/blacks are no better off than they were under Johnson decades ago while Democrats have brainwashed them into believing THEY are their best friends. While unemployment was at 8% unemployment for blacks was at 14%! Obama, following Alinsky’s teachings, creates a common ‘villain’s with which to decide the country – the top 1%.

Obama says the GOP support that 1% simply because they oppose demonizing Americans & bad policy. FOR EXAMPLE: Obama wants to raise $1.6 trillion in new revenue OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS while he is ADDING $1.7 TRIILION IN NEW DEBT EVERY YEAR…while asking for the elimination of the debt limited so he can spend as much as he wants. Detroit is nearly destroyed, abandoned last term, but they voted for him again for more ‘Bacon’s…more stuff but ‘not enough to make a difference’!

&None of this has anything to do with union thugs. Threatening kids.

easyt65 on December 16, 2012 at 2:55 AM

‘Slavish attitude the GOP’ has/institutes? You mean like forcing a situation where the law passed by bought politicians involves stripping Americans of their right to get a job unless they subjugate themselves to the union & pay forced dues used by union leaders to keep buying Democrats who continue to help ensure the union’s monopoly?

The GOP began the NAACP whereas the Democrats began the KKK. The GOP was the power behind getting Civil Rights legislation passed while Democrats were dragged along kicking and screaming. And the GOP just helped return Americans’right to get a job without being forced to join a union while Liberals are threatening children in order to hold on to their oppressive power / monopoly.

easyt65 on December 16, 2012 at 3:09 AM

easyt65 on December 16, 2012 at 3:09 AM

I am going to give you a piece of helpful, friendly advice: keep in mind that the immature person you are trying to have an adult discussion with has a serious psychological problem – you don’t honestly think I’m wrong about that, do you? :)

Anti-Control on December 16, 2012 at 4:50 AM

Sooner or later, the thugs who indulge in these intimidation tactics are going to try intimidating the wrong people and all hell is going to break loose.

zoyclem on December 16, 2012 at 7:20 AM

If anyone wants to begin to understand what’s wrong with liberals, this wasn’t just some union thug talking, this was a minister. He had 2 people behind him who were state representatives. If the reverend didn’t have enough sense not to say something like this, if the state representatives didn’t have the courage to condemn it (or worse they actually condone what he said) it tells me everything I need to know about the state of politics today.

To me, it’s not enough to walk something like this back, I believe it’s time for the left to acknowledge they have a serious problem with the public and they’re going to have to deal with that, and not by stalking the Governor’s daughter.

bflat879 on December 16, 2012 at 8:02 AM

Some institutions just don’t die well.
Unions appear to be in that category.
The best example of that is when they try and defend their existence,which is based on fairness,union thugocracy and campaign dollars for socialists. Small wonder they lose every argument they engage in.
We live in a world of 1984/Atlas Shrugs.Where hard work and excellence are demonized in favor of social justice. The big question is who will such a war of sanity vs. idiocy.

rodguy911 on December 16, 2012 at 8:07 AM

But, would you let a company set up an oil rig on your land without a contract? Would a car dealership let you drive off with a financed vehicle with no contract? Would a bank let you live in a mortgaged house with no contract? Been in the military? Did you sign a contract? I know I did.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I give up. You can’t argue or reason with someone who does not know about what he speaks. Drillers have always had contracts (leases) for oil exploration since oil wells started. This was a protection for the driller, numbnuts. The drillers wanted exclusive rights if they found something. The land owner wanted something out of it also – royalties. In Oklahoma, mineral rights are separated from land rights, but both are real estate, that is why you can’t drill on my neighbor’s land and deliberately take oil under my land, without a mineral lease from me. In this case, the contract was mutually beneficial as all contracts are supposed to be under contract law. Now, Mr. genius, please tell us all how union contracts are mutually beneficial. Don’t give us that union BS that the company only has to negotiate with one entity instead of each employee.

Old Country Boy on December 16, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Was the Rev and Mike Moore separated at birth, cuz the Rev sounds like a scholar from the Rev. Wright school of theology and looks like a drop out from the Mooch Diet Club. I can’t even imagine what his sermons are like. I started working for GTE in the early ’60s just after a long hard strike. It took years for the hard feelings to fade away, some never did get over it.

Kissmygrits on December 16, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Back on topic: The targeting of an innocent child

There is NO reason, political or otherwise, for this type of behavior.

The “Rev” is an animal.

the_moll on December 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I give up. You can’t argue or reason with someone who does not know about what he speaks. Drillers have always had contracts (leases) for oil exploration since oil wells started. This was a protection for the driller, numbnuts. The drillers wanted exclusive rights if they found something. The land owner wanted something out of it also – royalties. In Oklahoma, mineral rights are separated from land rights, but both are real estate, that is why you can’t drill on my neighbor’s land and deliberately take oil under my land, without a mineral lease from me. In this case, the contract was mutually beneficial as all contracts are supposed to be under contract law. Now, Mr. genius, please tell us all how union contracts are mutually beneficial. Don’t give us that union BS that the company only has to negotiate with one entity instead of each employee.

Old Country Boy on December 16, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Sir, if you took the time to read my above posts, I don’t think a company should HAVE TO deal with a union solely, and whether or not a person joins a union or even if one exists at all is up to those people-not third parties like us.

I also believe that such contracts should be mutually beneficial. I don’t believe that they often are. I suppose a few of us have been “took” by a car salesman or a real estate salesman. So, that means we no longer buy cars or houses? At any rate, I would think that we had at least negotiated for what we thought was a better deal…or are we Conservatives supposed to pay sticker price no matter what? Because it’s good for the company I suppose?

I’m talking about free enterprise economics where labor is a negotiable commodity just like oil. Obviously, many here cannot see that, and believe that our labor and skills are the only things on God’s green earth that should neither be contracted nor negotiated.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 16, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Sooner or later, the thugs who indulge in these intimidation tactics are going to try intimidating the wrong people and all hell is going to break loose.

zoyclem on December 16, 2012 at 7:20 AM

I have a horrible premonition this will happen the same time as Westboro’s next protest…maybe it’s just me. These things have a way of snowballing that people do not understand.

MelonCollie on December 16, 2012 at 2:58 PM

“You want to be free Blackman? You have got to kill some Crackers! You are going to have to kill some Cracker babies!”

See: HERE

Anyone see the connection between black “Rev’s.” and a special racial hatred? Want more examples? $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman’s head -never prosecuted; Louis Farrakhan on easing “White’s into the grave”- never prosecuted; Here is a college “professor” describing the Final Solution, for us.

Bulletchaser on December 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Bulletchaser on December 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I get that this guy is an idiot, but when are we going to start taking these people (no, that’s NOT what I mean) serioulsy. A Michigan Sate Rep has already, on the floor of the Statehouse, no less, said, “There will be blood!”.

Hell, I’m ready to take them at their word.

Kenz on December 16, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Great idea, folks- Let’s give it a year or two to see if business will return to your great state. Stop complaining before you know what is going to happen.

Amazingoly on December 16, 2012 at 8:26 PM

That sounds like a terrorist threat to me. Why hasn’t DHS arrested him?

woodNfish on December 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM

It most cerainly is a terroristic threat, but it is an all but state mandated terroristic threat, which means it’s actually free speach-George Orwell lives.
We’ll see much more of this now as the left demonizes the first and second amendments.
Utopia is only neat on paper, you have to have thick layers of hypocracy.

onomo on December 17, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2