Union Thuggery Protected By Law

[Cord Byrd]

Day after day we see videos of union members engaged in acts of intimidation or outright physical violence against those who dare question or challenge their plunder of tax payer dollars. You may have asked yourself, "How does Big Labor get away with this? How do they go unpunished?" The answer is a shocking one. Their violent acts are protected by the United States Supreme Court.

In 1934 Congress passed the Anti-Racketeering Act to combat organized crime by prohibiting the use or threat of violence to force people to make payments to an organization against their will. The American Federation of Labor, knowing that they used intimidation to force payment of union dues, had its cronies in Congress add a clause exempting labor organizations from the law.

Although the exemption only protected lawful union activity, in 1942 the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Local 807, IBT, that if the desired end is lawful, ANY means to get to that end are protected from federal prosecution. In response to this outrageous ruling, Congress, in 1946, passed the Hobbs Act over President Truman's veto. The Hobbs Act is specifically designed to punish union officials for using violence to extort money from employers. The story does not end there however.

In 1973 the Supreme Court, in United States v. Enmons, ruled that as long as the union was seeking a "legitimate union objective," that union violence is justified. The Hobbs Act contains the following language, "the obtaining of property...by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence or fear." So, according to Supreme Court logic, if a union is on strike, as in Enmons, and is seeking a legitimate end, i.e. higher wages, any violence in furtherance of that goal is not "wrongful" and therefore does not violate the Act. Union leadership no doubt has informed its members that they have carte blanche to engage in "any means necessary" to protect the flow of money to union coffers.

In 2003 Congressman Joe Wilson introduced a bill to eliminate this loophole. The Freedom from Union Violence Act did not make it out of subcommittee as of the close of the 2003 session of Congress. In light of an increase in union threats and violence, perhaps it is time to revisit this law.

 

[J.R.]

My pleasure, Roma and Tom.  Below are links to Mark Stein's website and Powerline blog, which is one of the best, if not THE best political blogs online.  A few excerpts are included.  I love Mark Stein's dry wit that can even make the political news of the day... any day... enjoyable and informative reading.  And Powerline's postings are always well researched and placed in historical context.

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3767/26 n

"STATES OF THE UNION"
"The Democrat palace guard of America's dying monodailies are doing a grand job in reporting the current stand-off in Wisconsin. A headline in The New York Times sums up the media's bizarre enthusiasm for sacrificing what remains of their reputations in order to protect the cause:

"Billionaire Brothers' Money Plays Role in Wisconsin Dispute"
"The dogged John Hinderaker of Powerline is endeavoring to get some answers from the shy and retiring Eric Lipton as to the basis for certain aspects of his story. [UPDATE: New York Times "fact"-checking in action]. But I find the headline alone so perverse you wonder how, even at the Times, it could have wafted up through six layers of editors without someone saying, "Oh, come on..." What's happening in Wisconsin is all about money: budgets, shortfalls, obligations, perks, pensions, privileges - and the burdens of the beleaguered productive class that pays for it."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

Follow this link to Powerline, one of the best political blogs online, if not THE best. There are a number of blog posts on their webpage about unions and the union thuggery in Wisconsin, including one that you didn't hear about in the national media about how the Republican legislators had to be taken out of the capitol through a tunnel by police guards to a bus, where violent union thugs were there waiting for them.

[There are further links in the above excerpts, but leaving them in the above screwed up this post and made the entire thing an active link, so I de-activated them here. If the above links don't work, cut or copy them into your browser and paste them into the url address line on your toolbar.]

[J.R.]

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/union-myths

"The biggest myth about labor unions is that unions are for the workers. Unions are for unions, just as corporations are for corporations and politicians are for politicians.

Nothing shows the utter cynicism of the unions and the politicians who do their bidding like the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act” that the Obama administration tried to push through Congress. Employees’ free choice as to whether or not to join a union is precisely what that legislation would destroy..."     

Click on the above link to read the rest of "Union Myths," by Thomas Sowell, who is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

[J.R.]

Roma and Tom, you're right about the vast advantage of posting info on blogs and e-mail chains. Information that is mass e-mailed, along with a request that it be forwarded to others, results in the dissemination of information growing exponentially.  Posting on websites and blogspots is extremely effective because, once information is posted in the blogosphere, it can go viral and reach millions of people.  Same for FaceBook, U-Tube, and so on.  Also, many  websites and blogs link to each other and new postings are made each day on most of them,  Many of them have huge viewership/readership on a daily basis and are often quoted in other media. 

However, when sending out e-mails to a large number of people and asking they forward them to others, let them know not to send them to more than 10 or 15 e-mail addresses at a time, so as not to be flagged as spamming.   

Now is a particularly opportune time to expose these corrupt labor unions, their joined-at-the-hip Democrat partners, and their adverse impact on states' economies... and, by extension, on taxpayers of those states who get stuck with the increased taxes. 

[J.R.]

Thanks, Roma and Tom.  Regarding #10: Unions have the power to have government collect money (dues) at taxpayers' expense, therefore saving unions that expense;  the power to conscript workers' dues that fund union operations;  and the power to take all that money out of the states in which it was conscripted (huge amounts of money leaving states' economies) which, if kept in the hands of the workers, would be spent predominately within the state, where it would help fuel the state's economy and taxpayers could be taxed less. 

I wonder how many workers might not be in financial trouble now, or might not have had their homes forclosed on if the parasitic unions hadn't had a license to extort money from them?  Unionism is just a planned, legalized, and enforced scheme to extort money from workers to fund the symbiotic relationship between unions and the Democrats.  It's a mutually beneficial scheme that benefits unions and Democrats and no one else---except for incompetent workers who can't be fired because the unions protect them from being fired.

[J.R.]

Here are some links to information at The Heritage Foundation - Fact Sheet and Video:

GOVERNMENT UNION COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 101 - VIDEO

http://www.askheritage.org/government-union-collective-bargaining-101/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2011-03-11&utm_campaign=2011_Brand

 

GOVERNMENT UNIONS 101: What Public-Sector Unions Won't Tell You (Fact Sheet) 

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/pdf/fs0079.pdf

[J.R.]

J.L., also feel free to use anything I've written.  It is extremely offensive and troubling that the laws of this land are being selectively enforced, apparently according to who has money, political influence and power... and carries the biggest stick. What are we to believe, now... that national/international labor unions have become the fourth rail and that they have extra-constitutional rights that the rest of us don't have?  Jesse Jackson is claiming that collective bargaining "is a civil right" and has even invoked the name of Martin Luther King in an incredibly tainted union enterprise and aggression that MLK would never have sanctioned or participated in. Are we now down to some folks being more equal than other folks?  That's easy to believe when union bigwigs now have a revolving door at the White House and are the Organizer-in-Chief's most frequent visitors.  This must be our course in Union Power 101 and Madison, Wisconsin was a field trip for union thugs and community organizers. Too bad for them they failed the test.

[Esther Byrd]

Please feel free to use any or all of my post.  Some have correctly noted that while the unions can't be punished under federal law that they can be punished for violating state law.  Unfortunately, I have come across numerous example where the state officials, including the police, refused to investigate or prosecute union wrongdoing.  This includes a case in West Virginia in which a strike breaker was murdered.  The President's friend, Richard Trumka, was involved in that murder case.  The union was sued in civil court and the case was settled out of court, but no criminal charges were ever filed.

[JL Gawlik]

Great points, everyone needs to write their elected representatives in Congress and in the State about this issue, J.R. and Cord, Do either of you mind if i use parts of your posts to do so?

 

[J.R.]

Perhaps it's time for a new Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will make it absolutely clear that organized national/international labor unions are not exempt from the criminal laws of this land that all the rest of us live under, U.S. Supreme Court notwithstanding. Harassment, coercion, extortion, physical assault, and destruction of public property are crimes/felonies. Further, forced union membership and conscription of dues from public employees not only robs those members of their freedom of choice and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, it imposes an indirect tax on all taxpayers of a state that allows collective bargaining. The Supreme Court does not have the constitutionally-delegated power to assure generation of, allow, or protect the imposition of a tax on the citizens of any state, for that function only belongs to the legislative branch and tax legislation is required to only originate in the U.S. House of Representatives---not the Supreme Court.

That Supreme Court ruling appears to give license to union thugs to engage in criminal activity that can evolve into sedition and anarchy. Witness Jesse Jackson's statement after Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin signed the bill passed by both chambers of the WI Assembly into law, to the effect that, since they didn't win the battle to stop passage of the anti-union bill and its being signed into law, they would have to win the battle in the streets. Jackson's statement, in defense of the unions' right to take public employees' money and fight in the streets for the right to it, was essentially a repeat of a similar statement made by Louis Farakkan, leader of the Nation of Islam in the U.S.. that demonstrations like those in Egypt would be coming to the streets of America. What this confirms for us is that it is the intent of organized national/international labor unions, Obama's/DNC's Organizing for America, the Nation of Islam (ie. the Muslim Brotherhood) to physically attack and subdue those who disagree with them in order to, by force, impose their will, not only on public employees, but on all American citizens. That sounds like incitement to criminal behavior, sedition and anarchy to me... and it's totally unacceptable.

However, it seems there is a difference between what just occurred in Wisconsin and violence the Supreme Court was addressing.  Those union members assaulting police officers and deliberately damaging public property in WI were not on strike and the Organizing for America thugs were not necessarily union members at all... but some of them were violating the law.

Florida's collective bargaining battle will be heating up soon with five Public Employee Reform bills in the Florida House and Senate: SB830 and HB1021 re: Amend to have deductions from salary allowed on approval; HB 1023 re: Certification of bargaining agents; HB 1025 re: Collective Bargaining; and SB 1294 re: Void International Law. The foremost issue is collective bargaining and we will surely see a deluge of union thugs hauled in from out of state like they were in Wisconsin to turn Tallahassee into another battleground.

A major impediment in the state of Florida, is the Amendment ensconced in the Florida Constitution that protects the rights of labor unions. This needs to be repealed and there is time to get that done and get a proposed Amendment on the Florida ballot for the national election in 2012. There are only ten steps in the process for Initiative Petitions, pursuant to Section 106.03, Florida Statutes, Section 106.143, F.S., and s.106.19(3), F.S., s.106.191, F.S., verification of signatures in accordance with Rule 1S-2.0091, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), clearance from the Attorney General confirming signatures from 10% of the voters required from at least 25% of the congressional districts, and the final obtaining of an advisory opinion regarding the compliance of the text of the proposed amendment with s.3,Art.XI of the State Constitution and the compliance of the proposed ballot title and summary with Section 101.161, Florida Statutes. I have been researching this and some of us are already seeking groups throughout Florida who would be willing to work to obtain the requisite number of certifiable petitions signed by registered voters in Florida. Mr. Byrd, since you are an attorney who specializes in constitutional law, perhaps you could let us know of any groups who may already be working on an Initiative Petition or anyone who might be interested in helping craft the proposed amendment to assure that it meets the statutory requirements. We need all the help we can get.　

The parasitic labor unions effect a huge transfer of wealth out of Florida's economy year after year. Taxpayers have to pay for the cost of the state collecting dues for the unions and have to pick up the tab for loss of revenue that would have come into Florida's treasury had it not been taken out of Florida's economy by the unions and been spent in Florida instead. How fair and equitable is that?? We need to get the unions' tentacles out of Florida's Treasury and out of taxpayers' pockets by ensuring that Florida becomes a Right to Work state. The money public employees will have to pay for their share of benefits will likely be less than their union dues are costing them now. They are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us---no more, no less.

Thank you for your post. This really needs to be a high profile issue and the general public needs to be made fully aware of it and what it is costing them. I shudder to even imagine the total amount of money organized labor has taken out of the state of Florida over time... and how much that total has cost Florida taxpayers.

[JL Gawlik]

Just found a old news report back in 2002: 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70493,00.html

 

Perhaps it is time to revisit this because of the rising protests, i bet very few Congressional members are aware of this. Apparently according to WiKi in the United States v. Enmons: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Enmons  :

 

The court's ruling set a legal precedent where violent acts against an employer by workers on strike, including destruction of property, assault, and homicide, are not punishable offenses under federal law. They can, however, be punishable under state or federal civil and criminal laws. These laws can include assault and battery, murder, and theft, among others.

In understanding Enmons, it is important to keep in mind that what the Hobbs Act outlaws is extortion, not just any bad act. Federal law, in particular the National Labor Relations Act, says that collective bargaining and strikes in support of collective bargaining goals are legal and protected. Therefore, since collective bargaining is purpose that is not extortion, one of the key elements of a Hobbs Act violation is not met.

****************

 

I am assuming that keeps the U.S. Dept. of Justice out of it.