[em2vn]

I simply ask you a question about union meetings and your knowledge of someone being attack at one. Are you or are you not personally aware of such an attack.
I do favor competition and a see unions as a part of the competitive dynamic in a demand driven economy. Unions represent their members in the market for labor. Unions certainly seek to achieve higher wages for their members. That’s something I support.
On the other hand you evidently oppose legislation that benefits hourly workers. But I believe you don’t oppose legislation such as NAFTA or any legislation that is detrimential to hourly employees while wildly favoring corporate interests to the detriment of of our nation.

[Yardstick]

I simply ask you a question about union meetings and your knowledge of someone being attack at one.

Well aren't you just an innocent little thing. Trouble is, one post earlier you hinted that he'd get roughed up by union thugs if he told them they were thugs. Your line of reasoning is similar to the Islamonuts who threaten to kill anyone who suggests they're not peaceful.

[businessprofessor]

I am personally aware of union thuggery. My dad was subject to union thuggery when he worked for GE in Evendale, Ohio. There have also been many instances of union thuggery reported in the press.

Unions are against competition. If you are for unions, you are against labor competition. Unions would not exist without coercive legislation. I would support workers and owners of capital through less regulation, litigation, and taxation.

NAFTA is a very complex agreement. I am sure there are parts of NAFTA that I support and parts that I oppose. On balance, I support less restrictive trade but the details are important in the trade agreements. On balance, I support more efficient movement of goods but I have concerns about safety and illegal immigration that may result.