[Billy_bob_bob]

I don't think it's "glorifiying" murder to point out simple facts. I suggest you look up the Ludlow massacre before you conclude that management has clean hands on this issue. The battles between managment and labor were often quite vicious. Thugs come in all sizes and shapes and forms, some wear cheap clothes and bash you with sticks, some wear expensive suits and rob you blind with papers and legal tricks.

Considering that the entire issue at stake here is that old jobs are becoming obsolete due to technology, and new jobs are becoming possible due to technology. The union has NO objection to this. The union STRONGLY objects to the notion that these new jobs are to be non-union.

This really doesn't strike me as being all that unreasonable of a demand by the union.

[steveegg]

Considering that the entire issue at stake here is that old jobs are becoming obsolete due to technology, and new jobs are becoming possible due to technology. The union has NO objection to this. The union STRONGLY objects to the notion that these new jobs are to be non-union.

This really doesn't strike me as being all that unreasonable of a demand by the union.

So you're justifying the union thugs slowing things down by 60%, knowing that (a) they'll be paid 100% of their salary and (b) the dock owners can't do ANYTHING about it?

[steveegg]

And one more thing. This, taken directly from your post (#18 for the record) sure sounds like glorifying union-sanctioned murder to me:

The historical fact is that these dockworkers FOUGHT for their union, they had actual battles with strikebreakers and thugs where real people died. After the dust settled they worked out something that gave them some real wealth in return for their labor. In other words, they staked out a claim, fought for it, and have reaped the rewards.