Replies

"The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has recorded 8,799 incidents of violence from news reports since 1975."
I think that more reliable sources such as law enforcement agencies would be more accurate in determining the number of violet incidents than those sources chosen by the anti-union NILRR. To further examine this issue, would you accept news reports as the basis for any report? I think the answer is no. From the figures you present it appears there are about 500 acts of union violence a year. Do you actually believe that this is the case.
Nothing that you have as yet posted dispells my concern about the further federalization of state laws. I would think that a conservative approach would be to resist the legislation and allow state law to handle such violent acts as they occur. Otherwise the grip of the federal government will continue to tighten on the rights of states.

That's the same thing they said about the formation of the Interstate Compact. Bank robbers could hide out in the "canebreaks," where Missouri meets Arkansas and Oklahoma and Kansas and jump from one state to another to avoid prosecution.

From the July 2003 issue of NRTW Newsletter, page 3-

"The Institute (NILRR) has found that victims of union henchmen rarely get satisfaction in local, state or federal criminal courts.

According to media accounts the Institute has analysed, 2,193 incidents of union violence occurred nationally between 1991 and 2001. Only 62 individuals were arrested and 10 people punished ..."

The media is mostly liberal. Therefore, "union friendly." Many PD's are now unionized, or trying to organize. Look how Philadelphia PD treated our own "Freeper" Don Adams...

But yes, I would like to see a study done of ACTUAL police reports, witness statements,etc.

I think H.R 1870 addresses your concerns re:Federalization of state law. Please read entire bill-available off C-SPAN or elsewhere.

I am in a union I don't like. I am not a great fan of union misconduct. However, something just smelled fishy to me about this story.

National Right to Work foundation. A group of small disenfranchised union style workers with a lobbying group, and the money to hire lawyers to sue? How could that be? These people should be broke. Is there perhaps a chance that the National Right to Work Foundation is a corporate front group?

I just asked myself that question right now, not knowing the answer, but deeply suspicious. I looked it up. They are a corporate front group. That is ok. They try to disguise that fact though, which is bad.

There is nothing wrong with being a group of business execs who want to stop labor unions. More power to you. I don't blame the AFL-CIO one bit for not debating with them. We know what the agenda is of the AFL-CIO. However, debating a group, who gets massive corporate donations, but hides it's donor list, in a debate that is supposed to be a debate between joe six pack labor types with different opinions is a joke. If the businesses who fund the National Right to Work group want to debate as themselves against the AFL-CIO, then I would be upset if the AFL-CIO turned down the request.

I would feel the same if a tort reform bill was up, and a person from the AMA refused to go up against "Doctors for Apple Pie, and Mother hood", and it turned out to be a trial lawyer funded front group. It's disingenuous, and doesn't raise the level of debate.