Union man James Hoffa is just taking his cues from the state’s Democrats. Or maybe he’s pulling their strings.
Jimmy Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said Tuesday he expects Michigan unions and lawmakers to break out into “civil war” after the state legislature passed right-to-work bills that would weaken unions’ power. “This is just the first round of a battle that’s going to divide this state. We’re going to have a civil war,” Hoffa said on CNN’s “Newsroom.”
Hoffa also tried his hand at irony.
“What they’re doing is basically betraying democracy,” he told CNN’s Brooke Baldwin. “If there’s any question here, let’s put it on the ballot and let the people of Michigan decide what’s good for Michigan.”
You mean, like the Democrats do, never?
Unions need to be banned from government, period, and severely curtailed in the private sector. They’re bankrupting companies, cities and states and are becoming a threat to basic law and order.
More from Andrew Klavan: Fascist Union Thugs Attack Crowder
isn’t it more appropriate to tell Hoffa that the bill needed to be passed before he could se what was in it?
And challenging it’s legitimacy…isn’t htat…unpatriotic byu chance?
I have spelling fail and no edit button. Sad Panda is Sad
More than the trade unions need to be busted up. The Government and Banksters (did I repeat myself?) should be next in line.
look at california…public union legacy costs are sucking up a major portion of their budget. they are doomed to failure eventually since no union will scale back their contacts voluntarily
Jimmy Hoffa seems to be behind the times. The effort to Amend MI’s Constitution to petrify mandatory union membership was ALREADY rejected. Prop 2, known as “Protect our jobs” (aka, “Union once, Union unto Eternity”), was rejected 58 – 42. Now, MI and all other States need to eliminate the withholding of union dues, making union membership voluntary, and then have unionization be reaffirmed by secret ballot every few years. Why should unions formed in the 30s be mandatory for todays employees? Most often, when given the opportunity, employees now reject unionization.
The desperation comes from the union because they know that given a choice, most employees will keep the dues. It’ll help offset the tax increases coming from Obama.
And they see what the union got the workers at hostess. Rejected the deal without putting it to a vote. “So, do you vote for an 8% cut in wages and continue paying your union dues? or would you rather vote for 100% cut in wages and benefits and stop paying union dues?” Hmmm, tough choice. How about I take the 8% cut in pay and quit paying union dues before they make me lose my job? “That’s not one of the choices you evil capitalist. Not paying union dues in unAmerican.”
“Unions need to be banned from government, period, and severely curtailed in the private sector. They’re bankrupting companies, cities and states and are becoming a threat to basic law and order.”
So much for freedom of association. Hint- it’s in the first amendment. Yes, you really *should* know that, so why didn’t you?
Because the federal courts have yet to discover that clause?
I have no problem with allowing unions. I have a problem with mandating membership, which strikes me as much of a violation of freedom of association as banning them.
And, oddly, Right-to-Work does just that — allows unions, but doesn’t allow mandating membership. So why are the unions so against it?
Nothing I said violates freedom of association. But closed shop union laws do, blatantly.
“So much for freedom of association. Hint- it’s in the first amendment. Yes, you really *should* know that, so why didn’t you?”
The freedom to associate does not give the association the right to abridge standing contracts that were signed by both parties in good faith (employer and worker), or prevent a company from firing missing workers and hiring new ones to fill those open positions.
You want to go on strike? Fine. Do it. And the company should be allowed to see who is willing to work for the position you left, at the pay rate and benefits that were offered. If they can’t find someone to work for them at the rate/benefits they offer, then they’ll go under.
If they can find someone to do it, then why do you have any right to a job you refuse to work?
Freedom of association also doesn’t give unions the right to commit acts of violence, sabotage, and dissembling, which they always do.
How about putting public sector pay, benefits, pension and work rules to a vote by the taxpayers?
And let’s get rid of the Wagner Act and the NLRA act, shareholders also have rights of free association.
No, it’s not:
Freedom of Assembly is the freedom of association. Same thing.
The freedom to associate as you please also means the government cannot force you to associate–aka, force you to join a union.
– to fight and die while he curls up into a ball in a corner, rocking back and forth.
If there is a civil war, and if it is to be led by union goons, then we will defeat them on weekends, on holidays, and after-hours. We will also vanquish them on Mondays and Fridays when their offensives will suffer from shoddy quality and high absenteeism.
Kind of like Paladin, I will travel to Michigan to uphold law and order if the Marxists get out of hand. I have experience shooting at communists.
Once upon a time, I was a shop steward, defending druggies and drunks who I knew should have been canned.
My dues went to salaries for bigwigs. I never once met a rep or had any backup.What a waste of dues money. Now, that job is GONE, thanks to union intrasigence.
Glad I left before the old ways killed the business.
Now my non-union shop pays better, better bennies, better hours, better work environment, and no kickbacks.
All because I work for an evil capitalist who knows how to make ALL of us money.
Tlaloc
Unionism, under the current law, has almost no relationship with the first amendment. Workers have always had a “right to assemble”. What they didn’t have was the right to form a monopoly. By telling an employer that he had to deal with a union rep, exclusive of the desires of other workers that would be willing to work without union representation, is monopolistic behavior. This is one of the reasons that the Wagner Act was passed. Once the Supreme Court ruled, in 1937, that the Act was constitutional – after Roosevelt’s threat to pack the court – Organized Labor pretty much acted like any unregulated monopoly.
You do know that the right is being set up for a kristallnacht event, or a Tsarist Bloody Sunday? Mebbe even a Pol ,”Year Zero.” It’ll be a variation on the theme, anyway.
In the words of Admiral Akbar: “It’s a trap!”
Like the good admiral, you’ve already walked right into it.
If you respond in kind to violence against you, or even in self-defense, the narrative will be about crazy, violent right-wing extremism. The government will be called upon to do something about the crazy and violent right-wing extremists in our midst.
If you don’t respond in kind, or even in self-defense, the number of provocations and incidents against you will merely increase until you do respond in kind. …and the narrative will be that you’re a bunch of crazy, violent right-wing extremists.
The government, of course, will be called upon to do something about the violence and the craziness of the right-wing extremists in our midst.
So, now, you’ve got a problem.
If well played, it could be an opportunity.
What’re ya gonna do about it?
Above, should read: ‘Pol Pot “Year Zero.”‘
not: ‘Pol “year Zero.”‘
Wow, Boner, did you come to that conclusion all by yourself? What next, letting us in on the sun rise coming in the morning *AND* in the east?!
You should be a fricking phone psychic…
What happens when one side realizes they can’t match the other side’s numbers and decides to level the playing field?
This is how revolutions get started.
They better heed Fred Thompson’s warning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emdzsz_XvfA
It’s one of the sad facts of human nature that most of us are in favor of tyranny as long as we get to be the tyrants.
We all want the freedom to choose for ourselves, but we aren’t so keen on giving others the freedom to choose.
If unions can only survive by being granted a government defended monopoly, then they are not based on democracy.
Hoffa is a thug trying to prevent others from having the right to choose for themselves.
Not so much banned, as subject to stringent anti-trust. Why is there only one union representing workers at most firms? Open it up to choice.
tough talk for a guy whose father wears a cement overcoat…may he die soon from a lead injection in the temple
So the Fool in Chief…cites this as a freedom issue for the worker…
let me see…Im forced to join a union..even if I dont want to …have money I might need extracted from my paycheck to pay fat salaries and benefits far better than mine to corrupt union officials…..OR….
Right to work…I get to choose whether to join or not join a union…
Hmmm…I dont think the word freedom means what obama and his union Nazis think he does…….
“If there’s any question here, let’s put it on the ballot and let the people of Michigan decide what’s good for Michigan.”
They did. The unions lost. The next time they try to get a law passed to enshrine unions, and there will be a next time, they’ll have less money and less support. Rinse and repeat. That is what concerns Hoffa.
The union THUGS showed their true colors in Lansing yesterday. Instead of working at the ballot box they ripped down tents and assaulted people.
Human garbage.