The great fact about labor unions that it's still considered improper to state openly is how profoundly they depend on violence and intimidation. For a century or so, organized labor has backed up its demands and disciplined its laborers through force or the threat of force. This is not a bug, but a feature, of unions. And so we have comments like this in response to the modest efforts in Wisconsin to reduce public employee union exploitation of the true working class:
"Every once and awhile [sic] you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary," Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) told a crowd in Boston on Tuesday rallying in solidarity for Wisconsin union members.
Unions are cartels, designed to raise the price of labor (and thus of goods and services consumers need). As is always the case with cartels, it is in the short-term interest of each cartel member to break out and sell separately at a price that's higher than the market rate but lower than the cartel is demanding. The cartel therefore needs a way to discipline its members, and it uses propaganda and violence for thus purpose. Hence the "buy union" nonsense, and the beating up of "scabs" and those who cross picket lines. Violence and intimidation are not accidents, in which a few folks get carried away; they are demanded by the system of unions--and, worse, they are legitimized by a culture of organized violence and threats that is a deep part of the tradition of organized labor. It's simply considered okay, or a péché mignon, in the service of a higher good--and not only by union leaders themselves, but by the intellectual and leadership classes.
It's hard to think of another aspect of American life in which the same can be said. Violence is not considered acceptable in any other industry. For a business to take even minor steps to prevent unionization can constitute a federal crime. No respectable American leaders laugh off violence at abortion clinics, or at schools or churches, and rightly so. The left bristles at the glib acceptance of "collateral damage" in wartime. Jokes about beating up racial minorities or women are not considered acceptable. No member of Congress could expect to avoid a CNN investigative reporter if he said people should commit violence to resist racial integration. The only other example I can think of where it is considered socially acceptable to laugh at systematic violence is prison rape, and even that is beginning to be taken as a serious issue; when Bill Lockyer made a prison rape joke some years ago, he had to apologize.
Rep. Capuano has given us the equivalent of a "Segregation now; segregation forever" speech--and it will probably be allowed to slip by with a wink by both the left and the right, because we as a nation are simply willing to indulge criminal violence when committed by labor unions.
Update: Capuano says he got carried away.
Comments policy