General discussion

Union bosses acting like thugs

Discussion is locked

Reply to: Union bosses acting like thugs
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Union bosses acting like thugs
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
fired for Navy insignia?!

Ridiculous, and shows the utter stupidity of those involved. My daughter is currently stationed at Fort Lee, Va. Does that mean anyone wearing something from there should be fired because it honors Robert E. Lee? Really getting fed up with the America haters out there. I wish someone would offer them jobs in another country, like the Soviets did in the 30's. I'd be willing to approve tax money to send them there.

- Collapse -
I don't think I'd call that 'Navy insignia' ...

A souvenir, but insignia? Nah.

In any event, it appears the union has seen the error of its ways, or at least the penalty for bad publicity:
***UPDATE: Duane Hammond says union officials called him this afternoon to apologize for the incident. He say they are "bending over backwards" to make it up to him.

- Collapse -

I might have said "Memorabilia" although that might not perfectly cover it either. Souvenir seems most appropriate, I'd think something stronger like "sanctioned" might be added to the word.

- Collapse -
It's not just the Democrats

I agree that the Union bosses were wrong, though it might be that they in turn were worried about how the event organizer would perceive things. And it's just barely possible that the man in question was trying to stir up trouble. IOW, I doubt that this represents a UNION problem as much as it represents a problem in our society as a whole. Let's get real. How could he have NOT anticipated some negative reaction.

And even though the union bosses were clearly wrong, there is no use pretending that it is just unions who do this. I can't find current links (news sites don't always keep old pages available) but there were similar incidents in which people with tickets to Pres Bush's appearances were turned away because of t-shirt slogans or other such stuff. The practice MAY have been legal in some cases but it was still inappropriate.

- Collapse -
Turned away isn't as bad as "fired"...

And you have to wonder why someone would attend a rally wearing something opposing the person the rally is for. Maybe to make trouble?

Not so sure it's inappropriate to turn such people away...

- Collapse -
Seems to me it's a sign of insecurity ...

If you are only willing to talk to the faithful you must not be too sure of your message.

I agree that being 'turned away' from work is worse than being 'turned away' from a public meeting (and in the work case, possibly illegal as well) but my point is that both sides are trying to edit what people see at their rallies. I don't think it's acceptable behavior in either case even if it is legal (and I'm not sure the legality re: the Bush case has been settled completely).

I'm also troubled by the notion that the Bush cases involved public appearances by the US President. I understand the need for security, but in this country we do not customarily practice anticipatory punishment for people who might be troublemakers. And yes, IMO turning someone away is a form of mild punishment.

But then my views may be colored by personal experience. Back in the 70's (I think it was before the Watergate events) I went with several other teenagers to a rally when Pres Nixon came to Denver. We had signs supporting Mr. Nixon that we intended to display, mounted on very short handles. We were 'asked' by security folks to discard the signs before we were permitted to enter the area of Mr. Nixon's appearance on the grounds that the handles for the signs could be used as weapons. I might have been OK with that if it were not for the fact that so far as we could tell we were the ONLY people asked to discard our signs. Some of the attendees had MUCH longer wooden handles on their signs. I guess the fact that we were teenagers attending a rally for a conservative president during the Vietnam War set off alarm bells for somebody. In any event, the 'request' that we discard the signs was inappropriate then and similar sorts of 'security' efforts are just as inappropriate now.

- Collapse -
I know what you're saying, but...

Rallies are Party functions. They are not intended to be dialog.
There are people whose intention is to disrupt them.

What if you were attending a play. Would it be okay for someone to start yelling obscenities? What about church services?

If it was some other kind of event I'd agree with you, but security considerations are important. We learned that lesson in the 60s.

Maybe you could have asked if it would be okay to just discard the handles. Lomng handles don't necessarily make better weapons than short handles.

- Collapse -
Then there was the mob rubout that got out of hand...

and turned into a union meeting.


- Collapse -
You might want to keep your day job ...

Rodney Dangerfield you're not.

- Collapse -
(NT) No respect at all!

CNET Forums

Forum Info