By R.C. Seely
LABOR DAY, FOR MANY IT’S a three-day weekend, the last big hooray for the summer. The last big barbeque, maybe go to the lake with the family. But do you really know why we celebrate Labor Day? It’s a celebration of organized labor, or unionized labor. Isn’t that wonderful.
Actually if you’re a consumer advocate, like me, you will generally be opposed to unionization and with good cause. Labor unions have a bad history, much of it with many acts of violence against their employers and property.
The first national labor day celebration was in 1909, but states had been commemorating the since 1885. Many nations observe their own labor days and more than 80 celebrate Internation Workers’ Day. This is a holiday established by a pan-national organization of socialist and communist leaders to observe an act of union violence after the Haymarket affair. While the events at Haymarket square started off a peaceful protest, as is common with unions it ended in violence–a bombing in this case, being hurdled at police.
Studies have shown that while union violence does occur in other nations, the United States is the leader in union violence. Although the federal union movement has never openly advocated violence, violence has been systematically used by the Western Federation of Miners and the International Association of Bridge Structural Iron Workers.
Union violence was very common during the industrial revolution, with Carnegie Steel suffering the worst. With the attempted assassination of Carnegie’s business partner Henry Clay Frick (although bringing in Frick was a mistake, so this could be considered righting a mistake) and the protests at the plant.
The violence has continued on in the United States until a series of assaults in the 1980s and 90s. In 1986, protests by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547, turned violent against the non-union workers; assaulting them, spitting at them, sabotaging equipment and shooting guns towards them. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled against the union saying they committed “ongoing acts of intimidation, violence, [and] destruction of property.” In 1990, The New York Daily News delivery trucks were pelted with sticks and stones, at times burned and the drivers beaten. This was on the first day of a strike at The New York Daily News. The strikers also damaged the newsstands burned copies of the paper. It was alleged that 700 acts were perpatrated but 229 were confirmed by police. In 1993, a non-union contractor, Eddie York was murdered for crossed a United Mine Workers picket line. In 1997, teamsters Orestes Espinosa, Angel Mielgo, Werner Haechler, Benigno Rojas, and Adrian Paez violently assaulted and stabbed UPS worker Rod Carter for refusing to go on strike. This was after receiving a threatening phone call traced to the teamsters president.
Union supporters use the flimsy excuse that this all this is acceptable because they “being exploited.” Your employer offers you a job, you don’t have to take it. Advocates of collective bargaining claim that employers put non-compete agreement in you contracts, so what? Don’t go work for that company. I’ve turned down jobs because I didn’t like the terms. Where is the exploitation?
They also might claim that the employer has all the power and the courts behind them. After all the have the Hobbs act to protect their property. Of course then again, the union anarchists have the Enmons case, on their side with validates says they can destroy property if it’s associated with their union priorities.
Today President Donald Trump was blasted for his comments against current Richard Trumka, president of the United States’ largest federation of labor unions. Saying via Twitter:
“Some of the things [Trumka] said were so against [sic] the working men and women of our country, and the success of the U.S. itself, that it is easy to see why unions are doing so poorly.”
The rift between Trump and Trumka started with the negotiations of NAFTA and the impact on jobs. Will more be outsourced under the Trump administration? Doubtful. The current administration is a nationalist after all. More than likely Trumka is just another Obama zealot mourning the loss of their god king. Even though Trumka has said he will ,”keep trying to find areas where we can work with him.”
But should Trumka should be concerned about unions though? Yes, there membership has drastically plunged since the 1970s where it was about 25% to less than 11% in 2017. But their image–as defender of the downtrodden–is unfortunately still intact with 61% approval rating, according to Gallup polling.
The political power of unions hasn’t lessen either and unions are still the one of, if not the largest financial contributors to political causes and the Democratic party.
Unions try to portray themselves as heroes, protectors against this big bad capitalist system. Protectors of national jobs, not just here in the US but in many nations, keeping out those “damn foreign workers.” When you start to look a little closer you see what they really are, bullies plain and simple.
R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books on pop culture his newest–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible–soon to be released.
Not So Conclusive
Posted: March 27, 2019 in Social CommentaryTags: activism, americanus libertae, cannabis, health care, libertarian, marijuana, medical marijuana, not so conclusive, r.c.seely, study bias
By R.C. Seely
THE OPPONENTS OF marijuana legalization have been lauding a recent European study reported in The Lancet as proof positive that they were right. They have gone as far as saying the medical community is in agreement, marijuana is a health threat that causes schizophrenia and needs to be kept out of the public. According to them since the plant has been modified to a far higher potency, there are epidemics of psychotics in areas where it’s legal. There are some problems here.
To begin with let’s clarify what is actually happening. A cursory online search will suggest the prohibitionists are successfully misleading the public. The word “cause” is the focus of my attention here. Much of the research concludes that excessive indulgence–everyday usage–of the high potency strain can create symptoms that mirror schizophrenia, not actually cause the disorder. It can make schizophrenia worse if someone already has it.
Why is this Significant?
The prohibitionists claim that schizophrenia can’t always be cured but what does it mean if it’s not schizophrenia? What if since it’s not really schizophrenia but only appears that way, it needs another form of treatment? Most importantly, if they are misleading with the wording, what else are they not being honest about?
Making it seem like this is new ground-breaking information, is another misleading factoid. From the moment marijuana prohibition was originally proposed in the 1930’s, mental health conditions were the validation. Schizophrenia, laziness and the munchies are all well known as “side effects” of marijuana. Problem is like many other disorders, genetics are a factor in how the body responds.
Not all cigarette smokers will get lung cancer or alcohol drinkers get sciroccos or liver cancer. They are genetically preconditioned to it, it’s the same with marijuana and psychosis.
The study itself has a large problem, or technically a small one, a small sample size to be more accurate. The research team may have traveled the world for subjects, it doesn’t change the fact that they only examined a few thousand people. The global population is in the billions, so saying a comparable blip of a few thousand isn’t accurate, you need a sample of a few million. That’s actually a problem and one of my questions of the study. Drawing a conclusion from such a small sample is ridiculous.
Sample size and genetic predisposition aside, the study itself would need to be studied too. The biggest issue that could come up with the study is researcher bias. Does the one conducting the study already have an opinion and setting it up to get the result they want? In my research on the Dr. Marta Di Forti, of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, & Neuroscience at King’s College London, I couldn’t find any information to draw a conclusion.
Their other argument
The other argument by prohibitionists, isn’t medical but interference. What has them so bent out of shape is that marijuana now has lobbyists. What! A marketable consumable product has a special interest group pushing for it! That never happens! Except when it comes to pretty much everything. Which also includes the alcohol industry and the prescription drug companies. Both two industries trying to keep marijuana from the marketplace.
Conclusion: Why none of this matters
The prohibitionists will probably be very baffled by this, but in the end none of this matters. Not if you are truly in favor of limited government at any rate.
Whether you are against medical marijuana or recreational marijuana, if you think laws telling people what they can put in the bodies are right, you are not truly for limited government. That’s the problem with the conservative movement it may rant and rave against government overreach but when given the chance to prove it, they fall short.
States have already voted yes on having marijuana legal, and already complications because of the federal moratorium, they don’t need other states interfering. Or media, medical officials, politicians or the general public getting in between the consumers and producers.
Both recreational and medical markets are being excessively criticized because of excessive consumption is the prohibitionists lame attempt to sway public opinion. Oddly enough smoking in general is apparently quite high in schizophrenia sufferers, so their high marijuana consumption could be an over looked red flag for the disorder. Anything used in excess can create health complications and the wrong pharmaceutical medical for psychosis can exacerbate the existing condition. That’s why qualified medical professionals are consulted, but that is decided by the consumer.
That was one of the biggest criticisms of the Affordable Care Act, that politicians are getting between the patient and the doctor. Why is that acceptable when it comes to medical marijuana? This is a conservative logical inconsistency that they are blind to and medical patients are suffering because of it.
I’m an advocate for full legislation but anyone who opposes medical marijuana legalization is just plain heartless as far as I’m concerned. With the long list of side effects from medications for epilepsy sufferers and other conditions that do show promise in medical marijuana for relieving if not completely curing, research could be vital. It seems rather absurd to barricade such research due to studies that have come far from a conclusive–or even all that compelling–outcome.
R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture, with a new book–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible–to be released.