When conservatives picket Disney World because of Disney's policies (or liberals picket Domino's because of it's owner's politics), they're not attacking a 'secondary target,' they're attacking precisely the people whose policies they disagree with. And, of course, the government did, in fact, ban protesters from military funerals (precisely to get rid of Fred Phelps and his noxious WBC turds). The whole 'hypocrisy' argument the author tries to set up is nothing more than a thin tissue of blatant LIES in support of unionized thugs attempting to intimidate people who don't even do business with them. Such behavior is disgusting, and rightly forbidden under the best (and fairest) labor law ever instituted in any society (Taft-Hartley).

Three questions:

1. The jurists are insane? Really? Or are you just calling people names because you don't agree with them?

2. What evidence do you have that these protests were really intimidation? Were they obstructing the operation of the hospital? Were they threatening people with their plastic scythes? Maybe they were, but it sure doesn't sound like it. It sounds like they were just putting on a show and handing out information. Oh no!

3. Why can't labor unions protest a secondary party? Why the double standard?

1. It is, indeed, insane, to allow union members to disrupt the business of uninvolved parties for no reason beyond a cheap stunt.

2. How is this ANY different from standing outside an abortion clinic with pictures of aborted fetuses, acts which are routinely prosecuted under the RICO statute?

3. What double standard? No one else attacks people who are uninvolved in a dispute to resolve the dispute (except nutbags like Fred Phelps, whose 'protests' have been banned, a fact the union loving pol who wrote the article has disingenuously ignored).

Planetary Eulogy:

1. It is, indeed, insane, to allow union members to disrupt the business of uninvolved parties for no reason beyond a cheap stunt.

Well, I guess you and I disagree on what insane means. I think it has to do with psychological factors and you think it means that someone disagrees with you. We'll agree to disagree, I suspect (am I insane now?), but I think I'm right on this one.

2. How is this ANY different from standing outside an abortion clinic with pictures of aborted fetuses, acts which are routinely prosecuted under the RICO statute?

Actually, no, the supreme court ruled against NOW which was trying to file a class-action civil suit under RICO, a very weak case. Anti-abortion rallies routinely take place on sidewalks or staged "die-ins" or with those red "life" stickers over their mouths. These people are not arrested unless they impede access to abortion clinics or commit acts of violence.

3. What double standard? No one else attacks people who are uninvolved in a dispute to resolve the dispute (except nutbags like Fred Phelps, whose 'protests' have been banned, a fact the union loving pol who wrote the article has disingenuously ignored).

"Attacks" is a strong and undeserved term. Also, Fred Phelps' protests have not been completely banned. Most bills ban the protest only within a certain distance or during certain times. Some argue that this is too restrictive, but the point is that they can, and should be able to, protest, just not when they disrupt the proceedings. Is there any evidence that the unions disrupt the proceedings of the hospital???

Also, people protest or boycott third-parties all the time. Bill O'Reilly has called for a boycott of JetBlue for sponsoring yearlyKos, or a boycott of French products because the leaders of France didn't want to support our invasion of Iraq. I could protest a hospital if they bought their food from farms that hired illegal workers. There's nothing illegal about that. It could be argued that the union is protesting the hospital for sponsoring non-union labor, could it not? It's clearly not unrelated. And even if it were, other people can do it.

1) Being a duchebag is certainly covered under the 1st amendment the last time I've checked.

2) Your definition of "intimidating" people might be different from mine and the next guy's. What specific behaviors are they guilty of? It depends on a case by case basis. Guy A might think intimidation means shouting at decibel 10, guy B will think decibel 9 crosses the line and guy C who is ultra-sensitive will think mere whispering at decibel 1 counts. What YOU say is INTIMIDATION is a matter of opinion. There already are laws on the books where local ordiences decide what is crossing the line.

3) Boycotting and protesting 3rd parties is done already. I've heard of people boycotting Walmart because of what their suppliers supposedly do overseas.

4) **Such behavior is disgusting, and rightly forbidden under the best (and fairest) labor law ever instituted in any society (Taft-Hartley).**

Yes, but people tend to edge around the law doing the bare minimum to be compliant with it. Thats probably exactly what the union guys are doing. Following the law is following the law, even if its barely doing it without crossing the line. Anti-conspiracy laws tend to be very vague with lots of gray areas anyway.

Any one who thinks that the Taft-Hartley law is fair and balanced need to get a job at faux noise

There are no other free states in the world that treat theri labor as badly as the US does.

bopdaddy:

Any one who thinks that the Taft-Hartley law is fair and balanced need to get a job at faux noise

There are no other free states in the world that treat theri labor as badly as the US does.

Hmmm . . . Except we have the lowest unemployment and the highest standard of living of any naion on earth.

"Hmmm . . . Except we have the lowest unemployment and the highest standard of living of any naion on earth."

I'll be sure to tell my friends on the rez. They'll be happy everyone is doing so well.