7 Comments

  1. So they’re going to start the International Brotherhood of Non-Union Workers? So there’s a strike, and you decide to be a scab, but first you have to join the IBNUW? How much weirder is all this going to get?

  2. “Hiya. We’d like to welcome as members those who are not members; and welcome to our union those who do not belong to a union.” This could only make sense to a liberal.

    . . that growing mass of non-union non-workers.

    Truth is its own parody — from the article: “Karen Nussbaum, Working America’s executive director, told reporters on Monday that non-union workers — especially people who have been laid off . . . — can come to her group.”

    ….
    Also from the article:

    “We have tried exclusion in the past. It has failed.”

    Whoa, whoa — did Obama and Holder hear about that? Is their righteous condemnation on its way?

  3. Logic would say that if a non-member joins the union they become a member…but these are not logical people so I am guessing that if a non-member joins they get the “benefit” of paying dues, maybe getting some of the “perks” of the collective bargaining but don’t get a vote in any union matters…kind of a give us your money and shut up…basically like government.

  4. Holy Moly! I find myself reading a The Hill article and it’s not just a paean to leftism!
    Will wonders never cease?
    Two parts that made me laugh.

    Despite the resistance, the resolution was adopted without a single “nay” vote being heard in the convention hall.

    Thugs, union thugs, will have that effect.

    moar
    Trumka said labor must include new workers — not to increase union dues, but to create change for everyone.

    Of course not.

    I don’t ever recall seeing a The Hill article that didn’t look as if it was Chris Matthews approved.

    Huh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.