Home / Uncategorized / Michigan Union Members Punch Fox News Commentator.
Print Friendly and PDF

Michigan Union Members Punch Fox News Commentator.

Written by Gary North on December 12, 2012

Union members punched out a Fox News commentator who favored the right-to-work legislation that the legislature voted to pass. This video shows what happened.

Violence is not the way to settle debates over government policies on labor negotiation.

It is hard to believe that Michigan, which is UAW country, is going to have a law letting non-union members be hired.

The trade union movement is finished outside of government jobs. The passage of a right-to-work law in Michigan is a kind of tombstone, long overdue.

The state should not support either employers or employees. Contracts and competition should rule: employers vs. employers, employees vs. employees. The threat of violence in the marketplace should never be ratified by civil law.

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

40 thoughts on “Michigan Union Members Punch Fox News Commentator.

  1. Nice move, moron. Now you just lost the mass media's support for your cause too.

    • Crowder should sue this creep, his local, state, and national Union chapters.

      • Ah, but that is the real point of the matter. According to federal law, union leaders cannot be held responsible for encouraging their members to break the law. And it is difficult to identify and track down the individuals involved, and they rarely have significant money to make a lawsuit worthwhile.

        Which is a part of what the author meant by "The threat of violence in the marketplace should never be ratified by civil law." It is, in so-called "union law". And shouldn't be.

        • Christian Joe says:

          Ah, but this thug has neighbors. He goes about the town where he lives. Someone knows who he is and where he lives. Put up a bounty for his identification, and whereabouts. Offer a $100,000 reward, and guarantee that person absolute anonymity. I can assure you, that someone would talk. Someone would grab at that reward money in a heartbeat. Then press charges against him, and sue that thug for all he is worth. Make him the poster child for union violence. Hold him responsible for all damages. Make him hurt enough and he will squeal like the pig he is and give names.

    • this is the union mentality – no one else has any rights – they care less about the average american's rights. nor do they care about the destruction of towns and businesses because of inflated pasyrolls.

    • No they scared Mr and Mrs America. The Media and "Progressives" like Unions – Unions are for "little people" after all.

  2. what do you expect from brainless thugs.
    when obama won, they were all in a our face about it, telling us to 'get over it'.
    when they lose, it's a WHOLE different matter, ey?

  3. Dick Grace says:

    Unions have long deteriorated from a noble cause seeking reasonable benefits for their members to a state supported mafia. Time to shut the thugs down.

    • You are so right. We had no union. When we finally got one, it was a real help. After years of helping the members, they went farther and I could no longer feel in their favor. They supported trouble makers, any thing against the employer. I still belief in Unions, if they are reasonable. There should be an honest co-operation between all.

  4. CountryBoy says:

    This goes right along with those Union idiots that Chrysler were FORCED to hire back that were caught drinking and smoking weed while on break and then went back to work to assemble some of the fine cars that don't work…..

  5. AD Roberts says:

    The Saul Alinsky type, communist, union thugs have been taught that you have to NEVER give up. And ANYTHING is okay to do to advance your cause. I hope they throw the guy in jail for about 6 months. But then, the union will have his job waiting for him after he gets out.

  6. AD Roberts says:

    Just watched the video. That was a very, VERY strong argument for bearing arms. These thugs would be a lot less aggressive if they had a gun to look down the barrel of. They are cowardly, just like the flash mobs the black youths organize. Show a gun and they run like rabbits. LOL And if they KNEW the right to bear arms was GONE, they would have been even more violent.

    Did you notice, they could NOT argue their case. All they could do was PHYSICALLY assault, and scream, "Get out of my face".
    That is a very good demonstration of MENTAL MIDGETS who want control.

    • clearwatercoast says:

      Be careful what you wish for, in Michigan most of us are armed on both the right and left.

    • Christian Joe says:

      Wrong. I am 100% pro-gun, but that is not the way to handle it. You bring a gun, they bring a gun. Then what you have is more ammo for the left to take away everyone’s guns. No, what you do is post this thugs face all over the net. Offer a reward for his identification, then have him arrested, and then proceed against him with civil liabilities. Make him the poster child for all union thugs. Make his life an absolute Hell. Misery loves company. He'll try to get this heat off of him and unto another. Then the nut is cracked and lawyers can go in and clean their collective works.

  7. I pity anyone who hires in without joining the union. He will be harassed, beaten, he and his family threatened, and his property vandalized by union thugs and gangsters. The corrupt B-Ho regime will do nothing about it!

    • Tom 78 and happy says:

      and one day he will end up on the bottom side of the grass where he bolongs

    • Christian Joe says:

      The feds under the little god Obama won't, but what about the state of Michigan? I find it hard to believe that the state would turn a blind eye to it. I heard on the news the other day, that only about 615,000 in Michigan are union. The population of Michigan in 2011 was estimated at 9,876,187. That makes them the minority. There will be trouble at first, but eventually it would lead to arrests, convictions and huge settlements. The car companies would be forced to take action if anything occurred on their property, because they are responsible. The UAW would lose an awful lot of members, and without the money pouring in, they would shrivel up. You cannot live in fear with bullies. At some point you have to stand up to them.

  8. Timing of yesterday's news was great to see that the (unionized) teaching going on in Detroit results in a huge success of 7-8% of the students being able to read proficiently. Yet another check mark for union quality. Any of you thug supporters care to explain why it is not the fault of the teacher's union, and the unionized parents of the failing kids? Or are they OK because they can read well enough to fill out an unempoyment application.

  9. clearwatercoast says:

    The Michigan legislation is two fold. It affects both the private and public sector unions. Gov. Snyder just signed the bills.

  10. And yet I saw very few diversity Union Thugs at the rally….could it be they don’t want to work with their Detoilet buddies?

  11. I saw the union/non union debate played out for me in the form of two companies I worked for. The first was a unionized airline which was bought out by the second, a non-union airline. It was like night and day. Working for the union airline was terrible. There was an atmosphere of suspicion and non-cooperation from top to bottom. It made for a very oppressive workday. It felt very much like being in high school again, with the adults (management) riding herd on the kids (union labor) and the kids trying to get away with whatever they could. When the non-union company took over, we were all on one side–the side of a company trying to be profitable by providing a superior service. The adversarial, confrontational atmosphere was gone. AND–for those who think that going non-union means lower wages–our pay was increased by about 10% across the board, TO START. From there it was increased by $124 every six months for the first several years. It's really hard to run a profitable business when you're dealing with disgruntled workers all the time. The second company really took care of us, and did very well in the process.
    BTW–commentors, don't bother replying to Shane. His purpose is not to learn, but to agitate. And the reference to God probably made him laugh out loud. Don't waste good words on him.

    • Great description, well said. I experienced the same thing when I was younger and worked for a union shop, before I started my own business.
      Dan

  12. Michigan finally saw that the UAW bankrupted the Automotive Industry and decimated Detroit. 'Bout time!

  13. Amazing what a mob can do, regardless of what is right or wrong or wether people will be hurt or not. I appreciate the braveness of the Fox Commentator, but for me I would have stayed clear, clearly a bunch of people who are used to not being held accountable for their actions.

    • It's time for these thugs to go to trail and spend some time behind bars wearing stripes. My father worked for a Union and it really doesn't work for the employees. At the the end he wanted to bid down on a job that was less physically demanding on his body and he had to file a grievance against the union to bid down (less pay and easier job). After MONTHS they let him bid down on a less stressful job (physically) but died less than a year later (would have lasted longer if they hadn't made his life miserable.

  14. I was a union man all my life. In the early days it had a purpose to negotiate with companies to get better wages and working conditions. Companies have changed through the years and most are good to work for without the unions. There are and always will be exceptions. The unions have lost a lot of members because of this, and the union bosses have seen their membership decrease along with their wages. Outside influences, communists, marxists have infiltrated the upper ranks and would like to use the unions to destroy this country. I am retired now and ashamed to be a former union member. The union in my day spent 95% of it's time protecting 2% of the people , the rest did their job and were glad to have had it. In the early days unions were needed but like the dinosaur their time has past in most cases.

  15. . We live in a free society . This man's desire to take the freedom of choice from workers give unions a bad name. I've worked both sides. Unions protect the lazy unproductive workers. Efficient workers don't need a union to protect their jobs

  16. Idylewylde says:

    When FDR established Union Rights, there was a legal stipulation on where Unions could be organized.
    The only legal unions in this country are the unions that were formed to work on what FDR declared to be critical national resources, or the industries processing those resources.
    For example, Coal was a critical national resource for producing steel during WWII.
    FDR fixed coal prices and capped wages. The tradeoff was allowing the coalminers to Unionize to protect themselves from corporate wage gouging after the war.
    The Teamsters are illegal. The Government unions are illegal. Most modern unions are illegal .. foisted off by a DNC that is acting in contravention to the laws that FDR set into place.
    Worse yet, they destroyed the public school system that FDR created, and did it through Teachers Unions.
    I was raised Blue Collar Democrat, I grew up in the mining unions, I worked in the mines and smelters, and I can tell you that these guys are not who they say they are.
    I later became a small business owner, I learned the hard way what Capitalism is, and should be.
    That is why I am no longer a Democrat, and why I hate RINOs .. and why I am an Independent.

  17. Interesting comments! I have not been a union member, but i firmly believe that the choice to join or not join ought to be left up to the individual without fear of losing his or her job. The indirect contact that I have had with unions of today has not been positive and I struggle to see why they would feel they are entitled to force people to join their ranks. The cost benefit ratio isn't what it ought to be.

  18. We will have to adjust to the lower level of development of union members as they are facing a survival crisis. Soon every state in the union will realize the importance ot the equality and drop the union shop guarantees. If an individual has to pay for his right to work, then he is not equal under the law and is being punished for wanting to become employed. Right to work states, such as the one I live in, are doing far better in this economic contrivance than those who have had to fund unions. Unions will soon be replaced by freedom to choose, I hope.

  19. I used to work for a company that the Teamsters tried twice to unionize and failed. The workers voted them down twice because they were exposed as the thugs they are. It also helps to remember that the rise of unionism in America also paralleled the rise of the Communist Party USA and organized crime.

  20. -Scott (who was late for WORK yesterday because of the traffic jams created by all the unionists NOT WORKING. Can you guess where I live?)

    MICHIGAN – like me. :-)

  21. Shane, this legislation endangers no one’s job. That is the lie that the unions keep feeding their sheep, to fan the flames of fear and whip them into deeds such as we saw in this video. Please – use the brains that God gave you. This legislation doesn’t ban unions in any way. The only way they will go away is if their members leave in numbers high enough to make them economically un-viable.

    Oh, and the next session of the Michigan Legislature still has democrats in the minority, so nothing will happen legislatively with this law. Obviously it’s going to be tied up in the courts, but the Supreme Court is majority conservative. So this isn’t going anywhere.

    -Scott (who was late for WORK yesterday because of the traffic jams created by all the unionists NOT WORKING. Can you guess where I live?)

  22. Corky Devendorf says:

    I think the jobs are being threatened more by the ridiculous demands placed by unions.
    Not arguing they didn't have their place in time, but the pendulum has swung the otherway.
    And YES, I know that isn't PC. But it's true.
    Ever looked at their bank statements?
    Money isn't going to the workers alone.

  23. Check out the right-to-work states. You will see plenty of jobs – no union dues – Which prompts the question – if Unions are so good, why did I ever have to pay "bail out" money from my Fed. tax dollars to support union pensions? Does that mean that when the Feds screw up my Social Security I can call you up for a bailout from your union? Expect my call shortly because the politicians in Washington have been stealaing my Social Security for years.

  24. Growing up in Detroit, I saw what the violent, criminal unions did to the workers, not for the workers. At one place where I worked, the union told us to strike (thugs checked our secret ballots). After the strike was over, we got nothing. The bosses at the local made out quite well.

    Unions were good for my grandfather and might have helped my greatgrandfather, both steel workers. They do not help current workers.

  25. Shane, I am originally from Oklahoma which is a right to work state. Wages are low there, but the cost of living is also extremely low. One example is gasoline which we were able to purchase in July for less that $3.00 a gallon. How is it in Michigan? Also, the unemployment rate in Oklahoma is below 5%. Jobs go where there is incentive for the business to make a profit. Why do you think automobiles are so expensive? It all goes back to what the labor costs. All that being said, why do you have such a problem for someone exercising their right to make a living without having to shell out money to support union representatives? The only people that I see being hurt by this legislation are the union administrators who may no longer be needed.

  26. You’re an idiot, just how does this law endanger anyone’s job? It simply gives the workers a choice as to whether or not they wish to pay a union some dues to represent or speak for them. The workers will take more pay home by not paying these dues and that is what the BIG BUSINESS UNION BOSSES are worried about…they are afraid they won’t collect enough dues to sit on their big fat asses, smoke big cigars, drink their booze and do nothing for the workers. Remember, there would be no jobs if it weren’t for the EMPLOYERS! The only bullshit I see or hear is coming from people like you and the MAFIA UNIONS!

  27. Very good statement. I am in total agreement.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>