I heard, manufacturing business owners hired mercenaries to beat the unionists who went on strike

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

In my economy 101 class, the teacher mentioned that business owners hired mercanaries (''with basebal bats'') to attack the people on strike.

Is this true? I would be suprised.

Also, how prevalent.

 

Anyone with a good basis on this?

[SamuelS]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States

[Alan C.]

Yes, that happened.

 

However, unions have a long and sordid history of using violence against business owners and non-union workers (scabs), including vandalism, sabotage, arson, assault, and murder.

[TheLolGuy]

When you look into some of the most famous strikes and the security agencies hired to contain them, it's never as simple as the poor innocent workers merely attempting to obtain improved working conditions and wage increases, who are then suppressed by the big bully capitalists. The lefty types couldn't conceive of any other possibility. What often happens is there is violence on both sides or a provocation is premeditated by communist agitators, who will quickly play the victim when necessary!

[AncapFTW]

How about how Jimmy Hoffa became invlolved with both the Teamster's Union and the mafia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Yes, that happened.

 

However, unions have a long and sordid history of using violence against business owners and non-union workers (scabs), including vandalism, sabotage, arson, assault, and murder.

Would business be the first to initiate force? or as a reactionary retribution to the violent unionists?

[dsayers]

Would business be the first to initiate force? or as a reactionary retribution to the violent unionists?

 

Was a unionist violent? If so, they should be held accountable for their transgression in the amount of whatever the wronged party lost in damage plus whatever value they need to invest in settling this debt. Assaulting somebody doesn't accomplish this. This is the difference between defensive force and retaliation.

 

If a unionist is not in fact violent and only guilty of not conforming to somebody else's preference, then obviously the initiation of the use of force against them is immoral.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Was a unionist violent?

That is my question, wether they were violent first.

[dsayers]

That is my question, wether they were violent first.

 

Need more info. "Unionist" to me is referencing somebody solely on their affiliation with a union. It does nothing to indicate if any specific behavior they've engaged in is the initiation of the use of force or not. Though I did provide what I felt was a philosophical analysis of "if so, then..." What did you think of that?

[Romulox]

As a Pittsburgh native, I feel obligated to bring up the Homestead Steelworkers Strike of 1892 as an example.  Mercenaries were called in to reclaim the steel plant, but only after the strikers were preventing any non-union labor from entering the plant via threats of violence, thereby violating the property rights of the plant owners and non-union workers.  A day long battle ensued with the mercenaries eventually surrendering, at which point the state militia was called in to reclaim the plant.  Three mercenaries and nine strikers were killed by the end of the day.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mh_horror.html

 

Just make sure you don't learn about the Homestead Strike through the History Channel special like I did.  It included a cartoonish scene of the mercenaries rolling in to the plant and massacring the helpless union workers; they conveniently left out the strikers use of dynamite, a 20 pound cannon, a flaming barge, as well as their attempts to set the river on fire.   

[AccuTron]

...Just make sure you don't learn about the Homestead Strike through the History Channel special like I did.  It included a cartoonish scene of the mercenaries rolling in to the plant and massacring the helpless union workers; they conveniently left out the strikers use of dynamite, a 20 pound cannon, a flaming barge, as well as their attempts to set the river on fire.   

Valuable point.  I've studied military history since young, and it impresses me how the same topic...even one as covered as the battle of Waterloo...when covered by different parties or presentations, will reveal either totally new data, or a different twist on some aspect.  

 

I'm reading Tolstoy's War and Peace.  (Not speed reading.)  I'm halfway thru, and Tolstoy, describing what was going on in the first parts of the 1812 French invasion of Russia, tells how historians will tell this or that cause, but it's really a huge number of individuals pursuing personal interests that cause actual results.

[mlsv2f]

I got trash thrown at me by grown men and women when i worked as a grocery bagger during a strike when I was 16. Walked to the store because I knew my car would probably be messed with.

 

Voluntary unions were much more beneficial earlier in the 20th century. But in today's world, they appear to have the high hand of leverage, and thus influence many of the political institutions that rule us, and dictate many contracts that lead to higher prices and fewer jobs for non-union employees. People with power tend not to like to give it up.

 

The casualness of unions using violence on others can be seen in how they fight so hard to keep people from choosing for themselves whether they want to be in the union, as seen in all non "right to work" states.