The Westboro Baptist Church is hated by pretty much everyone. There’s a good reason for that – they’re crazy, bigoted (by anyone’s definition) and blame every single bad thing in the entire world on society’s acceptance of homosexuals.
Equally universal has been the condemnation of their funeral pickets. Do I need to go into details? No, I don’t think so.
You’d think that no one else would want to copy that protest tactic. That is surly basic common sense.
So what group would take such a step into public infamy?
A judge ordered one of Chicago’s most politically powerful labor unions to suspend picketing against 16 funeral homes last week after receiving reports that striking Teamsters had, among other things, disturbed a child’s funeral.
SCI Illinois Services, Inc., one of the nation’s largest funeral home chains, asked a district court to intervene after striking funeral directors and drivers with Teamsters Local 727 allegedly harassed grieving families.
“We are grateful that the court agreed to issue this temporary restraining order, and we are hopeful that it will help protect grieving families who are experiencing the most difficult times of their lives,” Larry Michael, managing director for SCI Illinois Services, Inc., said in a release. “While we recognize and respect the Teamsters’ right to lawfully picket, we have been shocked and saddened by their attempts to make grieving families the target of the cruel and outrageous attacks.”
The company testified in its filing that union members blocked grieving family members from leaving its parking lot, used bullhorns to shout obscenities at workers and mourners, and unleashed a German Shepard on a dead woman’s daughter and husband.
The funeral home was eventually forced to call the police when picketers allegedly disrupted a child’s funeral with laughter. The officer asked the Teamsters to leave, but protesters returned when he drove away.
Classy, classy stuff.
So it seems that the union was quite correct when they said that Warner Brothers was the one holding up the end of the boycott. That’s certainly a dent in the “the union is just being idiots” meme.
Unfortunately no one can argue that the *start* of the boycott was anything but a union action and that’s the big issue.
If a company agrees to increase the pay of the workers, it has to fork out. If you can’t pay an increase, you just don’t agree to it in the first place.
It’s unimaginable that Spotless is now backing out of a signed agreement. I’ve never heard of such a thing before, it’s an incredible act of bad faith and it disgusts me.
So I’m with the workers on this one 100%. If the company employs people, they have to stick to the agreements they sign. So what if their costs are not covered, that’s the problem of Spotless, not the DHB, not the employees. If there’s a problem with the DHB, go to them, but keep the agreements you’ve signed.
Absolutely disgusting. These people deserve to get kicked out of their contracts. Let’s hope they do.
Prof. Hodge made a comment at the last Electoral Finance Act protest.
He mentioned this act: the “Political Disabilities Removal Act”. No guesses who’s “Political Disabilities” it removed.
2. Power of certain associations to apply funds in furtherance of
political objects---(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the
funds of any society may be applied in the furtherance of political
objects if the members of the society so decide by a resolution for the
time being in force, passed on a ballot of the members of the society
taken in accordance with its rules. (2) For the purposes of this section, a resolution shall be deemed to
have been passed on a ballot of the members of the society if a majority
of the total valid votes recorded at the ballot is in favour thereof.
(3) Any such resolution may be at any time revoked by a subsequent
resolution passed in the same manner as the firstmentioned resolution
(4) The provisions of this section shall apply to any society
notwithstanding that there is no provision in its rules authorising the
use of its funds for the furtherance of political objects.
(5) For the purposes of this section, the term ``society'' means---
(a) Any society of public servants consisting of not less than 15
persons, and primarily associated for the purpose of protecting
or furthering their interests in connection with their
(b) Any industrial union registered under the [Industrial Relations
Act 1973]; or
(c) Any trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act 1908.
Cf. 1936, No. 23, s. 4; 1948, No. 77, s. 40
In subs. (5) (b) the Industrial Relations Act 1973, being the
corresponding enactment in force at the date of this reprint, has
been substituted for the repealed Industrial Conciliation and
Arbitration Act 1954.
Translation: Unions can give money to political parties.
The first version of this act was put in place in 1936 – the year after the first Labour goverment was put in place. It still stands today.
So Labour has been tilting the law it’s own way for years – it’s just this time it’s gone further than usual.
This law is fundamentally about two things: fairness and dignity. And it is sad to see that our employers, as represented by their membership organisations, do not believe in those values.
Which is funny, because the post assumes that the workers complaints are 100% justified. There is nothing from employers to either agree or disagree (which is more likely) with the statment that employers don’t give proper breaks.