Rage, Concern, and Opinions for Hire

George Rebane

You’ve heard of the old custom of hiring mourners to walk behind the hearse loudly wailing their ‘sorrow’ about the dear departed.  Well, the unions have now adopted that approach for putting pickets in front of establishments they don’t like or agree with.  They advertize and hire unemployed non-union people to carry signs, holler, shout, and generally act as if they were the genuine article instead of an impersonation of the aggrieved union member (more here).

The unions’ argument is that if the picketed company can hire non-union workers, then the union can hire non-union picketers.  Interesting little piece of logic that.  The hired non-union workers are on the job for the dual purpose of making money for themselves, and for producing goods or services for the hiring company.  Both parties to the deal are principals of their own interests.

Not so with the union’s new hirelings.  Its represented members are nowhere in sight.  Their surrogate disappointment (rage?) is present and visible/audible in the form of mercenaries expressing faux agitation who actually “don’t care” for the issues at hand, and are there because “it’s something to do while you find something better.”  They are not principals, and they usually get paid minimum wage plus a bit.  (Maybe they should also strike for union scale wages instead.)

In former times one was taught to believe that the protesting people with signs were there voicing their own opinions and concerns, and they were doing it at a cost to themselves.  They themselves were the ones denied work, or working conditions, or wages, or whatnot.  And they expressed that by being there to personally communicate those desires and frustrations.  Should these stand-ins be required to wear some kind of identifiable marker so that the intended onlookers are not fooled?

In this new age of entitlement mentality, it seems that even during recessions there are classes of American workers who will not do certain kinds of work.  These union members know their rights to have better jobs and higher wages, and they are quite satisfied with more desperate Americans and even illegal entrants doing all that unacceptable work.  Now it seems that the unions have given rise to yet another line of such employment to attract people from south of the border.  Is this not a land of opportunity or what?

Comments

[Russ Steele]

If they are using ARRA stimulus funds to hire these agitators, then they are required by law to pay the prevailing union wage. What is the prevailing wage for a union agitator?

[George Rebane]

An excellent question and, most likely, a valid point. You can imagine my embarrassment when I have to confess that I don't have the prevailing wage for a union agitator at my fingertips. It's been years since I last hired one.