The '87 NFL strike and antiunion violence (a blast from the past)

As unconstitutional "right-to-work" laws have become one of America's gravest threats to liberty, it's time for a trip down Memory Lane about the evils of antiworker violence.

Newspaper comment webpages are rife with paid right-wing trolls accusing union "thugs" of violence of all sorts. But not once in my 41 years have I ever experienced union violence. I've worked in everything from conventional workplaces to freelancing to the brink of dying, but not once has a union representative even threatened me with physical violence or economic ruin.

But I have been threatened by antiunionists. I even got in a brawl during Occupy the Super Bowl in 2012 started by an antiunion hooligan.

This brings to mind the antiunion thuggery associated with the NFL players' strike of 1987. A lot of you think pro football players make too much money, but it's really only star players who have multimillion-dollar contracts. Most players don't get rich - and the average NFL player doesn't even live to be 60. Even NFL greats like Jim McMahon have joined a lawsuit against the league for its mishandling of concussion-related injuries. Thus, the NFL strike was viewed by many as sort of a proxy for the troubles faced by the average worker.

The league's refusal to fairly negotiate with players put a diaper on the entire 1987 season. For weeks, the NFL fielded teams made up of scabs. A few big names like Steve Largent selfishly crossed the picket line, and they were joined largely by players who had been cut during training camp. Naturally, the networks were happy to help the antiunion cause: They broadcast the scab games as if they were legit, even though ratings dropped by 20%.

Meanwhile, the strike encouraged labor rallies to pop up all over America. These events brang out the best in the labor cause - and the worst in antiunion ruffianism. I was 14 at the time, and one day, I was in the living room while my parents were watching the news. The news did a story on the labor rallies, and they showed some footage from one such event. In this footage, an antiunion thug strolled up to a bearded labor activist and sucker-punched him squarely in his unsuspecting kisser.

Needless to say, this isn't the only instance of antiunion thuggery in modern American history. Around the same time, one union-busting specialist had his henchmen scratch up cars outside a nursing home and blame it on the union. And it isn't just in modern times. In 1917, labor leader Frank Little was murdered because of his union support. And there have been few antiunion events as violent as the Ludlow Massacre in Colorado. And it isn't just America. Back in 1984, for instance, a suitcase bomb at a union office in New Zealand killed the building's caretaker.

With all this in mind, which brand of thuggery is much more prevalent: union or antiunion? Imagine if you can what the reaction would be if union activists committed that much violence.

The media and legislators should open a comprehensive investigation into antiworker violence. They need to do this yesterday.