"After an exhaustive investigation, a judge found that the company had threatened to shut down the entire plant if the workers dared to organize, and warned Latino workers that immigration authorities would be alerted if they voted for a union.
The union lost votes to organize the plant in 1994 and 1997, but the results of those elections were thrown out by the National Labor Relations Board after the judge found that Smithfield had prevented the union from holding fair elections. The judge said the company had engaged in myriad "egregious" violations of federal labor law, including threatening, intimidating and firing workers involved in the organizing effort, and beating up a worker "for engaging in union activities."
Rather than obey the directives of the board and subsequent court decisions, the company has tied the matter up on appeals that have lasted for years. A U.S. Court of Appeals ruling just last month referred to "the intense and widespread coercion prevalent at the Tar Heel facility."
Workers at Smithfield and their families are suffering while the government dithers, refusing to require a mighty corporation like Smithfield to obey the nation's labor laws in a timely manner."
I would say that Herbert documents his charge of "sleazy and reprehensible" behavior by the Smithfield company pretty well. Since your post seems to imply some sort of moral equivalency between the company's behavior and the union's, what is your documentation?
...hey cheif, just making an observation that unions (not necessarily this one) are not really know for their above board dealings; having been in them when I knew no better and seeing the dealings from the inside (all the documentaion I need). If you are a "union man" and I have offended you, no offense intended (to you).
m~