Washington Examiner:

Prior to its most recent decision [ruling on a 2008 workplace representation election at MasTec DirecTV that was won by the Communications Workers of America on a 14-12 vote], the NLRB has historically set aside elections in which multiple verbal threats were made by either side, including most recently in a 2007 case in which a UAW effort to organize a PPG shop was overturned following a rash of verbal threats of physical assault by pro-union employees against anti-union employees. But the NLRB last Friday found the same sort of verbal threats insufficient to set aside the election because it failed to meet one of these five criteria: “(1) the nature of the threat itself; (2) whether it encompassed the entire unit; (3) the extent of dissemination; (4) whether the person making the threat was capable of carrying it out, and whether it is likely that employees acted in fear of that capability; and (5) whether the threat was made or revived at or near the time of the election.”

In other words, what constitutes a threat of violence in the age of Obama is now to be determined by the application of a complicated set of bureaucratic criteria, which inevitably will require massive administrative litigation before a decision is rendered. Which is another way of inviting union thugs to have at it without fear of consequences anytime soon.

The New Civility, 46.

All the more reason to get to work on that national Right to Work legislation. Which, surprisingly, is being sponsored not by the self-proclaimed champions of the working man, but rather by the “extreme right wing” of the GOP. You know, representatives to those crazed, bug-eyed flyover hicks who actually think the Constitution needs be heeded.

Shocking, isn’t it? I mean, who knew?