No, my functionally illiterate friend: it's a rhetorical question. And even for arguments sake, if we pretended you aren't desperately trying to figure out how to avoid looking like an idiot, and it was a genuine interrogative, YOU DIDN'T ANSWER IT!
You assumed your union rhetoric would be accepted without challenge here and you were wrong.
What kind of two-bit, cliched, melodramatic TV dialog were you raised on?
Thinking that anyone could advocate for unions on FReeRepubic, and expect not to be challenged has GOT to be one of the three most asinine statements I've ever seen written here.
As to the death mentioned in the article... You're the one who assumes that "there but for unions goeth us all"
You need to go to a website called google.com and type the word "strawman" into the little box that shows up in the middle of the screen. I know you're unfamiliar with the term, but everybody else out there that has more than a G.E.D. knows it's something you act like the other guy said, because you can't beat what he really said. So it's real obvious what you're trying to do, even if what you're arguing makes about as much sense as those bozos who tried to convince everyone second-hand smoke was actually MORE dangerous than primary smoke.
I mean really, how much sense does it take to figure out management is going to take fewer regulatory risks with someone looking over their shoulder than not?
By the way...why are you here?
What? You never heard of a social conservative?
If you want to continue responding with ad hominum (and frankly ignorant) barbs go ahead. But your self-charaterization as a social conservative needs correction. You left the "ist" off of social.