I was listening to the Ed Schultz show the other day. His guest was a union leader of national renown who's name I don't recall. Anyway, the guest was speaking favorably about many "occupy" offshoots, including a movement to "occupy" homes slated for foreclosure. The stated justification for the occupation was because the banks were unable to prove ownership of the homes.
Perhaps so, but then I somehow doubt that the "occupiers" had any proof whatsoever that the home belonged to them either. So what you have is a double standard endorsed by the union thug. Banks must have impeccable proof of ownership absent any clerical errors or they lose their property to a mob with no reasonable claim of ownership.
Another reason why the union thugs lost me years ago. Envy is the only reason to side with them on this issue and most others. No thanks.