After reading Scott Lansley’s column (March 13) several times, I have many questions to ask concerning his opinion of labor unions.

That he used the word “thug” five times within the column disturbs me greatly. Each time he used that word, it was referring to labor union members.

I will forgo the many questions I have and ask only one: Has Lansley checked the meaning of “thug” in a dictionary?

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word “thug”: Thief, rogue, a brutal ruffian or assassin; gangster, killer.

It is rather hard to believe that the state of Maine, as the largest employer (or any other employer who has union employees), has hired and employed thugs.

In my 40-plus years of employment in this state’s commercial sector (paper company), I was a union member and proud of it.

I believe calling an individual a thug because of membership in a labor union is insulting.

I pose one more question:

Do people who resort to name-calling and name-labeling, whoever they are or whatever office they hold, are they trying to humiliate or take away the dignity of an individual or individuals involved?

Some 24 years ago (1987), I came to the conclusion that some people may try to take away another person’s dignity in one way or another, but they cannot. A person cannot lose his dignity unless he decides to give it up.

Jean B. Richard, Jay