Only one of them falls inside the subject of "What's this problem the right wing has with Unions, however," and the other falls inside another subject area: Say, the one we had going on oil wells not too long ago, where it would have fit in smoothly and not been a change of subject. If you want to bring it over there, why not? It might fit, and I might find it an interesting use of time, perhaps.
Or perhaps there might be some way to bring it up here that makes it relevent to the discussion about Unions and the trouble the Right wing has in understanding the need that labor has in dealing with capital on a more equal footing in terms of power and money. Certainly it seems understandable to me that when a political party and the people who provide most of the funding for that party — the Republicans, in this case — attack the ability of working folks to put bread on the table for themselves and their families, that those folks and the Unions that support them would be very unhappy and would wish to take action. The fact thaty this action is both uncomfortable and effective should not be terribly surprising, and I frankly doubt that it is to the Republican donor base or to those in authority in the party itself. There is a long history of the rhetoric being used, and the speaker you cite, the Republican state senator in Wisconsin, even makes reference to prior anti-union battles fought in the thirties, and not just in Wisconsin. "Thugs" is one of everybody's favorite, left and right, and I'm not particularly surprised to hear it trotted out again.
The man brings it up as though he hasn't just voted away collective bargaining rights from state workers, and as though he simply cannot understand why people might possibly be upset with him. It may be that he has also helped vote a large tax cut for businesses first, which meant that he made the deficit problem considerably worse for the state before he took bargaining rights away from state workers, who had agreed not to press for any increase in wages or benefits and who were budget neutral.
That's simply a wild guess, however.