Why did Richard Mourdock support collective bargaining, including legislation that prohibits the permanent replacement of striking workers?

During the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama tried his best to pander to Democratic unions, promising to “work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.”  Here’s the excerpt from Obama’s grand plan to change America:

Protect Striking Workers: Obama and Biden support the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. They will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.

Why on Earth would Richard Mourdock – a so-called Tea Party conservative – side with Barack Obama and big Democratic unions on this key issue?  It just doesn’t make much sense.  Don’t believe it’s true? Take a look at the facts.

In an October 30, 1992 candidate questionnaire printed by The Message, an Evansville weekly paper, Mourdock was asked, “Do you support collective bargaining including legislation that prohibits the permanent replacement of striking workers?”  While Senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.) checked “Oppose,” both Mourdock and his Democratic opponent answered “Support.”

Are you kidding me?  Mr. Erikson and his band of merry men are running around screaming about Dick Lugar when Mourdock sided with Barack Obama and the big union bosses on a key issue like collective bargaining and the replacement of striking workers?  Dick Lugar has voted consistently for right-to-work and against card check legislation.  Who’s the consistent conservative now?