• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Union threatens boycott of any business that doesn't show support

digsbe said:
From what I understand though, these union members are boycotting businesses that are neutral and simply not showing support either way for either side. They are trying to gain support by telling these businesses to either support them or suffer business loss due to their boycott. They are essentially being cruel and trying to harass companies into supporting them. These are bully/thug tactics to me.
Click to expand...

To be fair, if I were them, I wouldn't target neutral businesses, so I do view that action as questionable. Nonetheless, it's hard for me to call it bullying because while the wording/action is aggressive, I can understand why union members wouldn't want to give money to a "neutral" business. Even actual neutrality hurts their interests since it means one less group on their side and in all likelihood, the owners of these businesses will vote and silence in public could be approval of Walker in the voting booth. To me, this just seems like the regular game of politics.

That said, if I were a business owner, I would likely keep my business neutral in politics and leave political decisions for my private life - so I'm not to fond of this tactic since I would also be targeted even though I support unions/collective bargaining.
 
Redress said:
I am trying to understand your position. You say that saying "support our issue or we boycott" is not the same thing as saying "We don't like your position on an issue so we am boycotting". The reality is they are exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it myself. People should be allowed to desire an ethical stance from a business as a condition of doing business. This is in fact something I have seen many conservatives espouse with the idea of voting with dollars and all that.

My only concern is that if the union isn't careful they could garner some bad publicity.
 
Redress said:
I am trying to understand your position. You say that saying "support our issue or we boycott" is not the same thing as saying "We don't like your position on an issue so we am boycotting". The reality is they are exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...



one is passive, the other is a shake down. It's pretty clear to me.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
well we'll just leave it as you support thuggish shakedown methods as a respectable means of boycott...
Click to expand...

LoLz. Again, I don't base my support on an action based on who does it.
 
Redress said:
LoLz. Again, I don't base my support on an action based on who does it.
Click to expand...


We're in my quote did I say you did? still on with this strawman?


You are trying to make more out of this than there is. Please if you are going to respond to me, respond to what I said, not what you wish I said.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
well we'll just leave it as you support thuggish shakedown methods as a respectable means of boycott...
Click to expand...

Whats the difference? Both are a case of customers wanting more out of their suppliers than just a service or product, which is valid.
 
megaprogman said:
Whats the difference? Both are a case of customers wanting more out of their suppliers than just a service or product, which is valid.
Click to expand...



It's a shake down tactic, just like the mob asking a business for "protection money".
 
Redress said:
I am trying to understand your position. You say that saying "support our issue or we boycott" is not the same thing as saying "We don't like your position on an issue so we am boycotting". The reality is they are exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...

I'll use an analogy. Say there is a bully that goes over to a kid and tells that kid to do something, and if he didn't do it the bully was going to beat him up. Say there is a second bully, however this bully decides to beat up a kid because of something the kid did (stealing from him, making fun, etc). These union supporters are like the first bully. They are trying to manipulate and coerce neutral entities into benefiting them. Other protests are like the 2nd bully who does something based on an action by another company. Both have the goal to cause the entity being protested or "bullied" to do something. However, the first case is different from the second. These unions are trying to force businesses to support them or suffer. It would be different if they were protesting businesses that had open support for Gov Walker and were against the unions. They are trying to gain support through manipulation, not trying to stop opposition through boycotts and protest.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
We're in my quote did I say you did? still on with this strawman?


You are trying to make more out of this than there is. Please if you are going to respond to me, respond to what I said, not what you wish I said.
Click to expand...

I am exactly discussing what you said, and continue to say. You think this is being "thuggish", but only because it is different from other boycotts, except it is not. You continually avoid saying whether boycotts are acceptable or not, but do try and draw a difference that does not exist between this and other boycotts. It seems clear to me, based on your words, that your issue is that this is being done by a group you dislike.
 
megaprogman said:
I think this is a great example of hyperbole.
Click to expand...



I don't at all. It's coercion..... Not different at all...


coercion legal definition of coercion. coercion synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


"The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. "



I may support you, but not want to put a sign in my shop so you are going to boycott me anyway? **** them....
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
"The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. "
Click to expand...

Well, heck if we are going to go with that definition of coercion, capitalism itself is pretty darn coercive, since people threaten to take their business elsewhere all the time for all sorts of reasons. Haggling over price at a car dealership would be coercive ...
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
I am exactly discussing what you said, and continue to say. You think this is being "thuggish", but only because it is different from other boycotts, except it is not. You continually avoid saying whether boycotts are acceptable or not, but do try and draw a difference that does not exist between this and other boycotts. It seems clear to me, based on your words, that your issue is that this is being done by a group you dislike.
Click to expand...



Whatever dood, your position is nonsense and based on nothing I have stated and ignores what I have stated. I have no issue with the boycott, i take issue with the coercion. Digsbe puts it correct. they are coercing a neutral entity to support thier cause "or else".

That's my position no matter which group it is...


Anything else you made up yourself and does not reflect my position.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Now that's hyperbole! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I don't see it, I apply psychological pressure on the salesman if he wants to make a sale and I want the product upgraded for no additional cost. In fact I may threaten to take my business elsewhere. According to your definition psychological pressure is coercive.

My greater point was, while I think your definition is true, it has to be qualified to some degree or else we can call anything coercise (I was hoping you would pick up on the subtility and deliberate absurdity), however, in the end, either business is business or it isn't as I have yet to see a good distinction raised by anyone's arguments here.
 
Last edited:
Reading further into this story:


"Parrett said that since the letters were sent, he has received threatening phone calls as well as calls from people supporting the state workers.

"I've gotten a lot of threatening phone calls," Parrett said."

Union threatens boycott of any business that doesn't show support - JSOnline



and more:


"Jim Haney, the outgoing head of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, a pro-business lobby, said the union effort was appalling. And he said the campaign would backfire.

"It's kind of like the old protection racket," he said. " 'If you have the right sticker, we won't break your knees.' This is beyond the pale to force a small-business person to choose when they want to stay neutral. But that isn't good enough."



I'm not the only one saying it. :shrug:
 
buck said:
Union threatens boycott of any business that doesn't show support - JSOnline



There are stories on WI radio of business owners trying to stay neutral, but since the won't place the letter in their window they are being boycotted and protestors are in front of their place.

I think this has a large potential to back fire on the unions and erode some of the support they have. It doesn't seem people take too kindly to brutish behavior and this activity easily draws comparisons to the mob asking for protection money to ensure no one burns down the business.
Click to expand...

I see, so you don't think people have the right to choose who they do business with, without being called unamerican? How Communistic of you.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Reading further into this story:


"Parrett said that since the letters were sent, he has received threatening phone calls as well as calls from people supporting the state workers.

"I've gotten a lot of threatening phone calls," Parrett said."

Union threatens boycott of any business that doesn't show support - JSOnline
Click to expand...

Threatening phone calls are a problem and there should be some legal inquiry.

and more:


ReverendHellh0und said:
"Jim Haney, the outgoing head of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, a pro-business lobby, said the union effort was appalling. And he said the campaign would backfire.

"It's kind of like the old protection racket," he said. " 'If you have the right sticker, we won't break your knees.' This is beyond the pale to force a small-business person to choose when they want to stay neutral. But that isn't good enough."

I'm not the only one saying it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

And this guy gives no additional or better reasoning than has been given in this thread so far :shrug:
 
William Rea said:
Godwin after only 17 posts?
Click to expand...

Oh oops!
hitler_emoticon.gif
 
Erod said:
What does boycotting small businesses have to do with public unions? It's basically saying "pay for our salaries, pensions, and benefits, or else!"

Hopefully, soon the union will be dead and gone, and we can all laugh over a beer.
Click to expand...

In case anyone is interested, below is the response from the bank and letter to the bank from the Union.

The bank more or less gave them a non-answer or go **** yourself, because we are bigger than you.:lamo


M&I Bank Issues Response to Letter From Wisconsin Union Group Threatening to Boycott M&I | LoanSafe.org

American Thinker Blog: The union bullies in Wisconsin target businesses (updated)

The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor
Walker's efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in
Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this
request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not
respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with
Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters,
and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.

In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining,
please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the
goods and services provided by your company.
Click to expand...
 
Unions are digging themselves a deeper and deeper whole when it comes to their reputation thats for sure. What happened to being for the worker, this doesn't seem to match the notion in any way.

And their latest theory of not paying their mortgage in attempt to ruin banks and worsen the housing crisis is quite cute unprofessional as well.
 
Barbbtx said:
In case anyone is interested, below is the response from the bank and letter to the bank from the Union.

The bank more or less gave them a non-answer or go **** yourself, because we are bigger than you.:lamo


M&I Bank Issues Response to Letter From Wisconsin Union Group Threatening to Boycott M&I | LoanSafe.org

American Thinker Blog: The union bullies in Wisconsin target businesses (updated)
Click to expand...

what do you find so funny? did you know that this bank encouraged their employees to vote for those candidates who supported legislation favoring banks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom