• 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!

Unions threaten Business

Yes. I also think it's a fundamental right to support whichever political agenda I choose, free from harrassment by organized public employee unions.

It is everyone's fundamental right as it is their right not not buy from you (assuming you are a business owner) if they don't like you or for any arbitrary reason they see fit, even silly stuff like not liking the color of your shoes. Political differences are no more or less meaningful in that respect.

This whole notion of being harrassed, because you did not receive a purchase, is silly for that reason.

Those people who are freaking out about this are reading way more into it then is there. Its simply an economic decision and nothing more.
 
It is simply a boycott nothing more

No.

When the head of a union of the POLICE threaten a citizen to compel action, the very real possiblity exists that the police may not show up when called, and the equally real possibility exists that some police officers may take their loyalty to their union to extremes and take overt action secure in the knowledge that the police hestitates to investigate and prosecute their own.

Same with firemen.

The unspoken threat exists to be seen for anyone familiar with the history of unions and their violent actions.
 
No.

When the head of a union of the POLICE threaten a citizen to compel action, the very real possiblity exists that the police may not show up when called, and the equally real possibility exists that some police officers may take their loyalty to their union to extremes and take overt action secure in the knowledge that the police hestitates to investigate and prosecute their own.

Same with firemen.

The unspoken threat exists to be seen for anyone familiar with the history of unions and their violent actions.

Paranoia.jpg
 
There's a big difference between private citizens choosing not to purchase a product and an organized union sending out threatening letters to local businesses.

Personally, I think the unions are shooting themselves in the foot with this stupidity.

I think the local businesses should respond by denying services to members of the police and fireman's unions. That's harder to do, and not feasible in the long term, but perhaps the union members need to start being reminded of who they are, where they belong in society, and what kind of creeps they're electing to their union leadership.

Or, perhaps, a "union surcharge" on services and goods to cover the additional costs those public employee unions have imposed on businesses and taxpayers in general?
 
So, you've never studied history and the rise of unionism in the United States by use of violence, extortion, coercion, and graft?

Maybe you should stop posting until you've learned history?

I have studied enough history to know not to selectively take pieces of it to promote my own agenda.

All forms of extortion are economic decisions.

Yes, Mayor Snorkum isn't afraid of the "ex" word.

I see, and a Christian or Mormon group not buying from a business due to a moral concern is extortion then, by your logic.
 
Last edited:
I have studied enough history to know not to selectively take pieces of it to promote my own agenda.

But you're willing to completely ignore it to promote your agenda.

That's good to know.

I see, and a Christian or Mormon group not buying from a business due to a moral concern is extortion then, by your logic.

No, it looks like you're describing economic extortion.

However....what services are Christian groups providing as part of their position as a government agency that can threaten their boycott targets on higher levels, as can union actions by police and firemen?

That's the difference you want to pretend doesn't exist, but that's all the difference in the world between your example and what the public employees unions are threatening.


One last thing. The UAW and other car-related unions are producing products for which alternative sources are available. There is no alternative to local police, nor is there usually alternative to the local fire department. Thus the comparison with Government Motors is invalid.

Now, I'm going to go dig deep holes in my backyard looking for leaky pipes around my pool, so don't read anything into my failure to respond. It's going to be fun for about ten minutes, and not so much so for the rest of the afternoon...
 
Last edited:
The right wing freak show is pushing a recent letter, excerpted below, which identifies the history of collective bargaining in five decades of peaceful labor relations and that Scott Walker did not run on highly constraining collective bargaining in his gubernatorial campaign and then goes on to say:

… 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. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table. Wisconsin’s public employee unions serve to protect and promote equality and fairness in the workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share that ideal. …

— letter, from executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association to Tom Ellis, President, Marshall & Ilsley Corporation¹

The right wing freak show residents would have us believe this is a kind of extortion. Personally, this letter is a valid form of direct political action. There's nothing wrong with withholding your patronage for businesses whose politics are contrary to your own. Conservative groups and liberal groups and groups in between all use economic boycotts to express their displeasure with a business or public entity.
 
I have studied enough history to know not to selectively take pieces of it to promote my own agenda.

History also has a tendency to repeat itself. As such you should not discount those pieces. Which is why most people use selective pieces of history, to show that it's been done multiple times before and can happen again.

Also I think people in this thread that are defending the Unions on this stance of thiers are ignoring what a boycott from a Union usually implies. It does not simply imply just not buying items from X store. It also usually involves picket lines and people with signs infront of X store. That was the normal way that Unions boycotted a buisness back in the day.

Now with all this said:

Yes Unions and everyone else in the US has a right to do this. No one is saying that they do not have this right. What people are saying is that by writing such a letter they are threatening X buisness for not supporting them. THAT is what people are seeing as bad. A picket line and boycott is nothing more than a different name for a protest. But if someone came up to you and told you that you had better do X or Y will happen wouldn't YOU see that as a threat? As that person trying to extort you? Just because they have a right to do something, doesn't mean that the way they go about doing it is the right way to do it.
 
But you're willing to completely ignore it to promote your agenda.

That's good to know.

Ahh yes, the classic retort of "you have an agenda" when one cannot come up with a good counter argument.

No, it looks like you're describing economic extortion.

If if you are thinking that not purchasing from someone is extortion because you don't like them or their views, you should read about capitalism, but this is a very capitalistic response and secondly, there is nothing illegal or unethical about not purchasing from someone for those reasons, which invalidates the idea that it can even be thought of as extortion.

However....what services are Christian groups providing as part of their position as a government agency that can threaten their boycott targets on higher levels, as can union actions by police and firemen?

Whether or not they are a government agency is not relevent, they are a group of people making personal economic decisions.

That's the difference you want to pretend doesn't exist, but that's all the difference in the world between your example and what the public employees unions are threatening.

Nope. You might have a point of the police force didn't buy guns from smith&wesson due to union concerns, but if johnny the cop goes to this store vs that store to buy his weekly groceries, it has nothing to do with government.

History also has a tendency to repeat itself. As such you should not discount those pieces. Which is why most people use selective pieces of history, to show that it's been done multiple times before and can happen again.

The point being that I didn't want to get into a historical argument because for every point that can be brought up, a counterpoint can be brought up, ultimately going nowhere and wasting my time.

Also I think people in this thread that are defending the Unions on this stance of thiers are ignoring what a boycott from a Union usually implies. It does not simply imply just not buying items from X store. It also usually involves picket lines and people with signs infront of X store. That was the normal way that Unions boycotted a buisness back in the day.

Now with all this said:

Yes Unions and everyone else in the US has a right to do this. No one is saying that they do not have this right. What people are saying is that by writing such a letter they are threatening X buisness for not supporting them. THAT is what people are seeing as bad. A picket line and boycott is nothing more than a different name for a protest. But if someone came up to you and told you that you had better do X or Y will happen wouldn't YOU see that as a threat? As that person trying to extort you? Just because they have a right to do something, doesn't mean that the way they go about doing it is the right way to do it.

And, IF this happens, and all laws and permitting procedures are followed, there is nothing wrong or illegal. The supreme court just ruled in favor of WBC for picketing soldier funerals. If those scumbags have first amendment rights, everyone else does too. But whether it is a threat or not is unimportant, because people have a right to purchase from who they choose. It is not unfair or wrong to want a business to conform to your personal moral standards, it is an inherent part of capitalism that so many people on this forum champion.
 
Last edited:
The right wing freak show residents would have us believe this is a kind of extortion. Personally, this letter is a valid form of direct political action. There's nothing wrong with withholding your patronage for businesses whose politics are contrary to your own. Conservative groups and liberal groups and groups in between all use economic boycotts to express their displeasure with a business or public entity.

So, what would you say if a President of the US told you not to buy X TV brand because he doesn't like the shape of the TV, if you do buy it however then he would withhold all services that he provides to you?
 
I see, and a Christian or Mormon group not buying from a business due to a moral concern is extortion then, by your logic.

Do your tax dollars fund any Christian or Mormon groups?


Buy American--Unless they are Non-Democrat Americans.
.
.
.
.
 
Do your tax dollars fund any Christian or Mormon groups?


Buy American--Unless they are Non-Democrat Americans.
.
.
.
.

In some cases, yes they do. What's your point?
 
It is everyone's fundamental right as it is their right not not buy from you (assuming you are a business owner) if they don't like you or for any arbitrary reason they see fit, even silly stuff like not liking the color of your shoes. Political differences are no more or less meaningful in that respect.

This whole notion of being harrassed, because you did not receive a purchase, is silly for that reason.

Those people who are freaking out about this are reading way more into it then is there. Its simply an economic decision and nothing more.

Yessir and it's my right not to choose sides in a political pissin' contest and to be free from harrassment by a labor union, with millions of dollars at it's disposal in which to beat up on me and force me to choose a side.
 
Yessir and it's my right not to choose sides in a political pissin' contest and to be free from harrassment by a labor union, with millions of dollars at it's disposal in which to beat up on me and force me to choose a side.

And if they don't want to buy from you for being neutral, that is their right. This right trumps your right, because it is their money to spend.
 
So, what would you say if a President of the US told you not to buy X TV brand because he doesn't like the shape of the TV, if you do buy it however then he would withhold all services that he provides to you?

I would say the president cannot withhold public services to political opponents. Your analogy is inappropriate.

What would you say if Rush Limbaugh said you should withhold your patronage of Comcast unless they fire Rachel Maddow from MSNBC? Is that extortion?
 
So, what would you say if a President of the US told you not to buy X TV brand because he doesn't like the shape of the TV, if you do buy it however then he would withhold all services that he provides to you?

I wouldn't like it, because the president couldn't avoid doing this in an official capacity, however, this is a different situation than we are discussing here.
 
It certainly is

How many conservatives stated they would not buy GM because of the bailout? A boycott in other words, how many conservatives boycott various stores for selling what they consider offensive music/videos. Religous groups boycotted Volvo for placing adds in magazines for gays.

Yet I doubt you were upset by those boycotts now were you

Stating 'I will not buy from so-and so- because of X', ia VASTLY different than an organized attempt to shut businesses down because someone doesn't like their politics. It's a pity you are unable to comprehend this.


BTW... actually, yes... i would be opposed to threatening someones business for those other reasons you mentioned. So kind take your self righteous and sanctimonious attitude and place it some place dark and smelly.
 
Those people who are freaking out about this are reading way more into it then is there. Its simply an economic decision and nothing more.

That is about the dumbest explanation for this union driven boycott I have yet to hear. Even you can't possibly believe this is not driven by the recent actions of the governor and legislature.
 
The following letter is being sent out from Wisconsin Unions/THE MOB to Wisconsin Business Owners.......



Taking "Put the money in the bag.....or were gonna shut you down" to a whole new level.

This ****ing disgusts me.....these power hungry union slobs are a disgrace to this country......and piss poor excuses for Americans. A Union of little thug dictators.......its no wonder they prostitute for The Democrat Party and The Kenyan Tyrant. Birds of a feather....
.
.
.
.

The only thing I see wrong with this approach is that it did not start soon enough, I will definitely support any and all boycotts that target the supporters of those who try to take away the collective bargaining rights of any public or private worker. You should never wake up a sleeping giant. Gov Walker had an opportunity to negotiate a cost saving agreement with the teacher's union and he was not going to satisfied until he took away their right to have representation, we all have a right to assemble and work for the common good

Every one should have had to sacrifice a little to help during these hard economic times, that includes the insurance companies that supply the benefits for these workers
 
Well no more police protection for businesses, robbers gone wild!
 
Its a POWERLESS THREAT. In the entire history of these United States there has been only 13 recalls that meet with any success...at any level. That's over a 230 year period. By the time this all plays out it will be late summer or early fall with all the legislation history, and considering the FACT that it is a handful of radical PROGRESSIVES who always vote for their radical agenda in attempting to disrupt the NORM...it will be the moderates and independents who elected these people in the first place that will make the difference. If the left could not convince these people of their agenda in the beginning the chances are slim to none they will be able to hold the attention span of these more moderate and CRITICAL THINKERS over the next 6 months. I am sure these OUT OF STATE interests have MILLIONS of DOLLARS and TIME to dedicate to Wisconsin when their agenda is being attacked all over the nation....I for one cannot wait for the Violence to begin and the hyperbole to end. Where are all those shallow unmarked graves the LEFT keeps threatening THE PEOPLE with.....

But Good Luck. It will be ENTERTAINING as the next state falls, then the next....etc.
 
Last edited:
I would say the president cannot withhold public services to political opponents. Your analogy is inappropriate.

What would you say if Rush Limbaugh said you should withhold your patronage of Comcast unless they fire Rachel Maddow from MSNBC? Is that extortion?

Interesting analogy in that you think a loyal listenor of Rush Limbaugh would also be a viewer of Rachel Maddow.
 
Back
Top Bottom