• 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

Yes, they simply publicly condemn in the media and try and put them out of business. That is so much better. I figured this would be the reaction...they are scum, unless it's us doing it, then it is proper.

Those boycotts were so huge I don't even recall them. I do remember thinking to myself, "I'm glad I buy Ford."
Put Disney out of business? That would have to be some boycott.
 
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?

Wow! You mean they were encouraged to vote in their own best interest? I recall being called an idiot for not voting in my own best interest. I was against the HC bill and other social programs that would benefit me.
Besides, how do you know they were encouraged to vote a certain way? Not that it matters.
 
Bottom line: This only serves to make Governor Walker's cause looked upon more favorably among the folks of Wisconsin.

**** the union. I hope it dies a slow, agonizing death.

And when it does, we should honor that day with a national holiday.
 
But the letter says quite clearl that those who don't like being threatened can call a police officer to discuss the matter.
 
How do you that what's good for the bank is good for its employees?

Oh, I don't know. Now that I think about it, voting for what's in the best interest of the company you are working for is probably a bad idea.:roll:
 
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.

I see they have hired a consultant from the Russian Mafia. This is what they call diplomacy.

Next it's the windows. Then the knees. Then...

.
 
Oh, I don't know. Now that I think about it, voting for what's in the best interest of the company you are working for is probably a bad idea.:roll:

Oh, I see. So when a company supports a law/party that enables it to give its workers less wages, poorer work conditions and longer hours (you know, since all three might give them more profit), its employees should vote for whomever their employer tells them to.

No wonder every employee votes for the same people that their employers vote for.
 
Oh, I see. So when a company supports a law/party that enables it to give its workers less wages, poorer work conditions and longer hours (you know, since all three might give them more profit), its employees should vote for whomever their employer tells them to.

No wonder every employee votes for the same people that their employers vote for.


You're not making any sense. BTW, where is the proof employees vote the same way their employers do? And where is the proof the bank encouraged it's workers to vote for Walker? I've never worked anywhere that voting a certain way was ever brought up. Shoot, politics seldom came up at all.
Now, if you want to talk about Unions and why it happens to be that 90% or more of all their campaign donations go to Dems.......
 
You're not making any sense. BTW, where is the proof employees vote the same way their employers do? And where is the proof the bank encouraged it's workers to vote for Walker? I've never worked anywhere that voting a certain way was ever brought up. Shoot, politics seldom came up at all.
Now, if you want to talk about Unions and why it happens to be that 90% or more of all their campaign donations go to Dems.......

None of this has anything to do with what I posted. Let's revisit your statements:

did you know that this bank encouraged their employees to vote for those candidates who supported legislation favoring banks?

Your response:
Wow! You mean they were encouraged to vote in their own best interest?

My response to your response:
How do you that what's good for the bank is good for its employees?

Your sarcastic response to my response:
Oh, I don't know. Now that I think about it, voting for what's in the best interest of the company you are working for is probably a bad idea.:roll:

Let me break it down: What's good for the company (and by that I mean, what's good for the owners/execs of the company) is not always good for the rest of the company's employees. For example, if I am greedy exec A and I want to give my employees lower wages, then I will vote for politician B. Since all of my employees think like Barbbtx, I will tell them to vote for politician B and they will do it and get lower wages.

Another example, if I'm still greedy exec A and I want to outsource for cheap labor, then I will still vote for politician B. Since all of my employees think like Barbbtx, I will tell them to vote for politician B and they will do it and lose their jobs because "voting for what's in the best interest of the company" is always the best idea!
 
Last edited:
None of this has anything to do with what I posted. Let's revisit your statements:



Your response:


My response to your response:


Your sarcastic response to my response:


Let me break it down: What's good for the company (and by that I mean, what's good for the owners/execs of the company) is not always good for the rest of the company's employees. For example, if I am greedy exec A and I want to give my employees lower wages, then I will vote for politician B. Since all of my employees think like Barbbtx, I will tell them to vote for politician B and they will do it and get lower wages.

Another example, if I'm still greedy exec A and I want to outsource for cheap labor, then I will still vote for politician B. Since all of my employees think like Barbbtx, I will tell them to vote for politician B and they will do it and lose their jobs because "voting for what's in the best interest of the company" is always the best idea!

Give me an example of how voting for a specific candidate would then allow your employer to lower your wages or outsource. Why couldn't he do that before?
I'm saying a general rule when a company benefits, the employees are more likely to benefit than not. It's better than voting for someone who is going to tax and regulate your co. to death. Then you might be told, "Sorry, we're downsizing and doing away with your department"

Let's say I work for a bakery and my employer is paying me a fair wage and we are both happy with it. I expect to get raises on down the line and more vacation time. An election comes up. One politican(D) has said he will raise taxes on small business to pay for a raise for teachers. The other politican(R) says he will cap teachers pay, and not raise anyone's taxes. Chances are my boss and I would vote for (R) He doesn't want to take a cut to his profits, and I want to be assured he will give me raises and more vacation in the future.
Teachers and other Public Unions workers will probably vote for (D) because the teachers want a raise. The other public union workers will vote for (D) too because they all belong to the same club.
You still haven't shown me where you got the idea that bank employees were encouraged to vote for Walker.
 
Give me an example of how voting for a specific candidate would then allow your employer to lower your wages or outsource. Why couldn't he do that before?
I just gave you two examples. Here's one again: Employer X is tired of the high wages American workers demand so he decides to vote for Politician A because Politician A supports a lower minimum wage or supports getting rid of unions that negotiate higher wages. Then, Employer X tells his workers to vote for Politician A. Politician A wins. The employees who voted for Politician A get lower wages.

I'm saying a general rule when a company benefits, the employees are more likely to benefit than not. It's better than voting for someone who is going to tax and regulate your co. to death. Then you might be told, "Sorry, we're downsizing and doing away with your department"

Let's say I work for a bakery and my employer is paying me a fair wage and we are both happy with it. I expect to get raises on down the line and more vacation time. An election comes up. One politican(D) has said he will raise taxes on small business to pay for a raise for teachers. The other politican(R) says he will cap teachers pay, and not raise anyone's taxes. Chances are my boss and I would vote for (R) He doesn't want to take a cut to his profits, and I want to be assured he will give me raises and more vacation in the future.
Teachers and other Public Unions workers will probably vote for (D) because the teachers want a raise. The other public union workers will vote for (D) too because they all belong to the same club.

Sure, I agree certain laws that benefit businesses benefit employees as well. I wouldn't say it's a "general rule" since larger businesses can also work against the interests of their employees for their own profit. I don't, however, believe that voting the way that best helps the company (in terms of making money) is always in the best interest of the employee. I mean, if businesses paid their employees $1.00/hour, then it would be good for the company profit-wise, but it wouldn't be good for the employees.

You still haven't shown me where you got the idea that bank employees were encouraged to vote for Walker.

Liblady made that claim and I never addressed it. I responded solely to your implication that voting for who your boss tells you to is always in your best interest.
 
But the letter says quite clearl that those who don't like being threatened can call a police officer to discuss the matter.

Hello Police? Well, these people aren't buying from my store. Why did you hang up on me?

Oh, I don't know. Now that I think about it, voting for what's in the best interest of the company you are working for is probably a bad idea.:roll:

The best interest of the company you work for might be to close your branch down.
 
Let me break it down: What's good for the company (and by that I mean, what's good for the owners/execs of the company) is not always good for the rest of the company's employees. For example, if I am greedy exec A and I want to give my employees lower wages, then I will vote for politician B. Since all of my employees think like Barbbtx, I will tell them to vote for politician B and they will do it and get lower wages.
Let me break it down. If an employer in the free market treats good employees poorly the employees can go elsewhere. When it happens enough the poor employer is screwed and rightfully so, and he invites competition.

Another example, if I'm still greedy exec A and I want to outsource for cheap labor, then I will still vote for politician B. Since all of my employees think like Barbbtx, I will tell them to vote for politician B and they will do it and lose their jobs because "voting for what's in the best interest of the company" is always the best idea!
Once again, a labor market without government intervention would be better. People would be paid according to the worth of their labor. What a concept! An employer not doing so would soon find himself without employees, and having to invest more in training new ones than retaining experienced ones.

When unions get greedy, the employees get screwed. It's the old saying, "bears make money, bulls make money, pigs get slaughtered." Unions have proven to be pigs, and the jobs of their union members outsourced.

Thehn thier arz thee Teecherz Unyon.

.
 
Last edited:
Wish I was in Wi about now. I'd boycott all the businesses that cave to the Union and support those who are being boycotted.

Which you also have the Constitutional right to do. After all, if a business does not support your position, you have every First Amendment right to show your disfavor by not doing business with them. After all, we are not the Soviet Union or Iran. We are America, so I won't demonize you for that. I promise. I will support your right to do business with whomever you wish, based on your principles.
 
Last edited:
Let me break it down. If an employer in the free market treats good employees poorly the employees can go elsewhere.
When it happens enough the poor employer is screwed and rightfully so, and he invites competition.
Sure, that happens. Unfortunately, I wasn't talking about this with Barbbtx - I was talking about whether or not it's always in an employee's interest to vote the way that their employer tells them to. The answer is no; it's not. You can talk about this unrelated issue with someone else.

Once again, a labor market without government intervention would be better. People would be paid according to the worth of their labor. What a concept! An employer not doing so would soon find himself without employees, and having to invest more in training new ones than retaining experienced ones.
Okay back to the real world where companies outsource jobs in order to pay people less than the worth of their labor.

When unions get greedy, the employees get screwed. It's the old saying, "bears make money, bulls make money, pigs get slaughtered." Unions have proven to be pigs, and the jobs of their union members outsourced.
This sentence is filled with too much emotion-based criticism to be worthy of a reasoned response.
 
Back
Top Bottom