WI Teachers Union: Making You an Offer You Can't Refuse

[Dr.Drock]

I remain amazed at how many "proponents of Capitalism" have a complete failure of understanding as to how it works. If a consumer, or even a group of consumers, fail to like how a business is run they have the right to refuse to frequent that business. If the shopowner feels the consumer demands are unreasonable, they have the right to ignore the consumer and continue business as usual.

This isn't rocket science. It's the actual mechanism by which the free market runs. Pretending otherwise shows you fail to understand even the basic mechanisms of capitalism.

I've tried to help you out doc, but sadly I'm coming up empty as well .

People are using the broad term "threat" to sensationalize the event, as if threatening to no longer buy a product or service has any negative moral attachment to it.

 

[bodecea]

I would refuse to shop at a Union Thug supporting store.

Which would be your absolute right.

Here's what really puzzles me. IF the majority of Wisconsiners are supportive of the Governor and against public unions, you'd think that this would be a great opportunity for stores to tap into that majority by purposefully NOT putting up those Union signs and saying "go ahead and boycott away".

But all I'm seeing here is whining about it being extortion and unfair...and even a suggestion that teachers have their pay taken away.

 

[bodecea]

I'm 100% anti public unions.

But I fail to see how there's anything wrong with this whatsover.

Whenever anyone buys anything don't we essentially go through the same process of "meet my demands as a consumer or you won't get my business"?

So what if it's a threat, if a restaurant doesn't keep making a steak I like I'll stop coming, that's a threat, so what?

I wish the teachers were faced with the same threat Reagan leveled at the Air Traffic controller in 1981.

Threaten to fire teachers if they boycott businesses?

 

[del]

I see, so when I used the EXACT word for word definition in my reasoning that didn't fit your version of "basic" english?

You should've stopped at;

"it's hard to debate someone"

It's hard for you to debate, but you're skilled in the art of acting like a 9 year old, stick to your skills.

someone who believes that businesses and consumers are *coerced* into selling and buying, respectively, is an idiot. tough break.

deal.

I'll copy and paste and give you another shot at it.

"Coerce: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats

A business is forced to act a certain way by pressure of consumers/shareholders, and threats they'll go to competitors."

Break that down and tell me why that sentence is incorrect.

okay. i'll try to use small words.

a business wants to sell, and a consumer wants to buy.

to coerce is to force someone to do something against their will.

since businesses sell willingly and consumers willingly buy, it's obvious to anyone who isn't hard up against the left edge of the bell curve that your premise is moronic, to put it kindly.

good luck with your shine box, skippy.

 

[WillowTree]

Now it gets interesting.

Willow advocates that teachers who boycott businesses have their pay docked.

Who's the REAL extortionists here?

see? moron? what I said was, taxpers should not fund public sector unions. If teachers want to unionize and act like thugs they should go
private.

Taxpayers do not fund public sector unions...union members do, thru their dues.


And for being someone who advocated withholding pay from boycotters, you are not one to talk about others acting like thugs.

show me. I said taxpayers should withold taxes that support teacher thugs.

 

[bodecea]

someone who believes that businesses and consumers are *coerced* into selling and buying, respectively, is an idiot. tough break.

deal.

I'll copy and paste and give you another shot at it.

"Coerce: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats

A business is forced to act a certain way by pressure of consumers/shareholders, and threats they'll go to competitors."

Break that down and tell me why that sentence is incorrect.

okay. i'll try to use small words.

a business wants to sell, and a consumer wants to buy.

to coerce is to force someone to do something against their will.

since businesses sell willingly and consumers willingly buy, it's obvious to anyone who isn't hard up against the left edge of the bell curve that your premise is moronic, to put it kindly.

good luck with your shine box, skippy.

In this scenerio, who is being forced to do something against their will?

 

[Oddball]

I remain amazed at how many "proponents of Capitalism" have a complete failure of understanding as to how it works. If a consumer, or even a group of consumers, fail to like how a business is run they have the right to refuse to frequent that business. If the shopowner feels the consumer demands are unreasonable, they have the right to ignore the consumer and continue business as usual.

This isn't rocket science. It's the actual mechanism by which the free market runs. Pretending otherwise shows you fail to understand even the basic mechanisms of capitalism.

This is not a typical boycott.

These are state employees (you know the people paid by the taxes collected by these businesses) essentially telling those businesses "support us or else", with no real option for remaining neutral....That's a mobster protection racket mentality, not anything even remotely resembling the free market.

What's amazing is that this seems to be flying right over your head.

 

[Dr.Drock]

someone who believes that businesses and consumers are *coerced* into selling and buying, respectively, is an idiot. tough break.

deal.

I'll copy and paste and give you another shot at it.

"Coerce: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats

A business is forced to act a certain way by pressure of consumers/shareholders, and threats they'll go to competitors."

Break that down and tell me why that sentence is incorrect.

okay. i'll try to use small words.

a business wants to sell, and a consumer wants to buy.

to coerce is to force someone to do something against their will.

since businesses sell willingly and consumers willingly buy, it's obvious to anyone who isn't hard up against the left edge of the bell curve that your premise is moronic, to put it kindly.

good luck with your shine box, skippy.

I copy and pasted the exact defintion, maybe you didn't like the dictionary I went to.

A business is forced to act a certain way, the way the consumer wants them to act. Business/owners/CEO's/managers everyone does stuff they don't want to do in order to make money and satisfy shareholders/consumers.

You didn't like the definition, the childish assumption that I didn't know what the word meant just bit you in the ass as do the majority of your posts.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'll copy and paste and give you another shot at it.

"Coerce: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats

A business is forced to act a certain way by pressure of consumers/shareholders, and threats they'll go to competitors."

Break that down and tell me why that sentence is incorrect.

okay. i'll try to use small words.

a business wants to sell, and a consumer wants to buy.

to coerce is to force someone to do something against their will.

since businesses sell willingly and consumers willingly buy, it's obvious to anyone who isn't hard up against the left edge of the bell curve that your premise is moronic, to put it kindly.

good luck with your shine box, skippy.

In this scenerio, who is being forced to do something against their will?

No one of course, just the OP and del sensationalizing nothing.

 

[del]

I'll copy and paste and give you another shot at it.

"Coerce: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats

A business is forced to act a certain way by pressure of consumers/shareholders, and threats they'll go to competitors."

Break that down and tell me why that sentence is incorrect.

okay. i'll try to use small words.

a business wants to sell, and a consumer wants to buy.

to coerce is to force someone to do something against their will.

since businesses sell willingly and consumers willingly buy, it's obvious to anyone who isn't hard up against the left edge of the bell curve that your premise is moronic, to put it kindly.

good luck with your shine box, skippy.

In this scenerio, who is being forced to do something against their will?

i'd guess that there are businesses that would rather not put signs up in their windows supporting or opposing political causes that will feel compelled to do so. since i'm not in wisconsin, i have no way of knowing for sure.

if i owned a business and a group of thousands of people told me i should put up a sign or they won't shop there, i'd feel forced to put up the sign.

as i said earlier, they're on your team, so you'd excuse them for just about anything.

you may start your victory dance.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

@Oddball:

These are private citizens deciding how to spend money they earned through gainful employment. Who is or is not their boss is irrelevant. It's their hard earned money, they can spend it how they want.

The shopowner can remain neutral. In fact I think they should, all things equal. The consumer can then make their decision.

 

[bodecea]

I remain amazed at how many "proponents of Capitalism" have a complete failure of understanding as to how it works. If a consumer, or even a group of consumers, fail to like how a business is run they have the right to refuse to frequent that business. If the shopowner feels the consumer demands are unreasonable, they have the right to ignore the consumer and continue business as usual.

This isn't rocket science. It's the actual mechanism by which the free market runs. Pretending otherwise shows you fail to understand even the basic mechanisms of capitalism.

This is not a typical boycott.

These are state employees (you know the people paid by the taxes collected by these businesses) essentially telling those businesses "support us or else", with no real option for remaining neutral....That's a mobster protection racket mentality, not anything even remotely resembling the free market.

What's amazing is that this seems to be flying right over your head.

State employees are people too. They are NOT threatening to take state contracts elsewhere. They are saying they will, as private individuals, take their private money elsewhere. The State does not own those people 24/7....even tho Willow seems to think they do.

 

[Oddball]

BTW...What are the union hooligans doing to make up for potential business that could be driven away from these shops, from Walker supporters?

I'll tell you what.....Zilch.

 

[Oddball]

State employees are people too. They are NOT threatening to take state contracts elsewhere. They are saying they will, as private individuals, take their private money elsewhere. The State does not own those people 24/7....even tho Willow seems to think they do.

Bullshit.....Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Leave it to you to hold completely innocent shopkeepers hostage to union thuggery.

 

[bodecea]

BTW...What are the union hooligans doing to make up for potential business that could be driven away from these shops, from Walker supporters?

I'll tell you what.....Zilch.

Seriously dude, you are flailing now.

 

[boedicca]

@Oddball:

These are private citizens deciding how to spend money they earned through gainful employment. Who is or is not their boss is irrelevant. It's their hard earned money, they can spend it how they want.

The shopowner can remain neutral. In fact I think they should, all things equal. The consumer can then make their decision.

That sounds great, other than the fact that they are paid excessively with taxpayer money, and are now using that taxpayer money to threaten private businesses.

 

[Dr.House]

Let us not forget that there may aso be a fear of retaliation against these businesses that choose NOT to put up the signs, beyond a boycott of the business...

Windows can "accidentially" shatter during the night... Tires can "mysteriously" go flat...

 

[Oddball]

@Oddball:

These are private citizens deciding how to spend money they earned through gainful employment. Who is or is not their boss is irrelevant. It's their hard earned money, they can spend it how they want.

The shopowner can remain neutral. In fact I think they should, all things equal. The consumer can then make their decision.

Oh, bullshit.

There is no sign for "I have no opinion on the matter", or "leave me the fuck out of this".

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If I decide as a consumer to demand McDonald's sell Green Eggs and Ham, are you arguing I have a responsibility to help McDonald's retain the business of folks that will not eat it on a boat?

If what I said sounds childish, it is. But at this point I am not sure how else to address the folks that have such a lack of understanding of how Capitalism works.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

@Oddball:

These are private citizens deciding how to spend money they earned through gainful employment. Who is or is not their boss is irrelevant. It's their hard earned money, they can spend it how they want.

The shopowner can remain neutral. In fact I think they should, all things equal. The consumer can then make their decision.

Oh, bullshit.

There is no sign for "I have no opinion on the matter", or "leave me the fuck out of this".

Sure there is. Print that out in large letters and post it. Viola!