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

[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.

Oh, bullshit.

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

Indeed. And now is a good time for a reminder as to why FDR Opposed Collective Bargaining:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service

 

[boedicca]

I must note that it is not surprising that the people who support CARD CHECK, now want to force businesses into POSTER CHECK.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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...

If that happens, then the law is violated and folks should be prosecuted. Is that happening?

 

[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.

Seriously dude, you are flailing now.

You really have no idea of how business owners stay in business and how getting into partisan politics is one of the surest way to kill it.

 

[boedicca]

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.

That is not an analogous situation.

The union thugs do not oppose the goods and services provided by the businesses; they are trying to coerce support for their political/union agenda....OR ELSE.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Oddball it's ok to just not like unions, I don't either, in fact I hate the whole idea of public education but that's another thread for another day.

You need to use better reasoning though. Don't like unions for legit reasons, not where they choose to spend their money.

 

[bodecea]

@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.

That is their pay checks. Are you trying to say that the taxpayer has the RIGHT to tell public employees how they can spend their paycheck after they receive it?

This is getting more and more interesting by the hour.

 

[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.

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.

Irrelevant ramblings. They've done the agreed upon job for the agreed upon rate, meaning that money is their money to spend as private consumers. Or not spend, as they see fit.

 

[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".

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

Oh, and are the union goons including that in the e-mail?

Are they creating a dispensation fund for business driven away because of their stupid idea?

Nope and nope.

"You're either with us or you're against us".

 

[Oddball]

Oddball it's ok to just not like unions, I don't either, in fact I hate the whole idea of public education but that's another thread for another day.

You need to use better reasoning though. Don't like unions for legit reasons, not where they choose to spend their money.

Fuck you.

I don't like protection rackets, no matter how you dress them up.

I especially detest having my tax dollars going into supporting such behavior.

 

[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.

That is their pay checks. Are you trying to say that the taxpayer has the RIGHT to tell public employees how they can spend their paycheck after they receive it?

This is getting more and more interesting by the hour.

I refer you to my post with FDR's letter.

 

[del]

Oddball it's ok to just not like unions, I don't either, in fact I hate the whole idea of public education but that's another thread for another day.

You need to use better reasoning though. Don't like unions for legit reasons, not where they choose to spend their money.

forcing businesses to take a political position is a legit reason.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Oddball it's ok to just not like unions, I don't either, in fact I hate the whole idea of public education but that's another thread for another day.

You need to use better reasoning though. Don't like unions for legit reasons, not where they choose to spend their money.

Fuck you.

I don't like protection rackets, no matter how you dress them up.

So you hate Capitalism, as you seem to hate the underlying mechanism that makes it go.

 

[Big Fitz]

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?

This is the coercion implied:

You have a choice. Put this in your window and pledge support for the union to help our political cause or we will boycott your store and try to harm your business because you will not show public support for our political cause.

I'm sure you'd be fine putting a poster for anti-gay, abortion or pro christian causes in your store window or suffer a boycott. Right?

 

[Oddball]

Oddball it's ok to just not like unions, I don't either, in fact I hate the whole idea of public education but that's another thread for another day.

You need to use better reasoning though. Don't like unions for legit reasons, not where they choose to spend their money.

Fuck you.

I don't like protection rackets, no matter how you dress them up.

So you hate Capitalism, as you seem to hate the underlying mechanism that makes it go.

Coercion isn't capitalism.

I don't give a shit how you want to try and reframe this political protection racket.

 

[boedicca]

Oddball it's ok to just not like unions, I don't either, in fact I hate the whole idea of public education but that's another thread for another day.

You need to use better reasoning though. Don't like unions for legit reasons, not where they choose to spend their money.

forcing businesses to take a political position is a legit reason.

Indeed. And what we see in this situation is GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES interfering in the first amendment rights of private business owners via threats to harm their businesses.

 

[boedicca]

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?

This is the coercion implied:

You have a choice. Put this in your window and pledge support for the union to help our political cause or we will boycott your store and try to harm your business because you will not show public support for our political cause.

I'm sure you'd be fine putting a poster for anti-gay, abortion or pro christian causes in your store window or suffer a boycott. Right?

Hobson's Choice is not a Real Choice.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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!

Oh, and are the union goons including that in the e-mail?

Are they creating a dispensation fund for business driven away because of their stupid idea?

Nope and nope.

"You're either with us or you're against us".

Did the Southern Baptists have a reaponsibilty to reimbursed Disney for list business should their demands be met?

C'mon oddball, you're a bright guy. You can't seriously think that Capitalism works like this. The consumer always has the right to make demands by threatening to spend his hard earned money someplace else. The business owner always has the right to agree. To terms or go on without the consumer's money.

 

[bodecea]

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?

This is the coercion implied:

You have a choice. Put this in your window and pledge support for the union to help our political cause or we will boycott your store and try to harm your business because you will not show public support for our political cause.

I'm sure you'd be fine putting a poster for anti-gay, abortion or pro christian causes in your store window or suffer a boycott. Right?

They have a choice. You said it yourself. And the unions can CALL for a boycott. That doesn't mean (and everyone knows this) that all people follow said boycott.

As for your examples....you do not seem aware of the Southern Baptist called boycotts against businesses such as Disney and Coke....for those very things.


BTW...if the majority of WI people are for the governor, what's to worry about with a boycott....in fact, put something in their window stating they SUPPORT the governor. Why not?

 

[boedicca]

Southern Baptists were not representing the Government in their boycott.