Unions Threaten Business

reply to post by centurion1211


Shoot the messenger??? Dude the messenger is my friend ohioriver. You will find no attack by myself upon him.
And did I attack to place he got his information? Outside the Beltway? No I did not.

What I attacked was not the messenger but the originator of this and many other lies, Rupert Murdock and his MSM empire.

Dude we need to know the difference. You offer as counter point to my point about Murdock, the straw horse of the Huffington Post. Why pick that one. I have read the HP once in my life. You speak as if you think I am getting my marching orders from her.

So unless you wish to discuss the topic of MSM in specifics rather than in generalities and dismissing valid information with claims of bogus and deflecting by shooting the messenger I see no reason for us to continue exploring ways in which we together can unmask the voices behind MSM .

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


What I have a problem with is the dichotomy that folks have. I see the Koch Bros. being slammed relentlessly, but not one word of the millions dumped by unions, liberal billionaires (Soros, et al) against conservative values.

If you truely are for honesty and a return to core values, then they would have to be included as well.

Regards,

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TerryMcGuire

 

What I have a problem with is the dichotomy that folks have. I see the Koch Bros. being slammed relentlessly, but not one word of the millions dumped by unions, liberal billionaires (Soros, et al) against conservative values.

Dichotomy? What in the hell are you talking about. You, Fox, Rush, Sean, ORilley, Savage, Coulter, Beck, Levin, Boortz, J. Authur, Prager, Hewitt, Medved never, ever miss a chance to trash liberal supporters and their contributions.

Your ideology has blinded you to the obvious and gotten in the way of your common sense.

reply to post by whaaa


And your reply was a perfect example of the selective blindness that so many on the left suffer from.
Thank you for illustrating it so well.

reply to post by beezzer


Beez. With out a doubt. Here though is more of the context which in which I hold my present conclusions. The supreme court just did the decision that corporations are citizens and also they did away with regulations which controlled and limited the money flow into political campaigns. You know this I'm sure. Small money in politics no longer means anything. Only big money. Before 2010 was not good. but better than during those elections. The conservative factions won big time all around the country. WHY?

One reason is because in the 2010 elections, 7 out of 10 of the big money doners were corporations. The other three were union donations. And as we can understand the unions donated to the dems and the corps donated to the repubs. Now heres the thing.

IF, you were a big corporation, if mind you, and you wanted to control the WHOLE POLITICAL PROCESS instead of just 70% of it, what would be your next step. Get rid of the competition. Huh? Break the back of what is left of the unions and there is no longer any big money to fight off the power of the corporations. Oh and one last thing. We used to think of these corporations as OUR corporations. Good old American industry. Maybe so once but no longer. They are now international corporations with little allegence to the US.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire

Oh and one last thing. I hate this divide. This I'm right your wrong mentality of both liberal and conservative persuasions. See it here in this thread? In so many threads?

This is the way they want us to think. Some on one side and others on the other. Somehow we have to find a way to communicate with each other apart from this meright youwrong way of looking at things. It only serves their purpose

I"m off to my birthday breakfast. bye.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire

Corporations play both sides of the fence. Wall Street gave more to Obama than McCain last election cycle. From what I see, unions have had the playing field all to themselves. This ruling now levels the playing field and THAT has the left in a tizzy.

Previously I mentioned ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC/CNN et al.
We have um, Fox and talk radio.
Yet the left still pursues the "fairness doctrine" becuse opposing views are being voiced.

Ther is no equality. There is no even, level playing field. It is a battle between (not left vs right) but more government control over all our lives vs less government control over us.

Me?

I prefer less government control. Left, right, liberal, conservative, libertarian. . . . it doesn't matter.

Just leave me and mine the hell alone. THAT is where I am coming from.

Originally posted by beezzer





Me?

I prefer less government control. Left, right, liberal, conservative, libertarian. . . . it doesn't matter.

Just leave me and mine the hell alone. THAT is where I am coming from.

And yet you support government control of unionized workers in WI. See the hypocrisy here?
It's apparent to me, from your previous posts
that you actually want more government control with the corporations having the ultimate power.

That's the epitome of Government control and it's called Fascism.

www.rense.com...

Is this what you want?

You can't support Fascism and less govt. at the same time. Can't you see that?

reply to post by beezzer


Your post ."Corporations play both sides of the fence. Wall Street gave more to Obama than McCain last election cycle. From what I see, unions have had the playing field all to themselves. This ruling now levels the playing field and THAT has the left in a tizzy. "

Beez. Yes indeed. Obama had the big bucks from Wall Street. Is that why he won? I agree with you again. It certainly didn't hurt him. And now we are paying for it. His ties to Wall Street were always a big problem with believing him from a left perspective as well as the right.

My next thought though is this. The big bucks he got from Wall Street? Was that money from the unions? Nuh aa.

It was money from big business. Not the unions. This is one reason I have such a difficult time understanding why so many call him a socialist. It's dreaming.

Where I disagree with your perspective though is how it sees that the unions were in control and now the playing field is being leveled. If it was not in reply to you, then it was someone else who I replied to in this post in which I explained my perspective on this issue and why I have such a difficult time understanding how people miss the picture that it has always been big business that is the aggressor with the unions being the underdog. If you would like to find that post and respond it might be nice. Save my poor little fingers, givem a break.

And oh, about the left being in a tizzy. Right you are. Not because the playing field is being leveled, but because it is being tipped inexorably in the direction of the big money interests of the rich and a whole bunch of good Americans are still not able to understand this.

We all know this is not going to stop here, I know exactly what ATS members want, let alone the Elite multinationals of the world. Tyrants of the 20th century went after unions under similar context,,, going after unions was on of Hitlers first political moves when he acquired enough power. That context was that union were robbing the German populace, stealing GERMAN jobs, demanding too much money and supporting the political enemies of Germany, the Marxist movement. My great grandfather left Europe largely due to all the totalitarians going after guilds, unions and general diversity. Anyone care to see how many enemies of America held anti union positions?

You see it is very hard to subjugate people who have control over their own conditions, you guys are TRYING to
paste the tyrants argument on backwards. I do not see an empowered citizen base as a threat to freedom,
unitary tyrants DO, for good reason.

Obviously a boycott is a threat of physical harm.
Oh Wait...what? WTH???
No it isn't...Failed OP Failed thread... tsk tsk

Unions have outlived their usefulness. All I've seen is unions destroying companies and in the public sector they are overstepping their bounds with overly generous packages - spending our money and making us indentured servants to an elite class of people who suck at the public trough and are almost impossible to fire.

reply to post by centurion1211

For God's sake. Absolutely all that that "threatening" letter is saying is that members of the union will boycott their business if it continues to work against their best interests.

The boycott is a perfectly legitimate method of putting non-violent pressure on people and institutions and has been used since the beginning of this country. What do you call the Boston Tea Party?

Since when is there a law that says anyone MUST buy goods or services from people they abhor?

Can you tell me that some on the right don't boycott Planned Parenthood, and more than that, actually demonstrate against them? And what do you call making the government totally defund them? Are they "thugs" if they choose not to patronize their local abortion provider? According to your logic, they are.

Take the historic example of the Birmingham bus boycott in the 1960's. When that city's busses were segregated African Americans and other sympathizers boycotted them, refusing to ride, even if they had to walk miles to get to work. As a result, the city decided to integrate their busses, especially seeing that African Americans comprised most of their customers. If you call that an illegitimate use of undue force then there's no way we can ever be on the same page.

When the shoe is on other foot and people are not patronizing some business you don't like you'll sing a different tune, I guarantee.

Unions are the only way to fight the greed of corporations.

If you hate unions you hate power to the people.

You mad at 100k salary a year?

LOOK AT THE MONEY THE BANK STOLE FROM YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wake up to the bait and switch.

Thats an attitude I will never understand. The wet dream of so called "capitalists" that everybody should earn equally minimum wage and that people who want unions and higher salaries basically more capital are such evil communists.

Reminds me of what I heard about Walt Disney, staunch anti communist, but everybody at disney should be content to be payed less than elsewhere, because they are all a big family at Disney.

And yes I am aware that reagan strongly acted against unions, no need to call me out on my avatar :p

Threatening a boycott is far less thuggish than say...Oh I dunno...Maybe that time that I said something you didn't like and you u2u'd me to make fun of my disability, now that was thuggish. Groups threaten to boycott all of the time, it's a legal and non-violent way to accomplish goals.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Unions continue to act like thugs.

Here we actually have the the police and fire unions threatening a business if they won't support the unions against the Wisconsin governor.

Now they don't specifically say the following, but it's happened in the past when businesses refused to pay for "protection". Not hard to imagine how this will go down if the businesses say no. Someone breaks in and the police don't show up. Or there is a fire and the firemen "somehow" don't get the alarm.

source

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.

In the event you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact the
executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Jim Palmer,
at 608.273.3840.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from
you soon.

James L. Palmer, Executive Director
Wisconsin Professional Police Association
Mahlon Mitchell,President
Professional Fire Fighters
Jim Conway, President
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 311
John Matthews, Executive Director
Madison Teachers, Inc.
Keith Patt, Executive Director
Green Bay Education Association
Bob Richardson, President
Dane County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Dan Frei, President
Madison Professional Police Officers Association

edit on 12-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: all caps title removed

So you're saying that not consuming, and asking those you know to also not consume, is "thuggery"? So you're saying that Montgomery blacks were "thugs" during the bus boycott? Or the farm workers, when they boycotted grapes?

Centurion, you've got some messed-up views of the world. If exercising a right to free speech is thuggery, if experssing solidarity with other workers is thuggery, then you're god damned right I'm a thug.

reply to post by Cassius666


Well, actually, Reagan used to be a pretty strong pro-labor democrat, until GE bought him out. He even reflected this sometimes after he sold out to the corporatists (which resulted in him having "handlers");

"These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland ... They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."
—RONALD REAGAN, Labor Day Address at Liberty State Park, 1980

In my opinion, this is completely unprofessional behavior on the parts of the Wisconsin "Professional" Police Association and the "Professional" Fire Fighters. I support their ability to publicly endorse a particular candidate or political position, but this letter is simply extortion, akin to the tactics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Do they have the right to boycott? Absolutely. But, they should just do it, if they feel it is justified. Sending letters like this is completely uncalled for and unprofessional. And, whether intended or not, does give an impression like that expressed in the OP.

The website of the WPPA contains a list of what they seem to believe are the key components of the "proposed" bill. I'm not sure how many of them were actually included in the final legislation, but one of them particularly caught my attention.

Under the budget adjustment bill, "fair share" (required union dues payments) would be eliminated. We also anticipate further provisions in the bill affecting representation, including perhaps eliminations of required union memberships, requirements for annual certification votes, and similar measures.

Very, very interesting... They are concerned about employees being afforded the right to not be a member of a union and, apparently, support forced membership and basically theft of employees' money, in the form of "dues". And, they are willing to cause economic pain to anyone else who doesn't support it, as well.

One other thing that struck me about the "unions" announcing boycotts of businesses which supported Walker's campaign. One list I found consists of 125 specifically named businesses... How many of those employ "union" workers? By boycotting them, aren't they in fact endangering the very livelihoods of those fellow union members, as well as non-union employees? Doesn't make much sense to me. Sounds like, potentially, cutting off one's nose to spite his face.

Sorry guys and gals of the WPPA and PFFW, you've damaged your reputations on this one.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

So you're saying that not consuming, and asking those you know to also not consume, is "thuggery"? So you're saying that Montgomery blacks were "thugs" during the bus boycott? Or the farm workers, when they boycotted grapes? Centurion, you've got some messed-up views of the world. If exercising a right to free speech is thuggery, if experssing solidarity with other workers is thuggery, then you're god damned right I'm a thug.

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. 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.

You did not read the article. The letter states that the business must openly support the union, or be boycotted.

If they simply stated that they are going to boycott all businesses that support the governor, that would be fine. But for them to tell the business they must openly support the union or else, is extortion.

I guess being neutral is out of the question.