Unions Threaten Business

reply to post by Sinnthia


It amoounts to nothing but extortion from organized criminal enterprises...............that is punishable under RICO. Seems like the unions revert back to such tacticts when they don't get their way. For those saying that boycotts aren't the same thing as extortion, look at the context and tell me again this isn't a threat.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Then file some charges. Please, if you know of criminal activity, contact the authorities.

If you have no such charges to file, all you're doing is spreading lies and propaganda.

I shop at any place the unions threaten to boycott.

Please try to discuss the topic without getting personal.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks.

Now back on topic, and if I may use a paraphrase from another thread by my friend Whatukno ...

The problem in the US is that we cannot have a serious discusion about unions (and their contracts) W/O someone getting red in the face and screaming at the top of their lungs about union rights.

It's so bad that even existing contacts can't be discussed W/O one of these unions throwing a temper tantrum.

Then if an incident does happen, these same groups flip out and think that "Da gubermint iz gunna take der rightz away!"

How true!

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by beezzer

 

Hate to say it but they think that deaths are justified as long as they get what they want.

Well, it is for the greater good after all. We can't let silly things like deaths get in the way of making a better world for everyone equally. If only I were as equal as others. Le sigh.

/TOA

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Um, no, it's valid counter arguement to the falacy that unions are all helpful law abiding organizations with a blissfull history, that we just can't live without.. Just 'tisn't so, no saying all of the members are bad, but if the topic can't be dicussed in an honest manner, no sense in discussing it.

Those pesky commies who want more than minium wage instead of finding satisfaction in the fact that they render a service to the collective.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

It amoounts to nothing but extortion from organized criminal enterprises...............that is punishable under RICO.

You already said that. I am specifically asking you to elaborate as to what actions by the unions in this boycott and letter would qualify. Please do not repeat the claim again just so I can ask you to actually delineate what exactly you are speaking of, thank you.

Seems like the unions revert back to such tacticts when they don't get their way.

Such as...?

For those saying that boycotts aren't the same thing as extortion, look at the context and tell me again this isn't a threat.

I have and that is why I am asking you to explain your charge.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Um, no, it's valid counter arguement to the falacy that unions are all helpful law abiding organizations with a blissfull history, that we just can't live without.. Just 'tisn't so, no saying all of the members are bad, but if the topic can't be dicussed in an honest manner, no sense in discussing it.

Its hard enough to come by a union that isnt bribed by the other side as it is. A 50k salary for a teacher and medical benefits sounds about right. You study to become a teacher. How much is it in Euros, 40k?

Isn't this an interesting comment from James Palmer, the head of the WPPA, whose name is the first on the letter threatening financial harm to business owners and their employees and families?

Late in the afternoon, the head of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, James Palmer, pleaded for sanity in the State Capitol: "The thought of using law enforcement officers to exercise force in order to achieve a political objective is insanely wrong and Wisconsin sorely needs reasonable solutions and not potentially dangerous political theatrics."

www.ourfuture.org...

But, to use law enforcement officers to threaten financial harm, in order to achieve a political objective is perfectly acceptable and is not dangerous political theatrics?

Originally posted by WTFover
Isn't this an interesting comment from James Palmer, the head of the WPPA, whose name is the first on the letter threatening financial harm to business owners and their employees and families?

Late in the afternoon, the head of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, James Palmer, pleaded for sanity in the State Capitol: "The thought of using law enforcement officers to exercise force in order to achieve a political objective is insanely wrong and Wisconsin sorely needs reasonable solutions and not potentially dangerous political theatrics."

www.ourfuture.org...

But, to use law enforcement officers to threaten financial harm, in order to achieve a political objective is perfectly acceptable and is not dangerous political theatrics?

Trying to compare the use of physical force to achieve a goal with the threat of a boycott (something groups large and small do all of the time to attempt to achieve their goals) is blatant intellectual dishonesty. We are supposed to be above that on this site.

reply to post by NoArmsJames


Under normal circumstaces, I would agree. But, not when those making the threats are LE. That is completely different. And, so you know, that comes from a person with a 15 year LE career and a past president of the local Police association.

reply to post by WTFover


I can't agree with you. The police and fire fighters are not threatening not to protect those businesses from crimes and fires, they are threatening not to spend their money with them. That's very different.

Originally posted by NoArmsJames
reply to post by WTFover

 

I can't agree with you. The police and fire fighters are not threatening not to protect those businesses from crimes and fires, they are threatening not to spend their money with them. That's very different.

Well, LE and firemen are probably not stupid enough to put those kinds of threats in writing, you think? Doesn't mean the threats are not also implied. We'll never know what gets said if the business calls the unions back to "discuss" the issue.

In fact, let's look at the request for a phone call by the unions. Beyond either you support us or you don't and we'll boycott your business, what do you need the phone call for - UNLESS the union wanted to ELABORATE on what else they would do to the business?

Originally posted by WTFover
Isn't this an interesting comment from James Palmer, the head of the WPPA, whose name is the first on the letter threatening financial harm to business owners and their employees and families?

Can you please explain what it is that I am missing from your observation?

... "The thought of using law enforcement officers to exercise force in order to ..."

www.ourfuture.org...

But, to use law enforcement officers to threaten financial harm, in order to achieve a political objective is perfectly acceptable and is not dangerous political theatrics?

Law enforcement using FORCE.

Law enforcement informing a business that they will not buy their product.


See, because those seem like very different things to me.

Originally posted by centurion1211

We'll never know what gets said if the business calls the unions back to "discuss" the issue.

You may be correct, however WI is a one party notification state; meaning these businesses can record those calls (Source). If threats like that were made we'd know.

Originally posted by centurion1211
In fact, let's look at the request for a phone call by the unions. Beyond either you support us or you don't and we'll boycott your business, what do you need the phone call for - UNLESS the union wanted to ELABORATE on what else they would do to the business?

Just a few posts up (the one that was removed) you chastised someone for making assumptions about you, but now you're making assumptions. We can only comment on what we know to be true, and what we know to be true as of right now is that no threats of violence, property destruction, or non-action on the part of the police and firefighters have been made.

reply to post by NoArmsJames


Police presence, alone, is considered a use of force, even included in most force continuum models. The reason for that? The inherent command of authority of the uniform and the weapons at his/her immediate disposal.

A letter issued by LE, as that in the OP, has implications beyond the words it contains.