Gene Frenkle Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 The difference, in my opinion, is when you have the police and fire department making it sound like, "Do what we say or we won't help you out." That's where I think the line has been crossed. I agree with what Tom's saying too, but for me the meat of it revolves around the veiled threat of not doing their job if the business doesn't listen. If the individuals had all written letters to the business, I'd have no problem with it. There's a difference between, "Joe Citizen is going to boycot if you don't do what I say," compared to, "Police Chief Citizen is going to boycot if you don't do what I say." Wouldn't you agree? Yes, I get what you're saying. It guess it comes down to how comfortable one is with allowing unions to have power. But again, in the two letters I see referenced in this thread, I see nothing that indicates that they will do anything but boycott the businesses in question. Now human nature may say otherwise when it comes down to it, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they're threating anything other than the boycott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Hey Fez... What side to you stand on in this issue... Or in in the middle... Is rule of law your position? I know you said you have family in WI and they don't support Walker... Or am I mistaken? You appear to come down in Walker''s defense? Is your family the same way? Are they waiting for the next election to throw these guys out or wil lthey vote for them again? Yes, I get what you're saying. It guess it comes down to how comfortable one is with allowing unions to have power. But again, in the two letters I see referenced in this thread, I see nothing that indicates that they will do anything but boycott the businesses in question. Now human nature may say otherwise when it comes down to it, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they're threating anything other than the boycott. Same here? Is organizing and threatening a boycott against the law? How is that extortion? What is happenign in WI is setting civil discourse back 80 years or so. It will accomplish nothing but ramp up the only avenue people have left... When they are disempowered, they resort to violence and civil unrest. Not saying this is right, it is totally wrong... But when you back people into a corner, fights usually ensue while leaving an opening for the biggest rats to prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 Hey Fez... What side to you stand on in this issue... Or in in the middle... Is rule of law your position? I know you said you have family in WI and they don't support Walker... Or am I mistaken? You appear to come down in Walker''s defense? Is your family the same way? Are they waiting for the next election to throw these guys out or wil lthey vote for them again? Same here? Is organizing and threatening a boycott against the law? How is that extortion? What is happenign in WI is setting civil discourse back 80 years or so. It will accomplish nothing but ramp up the only avenue people have left... When they are disempowered, they resort to violence and civil unrest. Not saying this is right, it is totally wrong... But when you back people into a corner, fights usually ensue while leaving an opening for the biggest rats to prevail. I thought you were for Obamacare and the way it was pushed into law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 All this effort to make government employees more like private workers makes the "uneven playing field" argument ring a bit hollow. They may be government employees, but they're still Americans. I think you've missed the point of "all this effort". Plus, as you also seem to be missing, this isn't a boycott by American citizens. It's a boycott by gov't unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 That's interesting. Are you saying that it's illegal to organize a boycott based on past actions? Where in the ever-lovin' hell did you get THAT from? Show me where I said anything was illegal, for starters. Then try to understand that I'm trying to point out that there might be a difference between boycotting to change past or current actions, and boycotting in order to get future considerations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It's a boycott by gov't unions. Or as they say in NYC, "You should all be fine so long as we don't get a lot of snow tomorrow." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I think you've missed the point of "all this effort". Plus, as you also seem to be missing, this isn't a boycott by American citizens. It's a boycott by gov't unions. Comprised of American citizens. It seems those who have a problem with this are those who have a problem with unions in general. Not exactly a shocking revelation... Where in the ever-lovin' hell did you get THAT from? Show me where I said anything was illegal, for starters. Then try to understand that I'm trying to point out that there might be a difference between boycotting to change past or current actions, and boycotting in order to get future considerations. Well of course there's a difference. One is based on past or current actions and the other is based on future considerations. I thought we were talking about the legality of their boycott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Comprised of American citizens. It seems those who have a problem with this are those who have a problem with unions in general. Not exactly a shocking revelation... I'm not arguing that it's illegal. Look up a word: responsible/responsibility Try to appropriately apply it in the context of a police or fire union boycott. Here's some helpful thoughts as you think about this: Who are these unions responsible to/for? Who are their members responsible to/for? How do these unions boycotting someone or something make them more/less responsible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Hey Fez... What side to you stand on in this issue... Or in in the middle... Is rule of law your position? I know you said you have family in WI and they don't support Walker... Or am I mistaken? You appear to come down in Walker''s defense? Is your family the same way? Are they waiting for the next election to throw these guys out or wil lthey vote for them again? I live in Wisconsin, as do my in-laws. the in-laws are calling Walker a nazi, dictator, etc. I'm supporting what he's doing because it appears that he's trying to do what he said he was going to do - which is balance Wisconsin's budget. That's what elections are for - and if it doesn't work out, someone else can step in with their ideas. I think it's utterly ridiculous that the democratic senators fled the state. I think it's utterly ridiculous the lies/slander that are being told in the media against the republicans. (seen in threads here - like the "Walker won't negotiate" mantra that turned out to be 100% false - he just wasn't negotiating in the MEDIA, unlike the democrats; I respect that). It's too early to decide who to vote for in the next election. I'm willing to let things shake out and see what happens. Lots of people protested ObamaCare and those people were told to shut up. Lots of people protesting reduction in union privs, but the media is making them out to be victims? Why the double standard? What is happenign in WI is setting civil discourse back 80 years or so..... But when you back people into a corner, fights usually ensue while leaving an opening for the biggest rats to prevail. Care to explain? Are you saying that if the state doesn't give in to demands of the public unions that the unions will indeed start breaking the law in a whiny hissy-fit? Comprised of American citizens. It seems those who have a problem with this are those who have a problem with unions in general. Not exactly a shocking revelation... I have no problem with a private union. I do have a problem with a public union on many fronts that we've already discussed. That said, why didn't the police and fire chief send the threat under their own name instead of incorporating the entire police/fire unions in the statement? Do those people speak for the entire force? What if I'm a police officer in favor of what's going on? I have no problem with Joe Citizen threatening a boycott, or even getting a collection of signatures from everyone at the police/fire station. But I do have a problem with saying, "We're firefighters and policemen, and you better renounce Walker or else!" Might not be illegal, but seems unethical to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 You guys don't like public unions. Loud and clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) Care to explain? Are you saying that if the state doesn't give in to demands of the public unions that the unions will indeed start breaking the law in a whiny hissy-fit? Whiny hissy fit is the least of the problem. Just like in our past history when the seesaw is as tipped in one side's favor... Violence insues. Again, I don't agree... Disempower enough people and things turn ugly... Really ugly fast. It isn't a threat, in nature it seems to be the only recourse. You see how the Palestinians react? Walker may have to be careful with the numbers (of people) here. Again, I am not alluding to any threats... And I am not advocating civil unrest. But then again, I am not in that position. This is what it is and you can see where it is heading by the intense reaction... Back people up enough and nature takes over. That is the whole point of collective bargaining... Empower all parties. Walker doesn't have to take such a big bite. Edited March 18, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 More union threats. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/118910229.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 You guys don't like public unions. Loud and clear. Here's another "opinion" for you. Debate the facts without denigrating the author for once. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42777 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Here's another "opinion" for you. Debate the facts without denigrating the author for once. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42777 After a massive storm shut down the city for two days, snowplow operators thought they deserved two paid days off on account of all the snow, like other government employees got. The snowplowers' union also filed a grievance against the city for hiring private plowing services to help with the snow removal. ...wait, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 ...wait, what? This is what really got me. http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/140-green-bay-teachers-looking-to-retire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 You guys don't like public unions. Loud and clear. Do you? Why or why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 This is what really got me. http://www.fox11onli...oking-to-retire They are so "underpaid", arent they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 They are so "underpaid", arent they? This is what happens when you have politicians negotiating with their donors over someone else's money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) This is what happens when you have politicians negotiating with their donors over someone else's money. Which is why unions have no place in the public/government sector. at least in the private sector if company X has a union and they can no longer compete within their market due to increased labor costs then oh well tough for them. But us taxpayers are responsible for insane union negotiations as an front of the democrat money laundering scheme it is Edited April 7, 2011 by drinkTHEkoolaid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 More union threats. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/118910229.html GOOD!!! Which is why unions have no place in the public/government sector. at least in the private sector if company X has a union and they can no longer compete within their market due to increased labor costs then oh well tough for them. But us taxpayers are responsible for insane union negotiations as an front of the democrat money laundering scheme it is Insane union negotiations as a front for the democrats. HAHAHA!! I'm sure you have no problem with people like the Koch Brothers right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts