Wisconsin Union trying to shake down the little guy

[JenaS62]

So if you are a small business and you don't put a sign in your window stating your support of unions the unions are going to stage a public boycott of your business. Nice way to shake down the little guys...

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/118910229.html


"Members of Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, have begun circulating letters to businesses in southeast Wisconsin, asking them to support workers’ rights by putting up a sign in their windows.

If businesses fail to comply, the letter says, “Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means 'no' to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members."

[MaximumPain]

If that is true I will be upset with the union. Id like to see that actual letter but I was unable to google-fu it out of the internet yet.

I totally believe in supporting local businesses. What you spend in a local business stays in the local economy. At that level politics needs to be put aside for support of your neighbors.

[GamerGal]

eah, couldn't find this on the googles either. Until a credible source comes up with it...

[Anarch]

Your google fu needs improving yall.

Business boycott more talk than action in Oshkosh

“We’re not boycotting anything. We’re focusing on spending. We’re promoting businesses that support us.”

Whole 3 page story here.

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/artic...text|FRONTPAGE

[MaximumPain]

I feel bad for the businesses that get pulled into this BS by both sides. You cant win because you will drive someone away no matter what side of the issue your on. No prob though Im sure it a big win for wallmart either way.

The last few years has taught me to seriously hate politics.

[Nu Kua]

The letters were definitely sent, unless now even the Wall Street Journal is little more than just another Faux news.

Wisconsin Unions Get Ugly

Having lost their fight in the legislature, Wisconsin unions are now getting out the steel pipes for those who don't step lively to their cause. A letter we've seen that was sent to businesses in southeastern Wisconsin shows that Big Labor's latest strategy is to threaten small businesses with boycotts if they don't publicly declare their support for government union monopoly power.

Dated March 28, 2011, the letter is addressed to "DEAR UNION GROVE AREA BUSINESS OWNER/MANAGER," in Racine County. And it begins with this warm greeting: "It is unfortunate that you have chosen 'not' to support public workers rights in Wisconsin. In recent past weeks you have been offered a sign(s) by a public employee(s) who works in one of the state facilities in the Union Grove area. These signs simply said 'This Business Supports Workers Rights,' a simple, subtle and we feel non-controversial statement given the facts at this time."

We doubt "subtle" is the word a business owner would use to describe this offer he is being told he can't refuse.

The letter is signed by Jim Parrett, the "Field Rep." for Council 24 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which is the most powerful union in the AFL-CIO. The letter presents a litany of objections to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's changes to benefits and public union collective bargaining power, describing them as "things that make life working in a 24-7 facility tolerable."

The missive concludes by noting that, "With that we'd ask that you reconsider taking a sign and stance to support public employees in this community. Failure to do so will leave us no choice but do [sic] a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means 'no' to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members." ...

Now why the same person whose signature was at the bottom of all of them is now saying there is actually not a boycott planned is beyond me.

Wisconsin State Journal:

...Marty Beil, executive director of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 24, said there is no boycott in an email Friday.

"There was some unfortunate overzealousness in the field," the email read. "We have made clear all along that we see small business as a partner and ally in getting Wisconsin back to work."

The statement comes in the wake of a letter sent Tuesday to many Union Grove businesses from AFSCME Council 24 Field Rep. Jim Parrett threatening to boycott those that declined to display signs supporting "workers rights."

Parrett confirmed in an email Friday afternoon saying only that there is no boycott and referring further questions to Beil. It was not clear Friday whether Parrett was acting of his own accord or how the boycott threat came about.

Parrett has not otherwise responded to requests for interviews and Beil and other Council 24 leaders did not return requests for comment Friday...

If he was falsely associated/misrepresented by the fact it was his signature stamped across the bottom of each letter, then why wouldn't he be trying to clarify that for the media, as opposed to not returning requests for comment? Seems he'd want to defend himself, or something. Or were the letters an early April Fools joke that nobody wants to own?

Speaking of threatening letter writing campaigns, imagine getting one "from the police".

The Wall Street Journal reported March 14th:


The Leiter Side of Union Thuggery

Last week, as the Wisconsin stalemate was coming to an end, we worried about the potential threat that unionized policemen, in "solidarity" with other unionized government employees, might tolerate or even participate in lawless behavior in order to undermine the workings of republican governance and preserve union privileges.

Milwaukee radio host Charlie Sykes reports that Wisconsin businessmen are now receiving letters importuning them to oppose Gov. Scott Walker's efforts on behalf of Wisconsin's taxpayers:

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.

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 [phone number redacted].

In the letter to Wisconsin businessmen, however, we see why so-called collective bargaining is particularly corrupting to the police. Although the letter explicitly threatens only an economic boycott, when it is written on behalf of the police--of those on whom all citizens depend to protect their safety--it invariably raises the prospect of another kind of boycott...

"As for the title, "The Leiter Side", Taranto approaches the end of his op-ed by nothing

"On a lighter note, here's a Leiter note--a blog post from Brian Leiter, a left-liberal philosopher who teaches at the University of Chicago. Leiter is unhappy with the "attack on workers' rights" by "the Republican criminals in Wisconsin" and also with plans in Pennsylvania to cut funding for public universities. He writes:

At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified..."

[JenaS62]

I rather enjoyed the one comment in the link I posted that the last time stores had to put signs in their windows the signs identified them as Jews.

I have really had enough of unions and I know that many of you will disagree with me and GG will start screaming about slavery, but I don't care. The have become money grabbing, corrupt thugs. I support the people that have the unfortunate position of being employed in a position where they have to be in a union whether they want to or not.

[Scuba]

The letters were definitely sent, unless now even the Wall Street Journal is little more than just another Faux news.

Wisconsin Unions Get Ugly



Now why the same person whose signature was at the bottom of all of them is now saying there is actually not a boycott planned is beyond me.

Wisconsin State Journal:


If he was falsely associated/misrepresented by the fact it was his signature stamped across the bottom of each letter, then why wouldn't he be trying to clarify that for the media, as opposed to not returning requests for comment? Seems he'd want to defend himself, or something. Or were the letters an early April Fools joke that nobody wants to own?

Speaking of threatening letter writing campaigns, imagine getting one "from the police".

The Wall Street Journal reported March 14th:


The Leiter Side of Union Thuggery



"As for the title, "The Leiter Side", Taranto approaches the end of his op-ed by nothing

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch nuff said.

[Nu Kua]

I rather enjoyed the one comment in the link I posted that the last time stores had to put signs in their windows the signs identified them as Jews.

I have really had enough of unions and I know that many of you will disagree with me and GG will start screaming about slavery, but I don't care. The have become money grabbing, corrupt thugs. I support the people that have the unfortunate position of being employed in a position where they have to be in a union whether they want to or not.

I've been "for the unions" very generally for a long time. I'm definitely for what I thought was the spirit of the unions- securing safe places to work and fair labor practices.

This recent business has led me to reading various viewpoints, and the reading I am doing is giving me cause to pause and reflect. I think the activating spirit of what a union should be has been hijacked by politicking, emotionally reactive forces, and by people with selfish designs-much like the 'spirit' of just about everything else that might have once been a true and honest cause.

I mean there is more than one way to look at this. I don't agree with any of you who suggest people ought to willingly give up sizable portions of their income. Would you seriously do that on your own accord? On the other hand I can't agree with under-the-breath bullying either, which can only harm the cause, and destroy the unity people need to "fight back", whatever the hell that means anymore.

I tried to see if this was somehow connected to that little idea shared on the other major Wisconsin Union v/s Wisconsin Gov thread- the one to create a false flag attack and blame it on "the unions". It's not unheard of to be certain.
But not only did I find that this type of veiled threat via a letter writing campaign has happened at least twice, but if this was indeed a double-blind insidious op by anti-union forces to make them look bad, shouldn't the union spokespeople be adamant in insisting they had nothing to do with it?

[GamerGal]

For those of you who don't know this is about a fire that killed dozens because... Workers had no rights.

[JenaS62]

A lot has changed in 100 years. My grandmother received NO PAY as a teacher during the depression - I think they were given IOUs. She went to work every day. There are plenty of workers rights now. Ending collective bargaining does not end those rights.

I am not in a union. Believe it or not I have vacation time, sick time and healthcare AND I get paid. Of course after 911, I took a 10% paycut and in the middle of the recession in 2009 I took a 5% paycut. It was that or people were going to be laid off. My company decided that in order to stay afloat and not have people lose their jobs - we would all share the pain. Everyone needs to share the pain. I am over the temper tantrums and the strong arm tactics.

[Nu Kua]

A lot has changed in 100 years. My grandmother received NO PAY as a teacher during the depression - I think they were given IOUs. She went to work every day. There are plenty of workers rights now. Ending collective bargaining does not end those rights.

I am not in a union. Believe it or not I have vacation time, sick time and healthcare AND I get paid. Of course after 911, I took a 10% paycut and in the middle of the recession in 2009 I took a 5% paycut. It was that or people were going to be laid off. My company decided that in order to stay afloat and not have people lose their jobs - we would all share the pain. Everyone needs to share the pain. I am over the temper tantrums and the strong arm tactics.

Well then I'll have to take that back about "I don't think any of you would willingly take a cut in pay ect".

[JenaS62]

Well then I'll have to take that back about "I don't think any of you would willingly take a cut in pay ect".

When faced with no job or less pay, as a single mom with three boys to feed - I would always choose less pay. I have no choice. Sure, I could throw a temper tantrum but in the end, if I have no paycheck, my family would be in serious trouble. Unemployment in Florida is $275 per week. That is slightly more than my current food budget per week.

I'm pretty sure that many workers in the private sector took pay cuts during the depths of the recession. And I know that many in the travel industry took major pay cuts after 911 when the travel industry was hurting.

[Nu Kua]

Well that's practical and realistic, at least.
I am really bothered for regular working people who would like to take a reasonable stand yet whose cause is hijacked by dubious designs of the ones who are supposed to be representing them. Again, Unions are like their own Politics, and when I say Politics, I am thinking of Politics as I currently see Politics, which is as a giant crock of !#@!@#!!!!^&***!.

(I'm trying to stop cussing.)

As in, just as precious few in high political office can be said to actually be working for The People as they were elected to do, but instead work very hard for The Corporations. Seems nobody really cares for the people no matter which way you turn.

I'm not ready to say "Unions are Bad" because I still do not think the spirit inherent in their creation or what is supposed to be their meaning, to be bad. You know it is always the same type of stuff that molests every and any decent cause.

[JenaS62]

Well that's practical and realistic, at least.
I am really bothered for regular working people who would like to take a reasonable stand yet whose cause is hijacked by dubious designs of the ones who are supposed to be representing them. Again, Unions are like their own Politics, and when I say Politics, I am thinking of Politics as I currently see Politics, which is as a giant crock of !#@!@#!!!!^&***!.

(I'm trying to stop cussing.)

As in, just as precious few in high political office can be said to actually be working for The People as they were elected to do, but instead work very hard for The Corporations. Seems nobody really cares for the people no matter which way you turn.

Unions are no longer for "the people". Behind most unions are very rich people who don't care if people lose their jobs because of budget cuts - it won't affect them. They just keep demanding and demanding. At what cost? Often times the teachers are not the ones making the demands. I'm sure if faced with a pay cut or a lay off, I'd assume that most would choose pay cuts. But I don't think any of the recent union debacles included pay cuts. Maybe I'm wrong but I think the recent bills changed automatic pay increases to merit increases and a decrease in some benefits.

Welcome to the real world.

[MaximumPain]

A lot has changed in 100 years. My grandmother received NO PAY as a teacher during the depression - I think they were given IOUs. She went to work every day. There are plenty of workers rights now. Ending collective bargaining does not end those rights.

Collective bargaining is why you have those rights in the first place. Its also why you have the weekend off and dont have to work in places like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. Of course we moved all that overseas now because it costs to much to make sure your workers dont die in some preventable accident in America. Ending collective bargaining will allow the people on top to dial back those rights until they reach the profit level they feel they are entitled to. It wont happen over night and it probably wont get as bad as 100 years ago but we will lose pay and benefits.

I am not in a union. Believe it or not I have vacation time, sick time and healthcare AND I get paid.

You have those things because Unions fought for them and even the employers that didnt have unions need to compete so they have to offer those benefits. There is no law that forces a company to give you sick and vacation time they do because they have to to keep their employees.

Of course after 911, I took a 10% paycut and in the middle of the recession in 2009 I took a 5% paycut. It was that or people were going to be laid off. My company decided that in order to stay afloat and not have people lose their jobs - we would all share the pain.

We had layoffs and a raise freeze at the recession. I was happy to keep my job. If you dont get a raise every year then you are taking a pay cut due to inflation. I agree that the pain has to be shared but the top 1% have not had pain they have had gain and they let us "share" the pain.

Everyone needs to share the pain. I am over the temper tantrums and the strong arm tactics.

The pain is not being shared equally and the temper tantrums and strong arm tactics are coming from both sides.... its called a fight and both parties are throwing punches.

[JenaS62]

Well MP, I am hoping that limiting the power of the unions will limit the power of the fat cat union leaders which will limit the power of the fat cat corrupt politicians and so on and so on.

Budget cuts need to take place.

We can agree to disagree.

[Bob]

Boycotts work, and they are non-violent. Why support a business that denies the important roles of working men and women in favor of profit? I don't shop at wal-mart....ever. I spend a little more at a local hardware store because I can see the owner with my own eyes and the local people that he employs. I will not support a business that does not support me and my community. Please don't tell me about the money walmart spends in my community, they get it all back from the US government in the form of tax credits and refunds, adding to the problem. They shaft women with pay rates and promotions, they perpetuate a slave and prison labor system with their overseas purchases, unpaid overtime, are just a few of the many problems that would not exist if there was a union in place to counter management. We would all pay higher prices in exchange for this, and it would be worth every single penny. Boycotts work!!! Support union shops and union workers!!!

[MaximumPain]

Well MP, I am hoping that limiting the power of the unions will limit the power of the fat cat union leaders which will limit the power of the fat cat corrupt politicians and so on and so on.

Budget cuts need to take place.

We can agree to disagree.

How about limiting the power of the corporate fat cats who have many times the power and influence of the Unions? Who use it to secure less regulation and more profits for the top 1% of American at the expense of the middle and lower class and at the expense of exploited workers and damaged environment in less developed countries.

Also the union offered to take a pay cut but walker turned them down. This is not about the budget but about winning a battle the fat cats (the real fucking FAT CATS Jena not some union boss but some smug rich dudes the Koch brothers) have been fighting for over a hundred years.

Im still not seeing why people are against the rights of free American citizens to organize to make a better life for their family's? This is so clearly about taking care of your corporate donors and masters rather then about fixing the budget problem in Wisconsin.

[Nu Kua]

Welcome to the real world.

Fuck the real world. I'm really tired of it. Living in a hut secluded on a high mountain somewhere far, far away from all news, politics, troubles, arguments, manipulations- sounds great to me. If it's all gonna burn anyway, maybe it is better to forget about it as much as possible. Maybe instead better it would to to just live in a way to squeeze out as much peace and happiness and, dare I say, simple, unencumbered thinking, feeling, and being. Just, being. Ignorance is bliss? Bring it on. Maybe if I get high enough just one time I can remain on a kind of perma-high, brain delightfully fried, and walk around smiling all the time, like this homeless lady I know of who always has a perpetual smile on her face as she sings to herself while she skips merrily up and down the highway.

Boycotts work, and they are non-violent. Why support a business that denies the important roles of working men and women in favor of profit? I don't shop at wal-mart....ever. I spend a little more at a local hardware store because I can see the owner with my own eyes and the local people that he employs. I will not support a business that does not support me and my community. Please don't tell me about the money walmart spends in my community, they get it all back from the US government in the form of tax credits and refunds, adding to the problem. They shaft women with pay rates and promotions, they perpetuate a slave and prison labor system with their overseas purchases, unpaid overtime, are just a few of the many problems that would not exist if there was a union in place to counter management. We would all pay higher prices in exchange for this, and it would be worth every single penny. Boycotts work!!! Support union shops and union workers!!!

Well now I am torn, as I do actually support boycotts in most cases, or should I say, the idea behind them, as a way of "voting with your pocketbook".

About the only time I step foot in Wal-mart at all is if I am picking up prescriptions for an elderly friend who never likes to leave the house.

Just the tone of that letter seemed more like a threat, it is odd. They said they were fighting for 'the little guy', so to speak, but the letter came across as bullying. The unions beef isn't with the individual shop owners, or it shouldn't be.
If nothing else, it was a dumb move politically speaking, and there is that word again, politics.

[JenaS62]

Also the union offered to take a pay cut but walker turned them down. This is not about the budget but about winning a battle the fat cats (the real fucking FAT CATS Jena not some union boss but some smug rich dudes the Koch brothers) have been fighting for over a hundred years.

Im still not seeing why people are against the rights of free American citizens to organize to make a better life for their family's? This is so clearly about taking care of your corporate donors and masters rather then about fixing the budget problem in Wisconsin.

I don't think pay is the primary issue. Often time, unions demand ridiculous amounts of sick time and life long benefits that simply cannot be funded. And this is not just about Wisconsin. It's about Ohio, NJ, FL and many other states.

I agree with boycotting in many cases, but boycotting a small business for not supporting your union beliefs and political views goes against everything I believe in. Of course this is still a semi free country and people have the right to do what they want (unless it goes against a union I suppose) so boycott away. Take out the small businesses so all that is left is Walmart and large unionized companies. Whatever..

[MaximumPain]

I don't think pay is the primary issue. Often time, unions demand ridiculous amounts of sick time and life long benefits that simply cannot be funded. And this is not just about Wisconsin. It's about Ohio, NJ, FL and many other states.

It all costs the employer money no matter the form of benefits so its all about Money in the end. Are the sick time and benefits when also factored in with the pay that far out of skew compared to the corporate world?

I agree with boycotting in many cases, but boycotting a small business for not supporting your union beliefs and political views goes against everything I believe in. Of course this is still a semi free country and people have the right to do what they want (unless it goes against a union I suppose) so boycott away. Take out the small businesses so all that is left is Walmart and large unionized companies. Whatever..

As I said before I support small business whenever I can and I dont think that being on either side of this issue helps those small businesses one bit. Also I dont care about the political affiliation of the business owner. Some of my best friends lean right on some issues and one of them has owned a business I frequently patronized. Another place I hung out a lot at and spent a lot of money at was owned by a rabid republican but he still got my money because he was in my community and spending his money in my community. In my mind thats a win/win no matter which assholes he chooses to vote for.

Just curious besides the auto makers what large "unionized" companies are still around?

[JenaS62]

It all costs the employer money no matter the form of benefits so its all about Money in the end. Are the sick time and benefits when also factored in with the pay that far out of skew compared to the corporate world??

I believe so. I have done research on public vs private sector though and the public sector usually wins out for comparable jobs. Life long healthcare, prescription coverage and pensions are expensive no matter how you slice it and that is what many of these people get.

Just curious besides the auto makers what large "unionized" companies are still around?

I don't know for sure. I will try to look it up.


**edit - it's either a secret or my Google skills are lacking. Can't find a listing of unionized companies.

[MaximumPain]

**edit - it's either a secret or my Google skills are lacking. Can't find a listing of unionized companies.

Thats because there are hardly any left.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

In 2010, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of a union--was 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers be-
longing to unions declined by 612,000 to 14.7 million. In 1983, the first year for
which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 per-
cent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.

[Bob]

The most threatening of the letters are not being sent by union members or reps, it's an old trick from the 30's to get the cops involved, whack a few heads and make management look like innocent victims. It's total bullshit.