Revolution in Wisconsin

[GGT]

What's that got to do with public unions, Dread? You've never seen a community-based boycott of a proposed WalMart coming to town? You don't notice the protests at Target stores regarding same-sex marriage and corporate political contributions?

In fact, right here in this forum we've had posters saying that's exactly how a society should deal with an injustice (in the hotel and florist threads re civil rights)---boycott, protest, canvass, inform, ostracize, encourage economic loss---influence consumers and make the connection between pocketbook and profit, board of directors or ballot box.

[Dreadnaught]

Once again, I've drawn a very strong line between public and private. HRC can try to start a boycott of Target all they want. When your local cop comes to your store and demands more money or face a boycott, it's a different story.

[GGT]

You're obsessed with the fact that police and fire fighters are paid by taxes. Once they've been paid, the money is theirs and should no longer be considered "public funds". Maybe merchants and business should see it that way, and not get hung up on the group they've joined or intimidated by a uniform.

We have volunteer fire fighters and ambulance companies that work with our publicly paid departments, and they routinely canvass private homes for donations, wearing their uniforms. They offer to do a home fire safety check and ask about smoke detectors and emergency plans. That doesn't come with some implicit suggestion that if we don't donate, they won't respond to our house fire.

[Dreadnaught]

*Facepalm* How are you guys getting that I think the police should be privatized? I'm saying that their taxpayer-funded unions are the problem, not that they are supported by the taxpayers.

[Illusions]

*Facepalm* How are you guys getting that I think the police should be privatized? I'm saying that their taxpayer-funded unions are the problem, not that they are supported by the taxpayers.

I'm not saying you think the police should be privatized. Its a hypothetical situation that demonstrates the holes in your logic of considering something thuggery. If a private police force did exist, it could still do the same things you called the public police force thugs for doing.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not saying you think the police should be privatized. Its a hypothetical situation that demonstrates the holes in your logic of considering something thuggery. If a private police force did exist, it could still do the same things you called the public police force thugs for doing.

I dare say that both police and fire departments actually need unions. Except for the medical professions, every person is able to lay down his tools and go on strike.

Police and fire departments can't go on strike for obvious reasons. So, riddle me this: How exactly are those people supposed to represent themselves without unions?

[Dreadnaught]

I'm not saying you think the police should be privatized. Its a hypothetical situation that demonstrates the holes in your logic of considering something thuggery. If a private police force did exist, it could still do the same things you called the public police force thugs for doing.

It doesn't demonstrate anything. I think the police occupy a unique role in our society that precludes them from privatization as well as from some of the benefits private employment entails.

I dare say that both police and fire departments actually need unions. Except for the medical professions, every person is able to lay down his tools and go on strike.

Police and fire departments can't go on strike for obvious reasons. So, riddle me this: How exactly are those people supposed to represent themselves without unions?

They can "represent" themselves the same way that the rest of the world represents themselves: by representing themselves. Either demand what you want, and if you don't need it take your talents elsewhere. This isn't an alien concept.

[Ominous Gamer]

representing themselves. Either demand what you want, and if you don't need it take your talents elsewhere.

and this is why the concept of "good" police doesn't exist in some locations, and why corruption is so common in others. (the idea of looking out only for oneself)

[GGT]

It doesn't demonstrate anything. I think the police occupy a unique role in our society that precludes them from privatization as well as from some of the benefits private employment entails.

They can "represent" themselves the same way that the rest of the world represents themselves: by representing themselves. Either demand what you want, and if you don't need it take your talents elsewhere. This isn't an alien concept.

The "rest" of us are "represented" by groups that take our donations and lobby politicians, or we donate directly to a candidate. Unions call it dues, PACs and other groups call it tax-deductible political contributions. Seeing how public unions have shrunk dramatically over the decades, they're really the only alternative to those "private" groups that throw their money and clout at legislators, while half the time we can't tell who's given what to whom (Citizens United).

If politicians can't say No to a certain group because they wield too much power (aka money and voter blocs) that's their own damn fault. Plus a flaw in our campaign finance ways.

[Dreadnaught]

You don't have to break the law to be a thug. When your public employees threaten your business, it's legal intimidation. I think it should be illegal.

[Dreadnaught]

Yes, blame the victim.

[GGT]

Yes, blame the victim.

Whu? Legislators are only victims of themselves, since they make the laws surrounding all these funding issues. If they feel "victimized" by donors or unions or lobbyists, and can't figure out how to legislate for all voters as their "constituents", instead of placating those who give them the most money, they can change that.


edit: and by that I didn't mean to outlaw collective bargaining, but to change how politicians fund their "war chests".

[Loki]

Changing goalposts as usual...

[GGT]

Changing goalposts as usual...

How's that? Public unions have shrunk dramatically over the years. Oh damn, I left out the word power. I'll rewrite it even though the context was obvious. Public unions have shrunk dramatically over the years *in their ability to use dues to influence elected officials*. Are you and Fuzzy done being picky yet?

If public unions still had the clout it's claimed they have, these bills to ban collective bargaining wouldn't have been on the agenda.

[Loki]

Yeah, because public sector unions get support from Republicans.

[GGT]

That reinforces my point, Loki. If these unions had the power you assign them, more Democrats would have been elected or retained seats. If teacher unions have such clout, they'd be able to convince the tax-paying public that teachers are dedicated public servants, instead of the greedy selfish leeches they're portrayed to be.

I'll keep saying it --- I think teachers and unions are getting a raw "public relations" deal here, being scapegoats for the legislators and administrators with myopic and twisted priorities.

[Loki]

That reinforces my point, Loki. If these unions had the power you assign them, more Democrats would have been elected or retained seats. If teacher unions have such clout, they'd be able to convince the tax-paying public that teachers are dedicated public servants, instead of the greedy selfish leeches they're portrayed to be.

I'll keep saying it --- I think teachers and unions are getting a raw "public relations" deal here, being scapegoats for the legislators and administrators with myopic and twisted priorities.

Erm, no one has argued that the unions control 51% of the voters. According to your logic, corporations don't have a lower of power now because Democrats can still get a majority of congressional (or state) seats.

You're deliberately twisting the definition of "clout".

[GGT]

Erm, no one has argued that the unions control 51% of the voters. According to your logic, corporations don't have a lower of power now because Democrats can still get a majority of congressional (or state) seats.

You're deliberately twisting the definition of "clout".

They have other "interests" beyond education, y'know. And each interest group has lobbyists and PACs. You're forgetting that (D) will accept corporate/industry dollars for the sake of bringing jobs to their state, whether financial services or oil drilling.

This is also the kind of political posturing so many are fed up with. Instead of actually discussing how to improve education and have smarter, more capable and productive kids, they cut straight to the money or a certain group like unions. Then everyone's bickering about money and unions, and losing sight of Education.

So don't lecture me about twisting the definition of clout, or power.

[Dreadnaught]

You both are asking for a snippy summary when you suggest that I don't know what public unions do and how they interact with government. I know what they do, I get a front-row view every M-F.

[Ominous Gamer]

I didn't ask for anything, much less a snippy summary, I only pointed out another failed attempt to oversimplify and generalize as you continue to push your anti-union agenda. You crossed the line with the thuggery remarks way back, but you really jumped the shark with suggesting unions favor illegal activities.

[Loki]

I do have to say that it's a bit ironic to see left-wing groups take the same kind of a "either you're with us or you're against us" stand that they condemned Bush for.

[Dreadnaught]

That's correct, we're talking about English. "Thug: A tough and violent man, especially a criminal" "Thug: a cruel and vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer," they all go on like this. The secondary definition always seems to be the proper name for a member of the Thuggee cult. We got the word from the Hindi "thag," for sly, fraudulent, cunning, and dishonest, again all not things one associates with boycotts.

Again, union members have proven willing to use physical intimidation tactics. There is a time and place for referring to "union thuggery." A boycott, whose only relation to such activity is that unions *along with pretty much every other mass-based organization in existence* are willing to use it as a tactic, isn't it. That you think it is demonstrates that you've gone completely over the bend.

A "ruffian" is a bully. Are these public union officials not bullying people? You can try and dig yourself into a semantic hole all you want, ultimately the issue is about government employees unduly intimidating people into supporting their pay scale.

I think it's mostly within reason if private sector unions want to engage in these kinds of boycots. But I think it's an entirely different story when government workers do it. I've made this distinction dozens of times now, but you seem to be ignoring that.

Scenario: members of the local Police Benevolent Association association show up at your front door and ask you to put a sign in your front yard that says, "Cops deserve better pay." You refuse. They take down your address and two weeks later you get a latter saying that the police won't accept your "neutrality" and assume you want cops to make less money. And they are going to tell every cop on the force that you think the police should be paid less.

How is this not undue intimidation from government employees? That's thuggish enough for most people.

I guess he also wants us to ban Greenpeace and other NGOs who also called repeatedly for boycotts due to particular issues. Maybe next he wants to tell us that Greenpeace consists of thugs?

For the twentieth time, I am drawing a very clear distinction between government unions and NGOs/private sector unions. Greenpeace can try whatever boycotts they want, best of luck to them. But government workers shouldn't be allowed to do that.

[LittleFuzzy]

A "ruffian" is a bully.

A ruffian is a physical bully. Again I must reference how violence is always part of the meaning in the use of "thug." *except, apparently, to your incredibly sensitive sensibilities, which seem to interpret peer pressure as violence* Something we have seen unions use, but which is not anywhere in evidence HERE.

ultimately the issue is about government employees unduly intimidating people into supporting their pay scale.

At this point, the ultimate issue is about how you have lost every last one of your marbles.

[Dreadnaught]

You can go in and out of semantic holes all you want, intimidation isn't always violent.

Once again, is the scenario I outlined not entirely legal intimidation?

Scenario: members of the local Police Benevolent Association association show up at your front door and ask you to put a sign in your front yard that says, "Cops deserve better pay." You refuse. They take down your address and two weeks later you get a latter saying that the police won't accept your "neutrality" and assume you want cops to make less money. And they are going to tell every cop on the force that you think the police should be paid less.

[LittleFuzzy]

You can go in and out of semantic holes all you want, intimidation isn't always violent.

Intimidation isn't always violent, but thuggery is. There is absolutely no point discussing anything else with you until you acknowledge how batshit insane it is to call a common political tactic, the go-to standard for legitimate economic pressure, "thuggery." If you can't see how warped that is, then you can't see anything else either.

[Dreadnaught]

It's really "batshit insane" to consider intimidation a form of thuggery?

Have you taken a step back recently? I mean, I know you're into the semantics, but holy shitsnacks.

[Illusions]

It's really "batshit insane" to consider intimidation a form of thuggery?

Have you taken a step back recently? I mean, I know you're into the semantics, but holy shitsnacks.

I'm with him on this one. Also he wasn't referring to intimidation, well at least not in the form of "Nice house, it'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it."

[LittleFuzzy]

It's really "batshit insane" to consider intimidation a form of thuggery?

Have you taken a step back recently? I mean, I know you're into the semantics, but holy shitsnacks.

It's batshit insane to keep referring to boycotts, a commonplace, legitimate, non-violent means of applying economic pressure, typically for political ends, as a criminally violent endeavor. If you can't acknowledge that it's not "thuggery" then you can't form a rationale conclusion about anything. The very best you're aspiring to is being the stopped clock that's right twice a day, approaching accuracy by accident.

[Loki]

Everything is connected. Let's talk about everything at once.

[LittleFuzzy]

Everything is connected. Let's talk about everything at once.

A brilliant idea. By making all topics and discussions about everything, things will finally be so vague and amorphous that everyone else will become confused and jumbled, leveling the field.