Something important from Wisconsin that isn't Aaron Rodgers

[audtatious]

http://radioviceonline.com/police-and-f ... -governor/

Interesting.....let's attack the link and ignore the content. More thuggery, IMO.

[AppleBonker]

Meh, seems pretty standard to me. I'm pretty certain lots of groups try to do this to further their cause. I know a number of people (more like a community) who don't shop at certain grocery stores around me due to their policy banning concealed and open carry (though it is completely legal in Indiana). Gaining support for your cause is best done through financial means?

[IBCoupe]

As per Adam, I don't understand what's thuggish about it. It's a threat of a boycott.

[audtatious]

It's thuggery. Small business owners, who can ill afford to have an impact on business, receive an ultimatum to either come out publicly against a political decision or remain silent and be grouped with those who do support it (good or bad), and it comes from two groups whom they perceive as protecting their interest (police and Fire)...can be seen as a threat.

IB, could this be considered extortion using the following definition?
Extortion: to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.

They are trying to wrest a statement (information) from businesses by utilizing intimidation tactics, no?

[AppleBonker]

So gun owners in Indiana shouldn't boycott specific grocery stores because of their gun policy? That would be forcing the business to come out in support of a current law or have their business negatively impacted.

For the record, I don't care where any group shops. For me, I'm going to buy from the most convenient and cheapest source, regardless of political policies.

And, they're not really intimidating anyone. This is a "free market", yes? If a group doesn't like business's political opinion, they aren't forced to shop there.

[audtatious]

You don't see a difference between individuals making decisions to not visit stores than unions, supporting Police and Fire Fighters who are paid to perform a public service to said store owners, mandating businesses come out against the rule or having reprisals of some sort?

It's not like a township fire department didn't watch a home burn because the individual hadn't paid some fee recently.

[AppleBonker]

Well, the reprisal is a loss of business. And that could happen for a plethora of reasons. A political opinion so happens to be one of them.

And in either case (the union you've presented or the forum community I have) there is a group of people making a collective decision to boycott. I'm failing to see any difference, to be honest.

[stebo0728]

Apple:

Imagine a community of small businesses, where each is being extorted money as "protection money" by a group of political bandits, and to enforce the extortion the businesses are denied public services, such as law enforcement or even perhaps municipal utilities. Now replace the "extortion money" with a request to support a measure. I think thats what Aud is getting at. That its not a loss of business when its public services you are talking about.

[AppleBonker]

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.

Where are public services being withheld mentioned anywhere?

[stebo0728]

I dont know, Im not speaking to the actual situation as I havent been keeping up, Im just trying to clarify what Aud might be getting at, whether he is right or not I dont know.

[AppleBonker]

Gotcha. Assuming the public services were being withheld, yes I would have a problem with it.

[audtatious]

Well, the reprisal is a loss of business. And that could happen for a plethora of reasons. A political opinion so happens to be one of them.

If the business thought reprisal could mean something else, like a delay of response....that's not "out of the real of possibility" here as you have to consider that Police/Fire workers are not losing anything via the decision in the first place and the teachers union themselves could threaten boycott's. So, you have to consider exactly why Police/Fire unions sent the letters and worded them such.

Hey, you may be right and there is nothing to it. I see it could be a veiled threat or warning. Surely not out of bounds for some unions nor some union members

[AppleBonker]

If they haven't worded it as such, I think that is an unfair assessment to make.

Do you like everyone you work with? Do you still work with them when required to?

[audtatious]

If you are a business owner and have your life savings invested in said business...would you stake your life, and family, and employee's lives that coming out for the law and against the unions will mean nothing more than some boycott notification?

[AppleBonker]

You bet I would. Just as I would expect that the gun owners (in my example) wouldn't come into my business and open fire.

[IBCoupe]

I don't think the city could afford a lawsuit based on political discrimination.

Further, it's disingenuous to suggest that the threat was anything but one of a boycott, because the letter, offered on the site you linked to, explicitly states that you either get a boycott or a union recommendation.

[bigbadberry3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott

[audtatious]

You bet I would. Just as I would expect that the gun owners (in my example) wouldn't come into my business and open fire.

I don't think the city could afford a lawsuit based on political discrimination.

Further, it's disingenuous to suggest that the threat was anything but one of a boycott, because the letter, offered on the site you linked to, explicitly states that you either get a boycott or a union recommendation.

Then you two must have more faith in others than I do.

[AppleBonker]

A-ha! See? I do haz faith!

[IBCoupe]

Being that any other threat would be unlawful, Aud, I think having less faith than I have is unreasonable, if only for the fact that this appears to have been an open letter.

[audtatious]

Right, because the people in unions would never be unlawful. Unions look out for people and protect them and are only for the good.

Gotcha.

[IBCoupe]

Or 'cause if they were planning in advance to be unlawful, it wouldn't be prudent to advertise it, or to advertise anything that could be considered an unlawful threat.

[srellim234]

While I realize that every profession has a few jerks in it, I'm going to preface my statement to you with the disclosure that my wife puts her butt in jeopardy every day for people like you and those business owners as a law enforcement officer. For you to sit there and even suggest that in general she and the deputies she works with would even consider slowing down their law enforcement efforts in a situation is incredibly insulting and naive. They are top-notch professional and will not do anything to compromise their integrity and shirk their responsibilities in the field.

There will always be one or two, but every single profession, probably including many more of those business owners than the cops whose integrity you are calling into question, are dishonest. The law enforcement community as a whole is a lot more trustworthy than you are giving them credit for.

[audtatious]

Whatever. Way to read what you want into it. Intimidation is intimidation regardless of how it's used.

I apologize to all law enforcement members, their wives/husbands, their children, their extended families, their neighbors, and everyone they know or have ever met for specifically stating that law enforcement members are all criminals.

[srellim234]

Union leaders can threaten boycotts, just like any other group. Whether the boycotts happen depends on individuals buying into the idea and actually doing it. Some work, some don't. What union leaders can't do is tell their members how do do their police work. Peer pressure (covering your fellow officer's back) takes care of it. Anyone who deliberately slows down response times, etc. should and probably will be dealt with severely by the department administration. Even if they didn't their fellow officers would take care of it by refusing to to work with or on the same shift as those they can't trust to be there quickly to cover them.

As much as you'd like to believe the contrary, aud,, it's not that difficult to get rid of cops due to poor performance or even off-duty antics despite the unions, too.

[audtatious]

Your whole line of insinuation is insulting to what I was actually trying to convey.

[AppleBonker]

I could very easily just be really slow this morning, but what were you trying to convey?

[IBCoupe]

I don't think Aud was going there, Srellim. I don't think that he was trying to villainize individual cops. I think he was trying to villainize his vague notions of union corruption. I don't agree with him at all on it, but I think that's where he was headed.

Let's bring it back down a notch.

[AppleBonker]

Could be, Isaac. But wouldn't that union corruption have to extend through the individual officers for it to be effective? Assuming Aud was getting at a lowering in the level of public service to those businesses, it would definitely require the officers/fire fighters/whatever to take action (or inaction, as it were).

[IBCoupe]

You're right in that a threat like that would involve the participation of rank and file union members. I wonder if Aud just hadn't thought that through completely when he posted it, or if he was finding a distinction between threatening an act and carrying it out.

Perhaps Aud was suggesting that the there's an implicit threat beyond the explicit statement that has an effect by itself. It doesn't matter, he might argue, whether the union follows through. Threatening a slowdown of service is coercive, regardless of how likely the threat is to be executed.

Now, I think it takes a special kind of bias to berate an individual or organization for the impropriety of things that they haven't said, especially if you're inserting an unlawful threat into their mouths, but from that perspective, aud's arguments make sense, without actually impugning the integrity of individual LEO's.