DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Gedominew** · 10-03-2011, 11:32 PM

Not at all - I am asking if, following the completion of the contract, the corporation has the right to say "we're not going to negotiate another contract with you because you donated to Congressman Peckerwood".

Obviously, they cannot vitiate an existing contract. But should the corporation be free to refuse to renew a contract with the union and lay off the employees because of a donation?

It's still apples and bowling balls IMHO, but I see where you're going.

I would still say no, and this is why - there is a right to freedom of speech. We all recognize that. Those who call for a boycott are exercising that right to free speech, and cannot legally be punished for doing so. To terminate an entire group of employees for exercising their right to free speech, especially by proxy (or proxy of a proxy) would, IMHO be at the very least unethical, and likely illegal.

Not at all - just noting the iniquity in the system. Unions are completely free to donate millions to politicians without fear of the same repercussions corporations must fear. Does that not seem a bit unfair? And corporations are free to spend hundreds of millions of dollars that AREN'T THEIRS (the money belongs to the investors, not the corporation) for political speech, and the pockets are MUCH deeper. Fairness? Yeah, the scale is tipped much in favor of the corporations.

That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if it is kosher for a union to organize a mass boycott of a company like a bank - and put who knows how many innocent people out of work - why should the corporations not be free to say "once this contract is up, we're no longer employing members of Local 123 because of Local 123's political donations". Well, I'd say that any union that calls for a boycott of its own employer deserves what it gets. And that's not what happened here, and I don't believe would or could.

Honestly, I don't know that one union could call for a boycott of another union's company. But, I'm not that deep into the union relationships, so I'm not 100% on that. I know that there are some pretty deep rules on stepping on each others' jobs - this is why the Denver Paramedic Division never got taken over by Denver Fire - the DPD got smart and unionized with the IAFF. The DFD can't take union brothers' jobs.

As I said, ideally neither the union nor the corporation should be allowed to donate to politicians. I don't disagree - imagine a political system with about 90% of the money removed.

Ironically, in this case, I am the one standing up for the unrepresented "little guy" who is about to be out of work because of union activity, and you're standing up for the folks trying to crush these "little guys" to make a point about "standing up for the little guy".

Matt Well, no, I'm saying that the right of other little guys to say "fuck you" to some big guys is OK. All in all, the little guys always get hosed. The little guys got hosed by Governor Walker. The little guys at the bank got hosed, though they probably would've gotten hosed post-buyout anyway.

And, I still am not hearing a solution from you. What would you do to prevent this? Should those frustrated with Walker's actions not be able to go after his donors? Personally, I think it's great - and that's why political donations from both corporations and unions should be public, period. That way I can choose to avoid corporations that donate in ways that I don't support, and you can choose to avoid supporting unions that donate in ways that you don't support. Maybe eventually they'll all figure out that it's more expensive to donate than they thought.

10-03-2011, 11:32 PM	#18
Gedominew Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 519 Senior Member	Not at all - I am asking if, following the completion of the contract, the corporation has the right to say "we're not going to negotiate another contract with you because you donated to Congressman Peckerwood". Obviously, they cannot vitiate an existing contract. But should the corporation be free to refuse to renew a contract with the union and lay off the employees because of a donation? It's still apples and bowling balls IMHO, but I see where you're going. I would still say no, and this is why - there is a right to freedom of speech. We all recognize that. Those who call for a boycott are exercising that right to free speech, and cannot legally be punished for doing so. To terminate an entire group of employees for exercising their right to free speech, especially by proxy (or proxy of a proxy) would, IMHO be at the very least unethical, and likely illegal. Not at all - just noting the iniquity in the system. Unions are completely free to donate millions to politicians without fear of the same repercussions corporations must fear. Does that not seem a bit unfair? And corporations are free to spend hundreds of millions of dollars that AREN'T THEIRS (the money belongs to the investors, not the corporation) for political speech, and the pockets are MUCH deeper. Fairness? Yeah, the scale is tipped much in favor of the corporations. That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if it is kosher for a union to organize a mass boycott of a company like a bank - and put who knows how many innocent people out of work - why should the corporations not be free to say "once this contract is up, we're no longer employing members of Local 123 because of Local 123's political donations". Well, I'd say that any union that calls for a boycott of its own employer deserves what it gets. And that's not what happened here, and I don't believe would or could. Honestly, I don't know that one union could call for a boycott of another union's company. But, I'm not that deep into the union relationships, so I'm not 100% on that. I know that there are some pretty deep rules on stepping on each others' jobs - this is why the Denver Paramedic Division never got taken over by Denver Fire - the DPD got smart and unionized with the IAFF. The DFD can't take union brothers' jobs. As I said, ideally neither the union nor the corporation should be allowed to donate to politicians. I don't disagree - imagine a political system with about 90% of the money removed. Ironically, in this case, I am the one standing up for the unrepresented "little guy" who is about to be out of work because of union activity, and you're standing up for the folks trying to crush these "little guys" to make a point about "standing up for the little guy". Matt Well, no, I'm saying that the right of other little guys to say "fuck you" to some big guys is OK. All in all, the little guys always get hosed. The little guys got hosed by Governor Walker. The little guys at the bank got hosed, though they probably would've gotten hosed post-buyout anyway. And, I still am not hearing a solution from you. What would you do to prevent this? Should those frustrated with Walker's actions not be able to go after his donors? Personally, I think it's great - and that's why political donations from both corporations and unions should be public, period. That way I can choose to avoid corporations that donate in ways that I don't support, and you can choose to avoid supporting unions that donate in ways that you don't support. Maybe eventually they'll all figure out that it's more expensive to donate than they thought.
	Quote