[AromeWahmaron]

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.

But that's what is happening here. The employees of the bank are being punished for the free speech of their employer......

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.

And the unions are free to take money out of their members' paychecks to give to whatever politician wines and dines the union boss the best. Yes, I know that the member has the right to opt out of union political activity. I've also witnessed what happens to some of the folks who have. The IAFF where I volunteered was VERY hard on those who were not judged sufficiently loyal to the unionist cause......

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.

But non-union workers are fair game for crushing underfoot, in the name of protecting the "little guy"? I'm sorry, I just don't see how that works.

I don't disagree - imagine a political system with about 90% of the money removed.

Sounds great to me.

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 they may well become unemployed as collateral damage from this union political action. Still seems quite hypocritical to me.

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.

I've posted my solution - get both corporate and union money out of the electoral system.

Nothing short of that, IMHO, is going to work.

Matt