[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

[AromeWahmaron]

But you're not concerned for the people who remove snow from your street?

I live in Florida - nobody removes snow from my street.....

You're not concerned for the people who teach kids in public schools?

What about prison guards, do you have any concern for them? All I know is that if you insist on taking away 8% of a prison guard's wage, are you saying you want them to keep the prison 8% less safe?

Let's pay everyone in the country minimum wage and see if we get anything more than the minimum effort.

Unlike you, I care about all front-line workers whether it's public or private in nature.

Here you go again, assuming a bunch of shit I never said. If you want to argue with yourself, go ahead, just please don't try to assign made-up positions to me, OK?

The irony is that front-line workers are being pitted against each other in a country where the top earners have run off with all the wealth. Meanwhile, regular people on the right who are smarter than the shit they're speaking right now can't seem to understand that America is not broke, she is in debt, which is much different than being broke.

Here's what you're not getting - unlike the Federal government which can just pile on the debt, most states cannot by law pass an unbalanced budget.

And with the housing values way down, property tax revenues are - wait for it - way down. Ergo, there is less money to spend.

My cable bill just came in today. I am now "in debt" to them, but as an individual I am not broke. I will hold off buying drugs this week and pay off my cable bill.

But among Republicans in America right now, they want their cocaine and they want teachers, snow removal people, and prison guards to pay for the debt that their drug usage has caused them. It makes no sense.

You'd like to assume that I don't care about the bank workers, but again, that's your assumption. I'm above this whole "divide and conquer" of the have-nots.

Your post above sure doesn't show it.

What's sad is that America is a rich enough country that could employ every single individual who wishes to work for a living, but she's been run over by corporate plunderers and their bought and paid for politicians who've convinced your ilk that somehow there is no money left to pay for teachers, which is a crock of shit since there is an endless supply of money and tax breaks for their wealthy friends.

Here you are making shit up again and pretending I said it. Please show me where I have supported tax breaks? Quote a post. Please.

If you're honest - and I've serious doubts - you'll go read my posts and note that I have plainly said, over and over, that spending will have to come down AND taxes will have to go up to fix the state we are in right now.

Matt

[spravka.ua]

. . . I am concerned for the people who work for this bank (according to their profile on Monster.com, M&I employs over 10,000 people) who are going to be losing their jobs if this attempt at financially destroying the bank succeeds.

You guys don't seem to care a whit for the employees of the bank who may well lose their jobs as a result of these union folks "standing up for the little guy". Can you really not see the irony - and the tragedy - in that?

Matt

Just observing here to this point and have nothing to do with this tactic, but it very well may be misguided since it was subsequently sold to the Bank of Montreal. If it no longer takes the donation positions it does, it may be a moot point to go after them they way they did.

Whilst there is some level of irony as you pointed out, it does cut both ways. M&I employees weren't looking out for the public union workers and the company actually contributed to what's been happening to them.

It's pretty common for people to take their business to whom they consider their friends and away from and/or against their foes. The common sense of that is self-evident. People also do that in the hopes of influencing the decisions a company makes. It's pretty par for the course and can be effective. Even if it doesn't succeed, at least one isn't helping their perceived enemies.

I do this myself. For example, I don't buy Citgo gasoline/petrol if I can avoid it. That's because I don't like what Hugo Chavez does to the US and others and therefore don't wish to put money in his regime's pocket. Obviously that affects US Citgo workers and independent contractors and others choosing to do business with them, but c'est la vie. They've chosen to make their living putting money in Hugo's pocket which I do not believe is in my interest or this nation's best interests and others so Citgo workers can go talk to Hugo about changes of attitude if they seek my business.

[AromeWahmaron]

Just observing here to this point and have nothing to do with this tactic, it appears misguided by being sold to the Bank of Montreal and no longer has any desire to support the Walker camp.

Whilst there is some level of irony as you pointed out, it does cut both ways. M&I employees weren't looking out for the public union workers and the company actually contributed to what's been happening to them.

How could they have? Tellers and loan officers and branch managers don't set corporate donation policy. The guys who decided to make the donations will take their golden parachutes and skip away from the wreckage with no worries. The rank and file workers will take it in the neck, not the Board of Directors.....

It's pretty common for people to take their business to whom they consider their friends and away from and/or against their foes. The common sense of that is self-evident. People also do that in the hopes of influencing the decisions a company makes. It's pretty par for the course and can be effective.

I do this myself. For example, I don't buy Citgo gasoline/petrol if I can avoid it. That's because I don't like what Hugo Chavez does to the US and others and therefore don't wish to put money in his regime's pocket. Obviously that affects US Citgo workers and independent contractors and others choosing to do business with them, but c'est la vie. Citgo workers can go talk to Hugo about changes of attitude.

That's a fair point, I guess. But at least you acknowledge that what you are doing could harm the "little guy". You're not putting them on the unemployment line in the name of "standing up for the little guy". Therein lies the difference.

BTW, I'd push my car past a Citgo station before I bought gas there, too.

Matt

[gusecrync]

I just love this stuff!

Here's the diary from Daily Kos
Bank that funded Walker, now Closed

So the firefighters got pissed off at M&I Bank because they contributed to Walker during his campaign and took out all their money plus encouraged others to take theirs out as well.

That's right fellas! Go get 'em!

Perhaps they never got the memo but last December M&I got sold to BMO (Bank of Montreal)!

What the hell....it doesn't really matter who you attack as long as somebody takes it in the shorts for you, right?

Ha.Ha.--I am not so certain-of-what the objective of this action was--but to only show Americans how big of ASSES' public workers unions really are.

The obvious objective from these Wisconsin union firefighters was simply intimidation. "If you do business with so-and so--and we don't like--by God we're coming back in here to shut you down"--LOL. How low can you go?

Heck why don't they just figure out the grocery stores--the movie theatres--the restaurants that Republicans eat at and do the same thing-- Shut em all down they're servicing the public union enemy--

I guess my take on how dumb and mislead public union workers can really be.

[spravka.ua]

How could they have? Tellers and loan officers and branch managers don't set corporate donation policy. The guys who decided to make the donations will take their golden parachutes and skip away from the wreckage with no worries. The rank and file workers will take it in the neck, not the Board of Directors.....

No argument there as to the executives who make these calls and leave the consequences on the little guy. In fact, I think it's precisely a piece of Jason's overall pattern point about the 'top guys' shitting down on the 'little guy.'

Then again, I don't absolve the 'little guys' in this equation and controversy insofar as the union workers and their allies view them or what they do that affects them. To the union workers and their supporters, they choose to make their living with and for their enemy, so they can't fairly claim to be innocents in the equation given they choose to do so at the their expense, and the targets of that have a right of self-preservation against them. For these union workers and their supporters, they obviously view these workers in total to be part of a machine seeking to undermine them.

For example, regarding his hiring of strikebreakers, Jay Gould, the Robber Baron American financier & railroad businessman (1836-1892) said "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." I'm quite sure from the union workers positions and their supporters that they view loads of 'little guy' people who back who they view as the new Barons as either being useful idiots or employed pawns and mercenaries of what they view as the new emerging Robber Baron Era Part II in the country. As for any 'little guys' who choose to work for the new sought barons and their political henchmen, they are fair game for fighting back at them unless and until they stop going after them. If they choose to do so, I can see why they do it. After all, people have a right to fight back and not take a beating.

Moreover, such pressures can make such tellers and such voice their concerns with their bosses and stockholders, and towards the latter, that can certainly trigger their attention for action if they believe that their bottom lines might suffer rather than benefit from what's being done. If the pressures are not applied, then they won't. Self-interest is at play, and I'm quite sure these union people and their supporters figure that into the analysis, and it's a correct one.

That's a fair point, I guess. But at least you acknowledge that what you are doing could harm the "little guy". You're not putting them on the unemployment line in the name of "standing up for the little guy". Therein lies the difference.

I did acknowledge that, but I'd also state that little guys must have their fights too. For example, if I worked for Coke, I could see why I might not want to buy Pepsi.

And on labour issues, sometimes the 'little guy' needs an arse-kicking from one's perspective. For example, if I was a mine or railroad worker back in the Robber Baron Era and seeking my rights via a union effort, I would have had no problem giving a good clubbing back to any strikebreakers looking to club me up to shut me up or run me away. It seems apparent that's the view these people are taking on that bank but financially rather than a need for clubs.

[I9dydJrX]

Corporations
Corporations have grown in power while unions have decreased in theirs over the last two generations, so your question about what's fair kind of doesn't make any sense.

As unions have gone down and corporations and their person-rights have gone up, it is interesting to note that America has suffered more economically. Unions have decreased in power because they have driven the industries they were predominant in (at least those which don't rely on the force of government to survive) into the dirt. In all but government (which again, is about the only entity that keeps doing stupid thing in perpetuity but spend more and more on them) they have killed the goose that lays the golden egg, and even with government they are beginning to show signs of doing so.

[nvideoe]

This is now getting a whole lot less comical.

JS Online just posted an article about the run on M&I including a letter purported to have been written to M&I execs which included the following language:

"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," the letter says. "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." This pretty much falls into the category of "extortion".

If you want to see a really nifty snapshot of the crowd that's so interested in the welfare of the common man then feel free to peruse this Kossac happyfest:
We're Going To Destroy A Bank

Some have asked why those on the right take issue with those on the left. Well, speaking for myself, stuff like this speaks volumes. This is an example of blatant aggression against an uninvolved party for the purpose of advancing the welfare of a specific group of individuals at the expense of the rest of the people and, ladies and gentlemen, it is agents of our government that is doing it.

Enjoy your reading and let me know if at any point you find one of these fucktards bothering to mention the welfare of the children which they have been employed to educate.

[Gedominew]

So, Lutherf, do you have the same outrage when groups on the right organize boycotts?

[brraverishhh]

I think that I need to paint this picture a bit more clearly for you...

M&I did contribute to Walker (at least I'm assuming so as I have no reason to doubt the story). That would have been last year before the elections which happened in Nov. The bank was then sold to BMO in Dec. This "punishment" which is being exacted is being directed at people that had absolutely nothing to do with the Walker campaign and, in fact, aren't even a US company.

When you buy a corporation you pay for the "goodwill" that comes with it. In this case BMO "overpaid" for the goodwill.

The important thing is what happens when Scott Walker asks another bank for contributions. It's all about going forward, and you make sure that companies that think about supporting the GOP understand that it will cost them at the cash register.

From now on going forward, a part of due diligence will be to see if the prospective purchase has contributed to extremist organizations, and if they have, factor the possible backlash into the price offered.

So contributing to potentially controversial candidates will carry a cost that goes beyond the amount given to the candidate.

As far as the morons who consider it thuggery to take your business elsewhere when the merchant decides to piss in your cheerios, welcome to America, don't let the Freedom upset your stomach.

[cjOTw7ov]

Since Canada is about the only thing I can think of that sucks worse than unions, I'm all for these tactics.

Seriously though, I agree with Pram here.

I "vote with my wallet" all the time.

I remember when the Dixie Chix (a "business") got all political and shit over OIF I "boycotted" them, as did manny other Americans.

Now, they were never my favorite band by any means, and would never have gotten into me for tons of money, but I liked their musical style and I would have bought a CD, or gone to a local concert if it were outdoors and they served beer at the venue.

When they started running their cock holsters about the war and the president I didn't speak out against them as many did, I just decided that they'd never see another red cent of my money. I've stayed good to that decision.

In doing that those of us who collectively boycotted the Dixie Chix "business" have taken countless millions of dollars out of the Dixie Chix pockets, but we've also taken millions out of the pockets of everyone in the music industry who has subsequently had anything to do with them.

I'm sure that plenty of employees of the Garden State Arts Center were laid off and are now homeless as a direct result of my boycott decision.

I could give a fuck.

I would suggest that anyone who posted in this thread condenming the unions for putting people out of work reconsider any decission they've ever made to "vote with their wallet". It never just affects the primary "target".

[nvideoe]

So, Lutherf, do you have the same outrage when groups on the right organize boycotts?

A boycott by individuals - or even groups - who take offense at the dealings of a particular business are part of doing business. There are businesses I won't deal with because of ideological differences. This deal with M&I is no longer such a case. When agents of the government - cops and firefighters - sign their name to a letter which essentially demands tribute for not messing with the business it's no longer a boycott but is extortion.

On top of that, Pram, as I said before, this isn't even an act against the responsible parties. Hell, the M&I PAC gave 80% of their support to Dems in the last cycle. Granted, it was a total of $5000 contributed (none to Walker).

According to the Wisconsin GAO, M&I bank, as an entity, contributed $48.19 to the Friends of Scott Walker (probably in the form of interest on a checking account) and individuals employed by M&I contributed another $2,750.00. Just for comparison, contributions by those who claimed "homemaker" as an employer totaled $78,450.48.

The data is all right here.

[Gedominew]

A boycott by individuals - or even groups - who take offense at the dealings of a particular business are part of doing business. There are businesses I won't deal with because of ideological differences. This deal with M&I is no longer such a case. When agents of the government - cops and firefighters - sign their name to a letter which essentially demands tribute for not messing with the business it's no longer a boycott but is extortion.

On top of that, Pram, as I said before, this isn't even an act against the responsible parties. Hell, the M&I PAC gave 80% of their support to Dems in the last cycle. Granted, it was a total of $5000 contributed (none to Walker).

According to the Wisconsin GAO, M&I bank, as an entity, contributed $48.19 to the Friends of Scott Walker (probably in the form of interest on a checking account) and individuals employed by M&I contributed another $2,750.00. Just for comparison, contributions by those who claimed "homemaker" as an employer totaled $78,450.48.

The data is all right here.

Well, as I already stated, I think they picked the wrong target. I'm not defending the action against M&I individually. I'm defending the right of people to organize a boycott against a corporation.

[nvideoe]

Well, as I already stated, I think they picked the wrong target. I'm not defending the action against M&I individually. I'm defending the right of people to organize a boycott against a corporation.

I see....so if I decided to get a mob together to take down "Bob's Bakery" just because I hated one of Bob's employees that's A-OK in your book? If I threaten Bob with getting a mob to take down his business unless he fires a particular employee AND supports my cause that's just hunky-dory?

How about if I get a mob together to protest your next door neighbor who, as a "homemaker" contributed $5000.00 to a candidate that I have a disagreement with?

Is there any case whatsoever where you think that a person should be held accountable for inciting a mob action against another person or entity?

[Gedominew]

I see....so if I decided to get a mob together to take down "Bob's Bakery" just because I hated one of Bob's employees that's A-OK in your book? If I threaten Bob with getting a mob to take down his business unless he fires a particular employee AND supports my cause that's just hunky-dory?

How about if I get a mob together to protest your next door neighbor who, as a "homemaker" contributed $5000.00 to a candidate that I have a disagreement with?

Is there any case whatsoever where you think that a person should be held accountable for inciting a mob action against another person or entity?

A "mob" action being, what, a protest? A boycott?

Once you start getting into extortion, though, that's where you may start breaking the law, and clearly that would be unacceptable. But, I'd leave that to our resident expert (OSB) to tell us whether that would qualify as extortion or not.

I do very much support companies getting a good "oh shit" moment right about now as they start thinking about political contributions for 2012. I'm hopeful that corporate (and union) America pulls their money out of the political process, period, because it becomes FAR more costly to them. As it is now, it's cheap to buy a senator. Let's make it much more expensive.

[spravka.ua]

. . . Once you start getting into extortion, though, that's where you may start breaking the law, and clearly that would be unacceptable. But, I'd leave that to our resident expert (OSB) to tell us whether that would qualify as extortion or not. . . .

It's not extortion. In fact, it's pretty common consumer behaviour.

Extortion is the use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent.

These people can choose to patronise the bank or not for any legal reason they see fit. If they say they won't patronise it for X reason but will patronise and give it other good will for Y reason, that's perfectly fine and quite normal in business. It's up to the bank whether or not it's willing to do what they want for seeking that business or forgo it.

[nvideoe]

A "mob" action being, what, a protest? A boycott?

Once you start getting into extortion, though, that's where you may start breaking the law, and clearly that would be unacceptable. But, I'd leave that to our resident expert (OSB) to tell us whether that would qualify as extortion or not.

I do very much support companies getting a good "oh shit" moment right about now as they start thinking about political contributions for 2012. I'm hopeful that corporate (and union) America pulls their money out of the political process, period, because it becomes FAR more costly to them. As it is now, it's cheap to buy a senator. Let's make it much more expensive.

Mob action....I don't know....something along these lines might qualify depending on your political bent



I also have to question websites like this one which post links to screenshots such as this one which don't bother to disclose that the figure they refer to includes employees of M&I, excludes that they also gave $24,000 to Democrat candidates including $12,000 to Walker's opponent and doesn't jive with the records from the Wisconsin GAO.

I don't have the time to really drill this hole right now but this is looking more and more like an action geared strictly to stir up anti-capitalist sentiment and may the truth be damned.

[nvideoe]

It's not extortion. In fact, it's pretty common consumer behaviour.

Extortion is the use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent.

These people can choose to patronise the bank or not for any legal reason they see fit. If they say they won't patronise it for X reason but will patronise and give it other good will for Y reason, that's perfectly fine and quite normal in business. It's up to the bank whether or not it's willing to do what they want for seeking that business or forgo it.

As a matter of curiosity, if those who are instigating this boycott are, as is the case in this matter, agents of the government including police and fire, is there not a reasonable implication that such a protest might result in the withholding of public services? This isn't Sammy and Suzie homemaker pushing this agenda, it's the very people that are charged with the public service of protecting life and property.

[spravka.ua]

I'll be back in a bit luther and will reply.

[spravka.ua]

As a matter of curiosity, if those who are instigating this boycott are, as is the case in this matter, agents of the government including police and fire, is there not a reasonable implication that such a protest might result in the withholding of public services? This isn't Sammy and Suzie homemaker pushing this agenda, it's the very people that are charged with the public service of protecting life and property.

(bolding added) If that different additional situation arises, it will depend on the legality of such a move. What I offered to answer pram's question was the frequent definition of 'common' extortion in statutes, i.e., its main and most commonly agreed character.

Statutes can certainly vary to a degree on a state-by-state basis in how they cover this genre of crime. For example, some states might have an extortion law that extends to threats involving the use of legally actionable conduct itself more so than just criminal conduct, e.g., including civil tort and breach of contract conduct within the scope.

This bank is obviously a financial institution. WS has a specific statute on that: Extortion Against A Financial Institution, a felony. It's defined as follows:

2010 Wisconsin Code

Chapter 943. Crimes against property.

943.86 Extortion against a financial institution.

Whoever for the purpose of obtaining money, funds, credits, securities, assets, or property owned by or under the custody or control of a financial institution threatens to cause bodily harm to an owner, employee, or agent of a financial institution or to cause damage to property owned by or under the custody or control of the financial institution is guilty of a Class H felony.

943.86 - ANNOT.
History: 2005 a. 212. 2010 Wisconsin Code Chapter 943. Crimes against property. 943.86 Extortion against a financial institution. :: Justia Law

That's not being implicated here. That doesn't mean that such conduct might not be otherwise criminally and/or civilly actionable depending on the facts and results if someone threatens to withhold public services, e.g., cops saying they won't come to your aid in need unless you do what they want on something, as that might trigger some kinds of sanctions depending on what kinds of laws apply in each jurisdiction. Obviously, though, sufficient evidence must exist for such things to be triggered.

But with extortion, as you can see, it's a genre of crime that deals with unlawful threats and to get the person to agree to hand over property or do things on account of such threats. In this situation, that's not happening by the reported conduct that they are making unlawful threats to force the bank to hand over its money, etc.