[nvideoe]

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?

[AromeWahmaron]

Have to love the comments from the Kos Kiddies.

Yeah! Stick it to the man! Make them feel the little man's pain!

(of course, bankrupting the bank will put people out of work, but fuck them for working for a bank anyway, right?)

Matt

[Gedominew]

Wait, wait a second here.

A corporation makes a political donation. The politician takes an action that a segment of the population doesn't like, and now there's a call for repercussions to the corporation.

Why are you ridiculing this? This is exactly what's supposed to happen. Hopefully other potential corporate donors will think a second before donating on the next go-round.

[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?

Let em go on--America is watching--and it's not good when we have police and firefighters and what looks to be an all out assault on the taxpayers of their states--and with law enforcement and fire fighters turning into union thugs.

What comes around--goes around--and this will move swiftly through the news and into American minds.

With only 7% of the working force of this nation belonging to a union--it leaves a bad taste in ones mouth for ever joining a union.

Democrats who are supporting these union thugs are going to have a lot of egg on their faces. 2012 is right around the corner.

And they called the tea partiers of this country extremists--UNBELIEVABLE.

[AromeWahmaron]

Wait, wait a second here.

A corporation makes a political donation. The politician takes an action that a segment of the population doesn't like, and now there's a call for repercussions to the corporation.

Why are you ridiculing this? This is exactly what's supposed to happen. Hopefully other potential corporate donors will think a second before donating on the next go-round.

I'm not ridiculing it in and of itself - I am ridiculing the idea that you can stand up for the "little guy" by bankrupting a business with the resultant loss of jobs for the "little guy" who works there.

Tellers and branch managers don't set corporate policy, but it looks like they're about to be jobless because of the policy.

Does that sound like "looking out for the little guy" to you?

Matt

[AromeWahmaron]

Wait, wait a second here.

A corporation makes a political donation. The politician takes an action that a segment of the population doesn't like, and now there's a call for repercussions to the corporation.

Why are you ridiculing this? This is exactly what's supposed to happen. Hopefully other potential corporate donors will think a second before donating on the next go-round.

Should we then allow businesses to dump union labor when the Union donates to a politician who takes an action the business does not like?

Or must this be a one-way street?

(I believe the solution is to get corporations - and unions - out of campaign finance altogether, but if that's not possible, then what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.)

Matt

[gusecrync]

Wait, wait a second here.

A corporation makes a political donation. The politician takes an action that a segment of the population doesn't like, and now there's a call for repercussions to the corporation.

Why are you ridiculing this? This is exactly what's supposed to happen. Hopefully other potential corporate donors will think a second before donating on the next go-round.

Pram did you ever give a crap about how many middle class Wisconsin's are working at this bank--or the average working class person who has a bank account here?

This is all out Union THUGERY--coming from the Union--who has this UN-HOLY alliance with the democrat party. They take dues from union members and funnel it right to the Democrat party. Hundreds of millions of dollars--and these dumb-ass firefighters--take on one single bank and force it to shut their doors.

I hope these dam government workers unions gets their clocks cleaned once and for all. This is just another example of why government workers should have NEVER been organized in the first place. Firefighters acting like a freakin street gang.

[nvideoe]

Wait, wait a second here.

A corporation makes a political donation. The politician takes an action that a segment of the population doesn't like, and now there's a call for repercussions to the corporation.

Why are you ridiculing this? This is exactly what's supposed to happen. Hopefully other potential corporate donors will think a second before donating on the next go-round.

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.

[Gedominew]

I'm not ridiculing it in and of itself - I am ridiculing the idea that you can stand up for the "little guy" by bankrupting a business with the resultant loss of jobs for the "little guy" who works there.

Tellers and branch managers don't set corporate policy, but it looks like they're about to be jobless because of the policy.

Does that sound like "looking out for the little guy" to you?

Matt

Unfortunately, the people who work at the corporation do pay a price for what is done by their employer.

Like the 20% of AOL employees who are going to be laid off because AOL bought the Huffington Post.

But, can we allow corporations to make political speech without repercussion? I would say clearly not. A boycott is the only avenue that the citizen has.

Should we then allow businesses to dump union labor when the Union donates to a politician who takes an action the business does not like?

Or must this be a one-way street?

(I believe the solution is to get corporations - and unions - out of campaign finance altogether, but if that's not possible, then what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.)

Matt

What? Are you seriously asking me if corporations should be able to void employment contracts because of a decision that a politician makes?

Really? And you're comparing that to the right of the citizenry to decide whether or not to do business with a corporation?


I mean, seriously, Matt, if I wanted to push it, I could make the argument that you're taking a stance that people should be able to be forced to do business with certain companies, just 'cause. You know - you have to meet your McDonald's ration this week - 3 lunches. I know that isn't the kind of stance that you would take, so picture my confusion.

[Gedominew]

Pram did you ever give a crap about how many middle class Wisconsin's are working at this bank--or the average working class person who has a bank account here?

This is all out Union THUGERY--coming from the Union--who has this UN-HOLY alliance with the democrat party. They take dues from union members and funnel it right to the Democrat party. Hundreds of millions of dollars--and these dumb-ass firefighters--take on one single bank and force it to shut their doors.

I hope these dam government workers unions gets their clocks cleaned once and for all. This is just another example of why government workers should have NEVER been organized in the first place. Firefighters acting like a freakin street gang.

So, what's your solution, Oreo? Should we FORCE firefighters to bank with M&I? Pass a law to do so?

Maybe we should pass a law that cops have to eat at Dunkins on Tuesdays, Winchell's on Thursdays, and Lamar's on Saturdays. You know, spread the grift around a bit. But only if the parent corporations pay their GOP "donations," right?

[Gedominew]

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.

Irrelevant. The purchaser of the company inherits the decisions of the previous company.

If you buy an auto repair shop to tear down and build a strip mall, and it turns out that they've been polluting the ground for the last 30 years by dumping their petroleum into the soil in the basement, guess whose problem it is?

M&I made a contribution. They got bought, but they still exist as M&I. BMO kept the name because they like the brand recognition. Well, brand recognition has some risks as well - these guys call for a boycott of M&I, and I will never ever ever ever buy a Chevrolet, even if GM is purchased by Toyota.

[AromeWahmaron]

What? Are you seriously asking me if corporations should be able to void employment contracts because of a decision that a politician makes?

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?

Really? And you're comparing that to the right of the citizenry to decide whether or not to do business with a corporation?

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?

I mean, seriously, Matt, if I wanted to push it, I could make the argument that you're taking a stance that people should be able to be forced to do business with certain companies, just 'cause. You know - you have to meet your McDonald's ration this week - 3 lunches. I know that isn't the kind of stance that you would take, so picture my confusion.

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".

As I said, ideally neither the union nor the corporation should be allowed to donate to politicians.

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

[dumadegg]

Wait, wait a second here.

A corporation makes a political donation. The politician takes an action that a segment of the population doesn't like, and now there's a call for repercussions to the corporation.

Why are you ridiculing this? This is exactly what's supposed to happen. Hopefully other potential corporate donors will think a second before donating on the next go-round.

They ridicule it because they're jealous and afraid of the numbers of actual real people out there who are being told that they have to give and give and give while billionaires remain on the take.

They ridicule it because it's real and not just some bullshit symbolic patriotism like renaming french fries "freedom fries" because a certain country doesn't feel like going to war with you.

[AromeWahmaron]

They ridicule it because they're jealous and afraid of the numbers of actual real people out there who are being told that they have to give and give and give while billionaires remain on the take.

Nonsense. I am not "jealous" of any of this shit - this is a baseless assumption on your part. (as an aside, I made such an assumption about you earlier, which I retracted and apologized for. Let's see if you pack the same gear....)

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

[dumadegg]

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?



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?



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".

As I said, ideally neither the union nor the corporation should be allowed to donate to politicians.

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

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.

[nvideoe]

Irrelevant. The purchaser of the company inherits the decisions of the previous company.

If you buy an auto repair shop to tear down and build a strip mall, and it turns out that they've been polluting the ground for the last 30 years by dumping their petroleum into the soil in the basement, guess whose problem it is?

M&I made a contribution. They got bought, but they still exist as M&I. BMO kept the name because they like the brand recognition. Well, brand recognition has some risks as well - these guys call for a boycott of M&I, and I will never ever ever ever buy a Chevrolet, even if GM is purchased by Toyota.

Hey man...we're all free to do what we like but this is assholery with a capital A in my book.

The contributions to Walker were a decision by the officers at the time and are immaterial now that the business is under new ownership. There is no continuing obligation to Walker and these folks are beating up on someone that just doesn't deserve it. Your auto shop analogy is off. The contributions to Walker don't constitute an ongoing interest like dumping oil would. This is more like a pissed off customer coming back and burning the place to the ground because the old owner screwed his wife.

[AromeWahmaron]

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.

So, just "tough shit" for the 10,000 employees of M&I, then? That's what they get for not having a union-approved job?

You keep ignoring this aspect of the issue.....

[Gedominew]

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.

[Gedominew]

Hey man...we're all free to do what we like but this is assholery with a capital A in my book.

The contributions to Walker were a decision by the officers at the time and are immaterial now that the business is under new ownership. There is no continuing obligation to Walker and these folks are beating up on someone that just doesn't deserve it. Your auto shop analogy is off. The contributions to Walker don't constitute an ongoing interest like dumping oil would. This is more like a pissed off customer coming back and burning the place to the ground because the old owner screwed his wife.

Yeah, maybe. I wonder how many of the previous owners still hold stock or other investments, though. It's often not such a clean break.

Could they have picked a better target? Absolutely.

[dumadegg]

Nonsense. I am not "jealous" of any of this shit - this is a baseless assumption on your part. (as an aside, I made such an assumption about you earlier, which I retracted and apologized for. Let's see if you pack the same gear....)

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

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

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.

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.

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.