« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Organized Labor or Organized Thugs? AFSCME Openly Threatens WI Businesses

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  March 30th, 2011 at 11:30 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Well, that didn’t take long. Union threats that were somewhat isolated a couple of weeks ago are now gaining in popularity among union bosses in Wisconsin. Business owners are now receiving threatening letters telling them that, if they don’t support government-sector unions, their businesses will be boycotted.

Members of Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, have begun circulating letters to businesses in southeast Wisconsin, asking them to support workers’ rights by putting up a sign in their windows.

If businesses fail to comply, the letter says, “Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means ‘no’ to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.”

Jim Parrett, a field representative of Council 24 for Southeast Wisconsin, confirmed the contents of the letter, which carries his signature. But he added that the union was also circulating letters to businesses thanking them for supporting workers’ rights.

[snip]

Parrett said he believed the letter campaign was going on in other parts of the state. His region includes Racine and Kenosha counties, as well as parts of Waukesha and Walworth counties.

“It’s going on in other parts of the state,” he said Wednesday.

Parrett referred questions to Marty Beil, the head of the Wisconsin State Employees Union. Beil was not immediately available for comment.

In the letter from Parrett to some businesses, he says that, “It is unfortunate that you have chosen ‘not’ to support public workers rights in Wisconsin. In recent past weeks you have been offered a sign by a public employee who works in one of the state facilities in the Union Grove area. These signs simply said, ‘This Business Supports Workers Rights,’ a simple, subtle and we feel non-controversial statement gives the facts at this time.”

So, by not displaying the “non-controversial” sign means, as a business owner, your business will be targeted by union bosses for a boycott. What’s next?

Will unions be demanding homeowners to put them in their windows as well? And, if they don’t…?

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Photo credit: Mr. E

X-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    The independence movement (back before the Revolutionary War) in this country was founded on boycotts and I really have no problem with them as a tactic to persuade opinions (even if we don’t agree with the opinions in this case). And (assuming the boycotters remain peaceful, ie not destroying business property) this shouldn’t even worry anyone since the people of Wisconsin presumably support the Governor and this bill.

    • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

      It is flawed in that the “boycott” threatened comes from a refusal to take a political action by a free willed party. It is essentially extortion and not “we’re boycotting you because of what your company does or because we don’t like a cause you support etc” rather “we’re boycotting you because you won’t do what we tell you to and we want to pressure you into taking actions for our direct benefit”.

      In effect if I told a business to post free advertisement for my own company and threatened them with a boycott if they didn’t at the very least I’d be laughed of the property. The unions in this case are threatening harm for not being given free political advertising.

      Hope you can see the difference between the two.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      Perhaps the businesses could boycott AFSCME? No. I suppose not, since they are taxpayers and they have no choice to withhold their “support” of AFSCME.

      It would be one thing for unions to boycott private businesses who do not support their cause in a private-sector dispute. It is quite another when those they are boycotting pay their salaries.

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

      Which is the whole difference between private sector and public sector employee unions.

      A private sector union can organize a boycott against purchasing your products, which fair game so long as they don’t coerce the buyers (i.e. secondary boycott) or interfere with business operations via third parties.

      But when it’s government workers who can use the power of government capriciously to shut down your business for alleged health violations or alleged code violations, or if there is the implicit threat that police and fireman might not be so vigilant to protect your property through malign neglect – that’s a horse of a different color.

      That’s the danger of public employee unions – they have access to use the power of government to coerce.

      And we’ve seen how all the unions are supporting each other, so it doesn’t matter in the end which union each group belongs to, they’re all acting like one big union.

      Not to mention this boycott is not against the businees but rather extorting political behavior. I don’t see how this differs in principle from the mob extorting protection. “Nice business you have there, sure would hate to see something happen to it if you don’t support our political efforts.”

      Which is thuggery and a threat to the fabric of representative democracy given the scale that this is happening here.

      • mbs235

        Exactly. It’s the implied threat that public services will be withheld that is the problem here. It is extortion, plain and simple. Also supports the idea that public employee unions should not be allowed in the first place.

    • http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ Eric Olsen

      If you truly see nothing reprehensible (or at least off-putting) with the tactics described in the article above, then perhaps you wouldn’t mind if I showed up at your place of business one morning, accompanied by Vincent Vega and Jules Winfield and “encouraged” you to support feeding the poor by donating whatever cash you happened to have on hand at the time.

      Of course, should you refuse, you wouldn’t mind if we placed a severed dog’s head in front of your establishment, would you?

  • gfwarhol

    these actions will come back to bite the unions big time! ‘Thugs’ may be too kind a word for these low life’s.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    No this is despicable, it is borderline criminal in threatening to boycott anyone who does not give them free advertising and false support for their cause.

    There is a world of difference between boycotting a company because you do not like it’s practices/products/subsidizing something etc and demanding someone place what is essentially a political advertisement on their property for your benefit. It is a form of blackmail or extortion to say “If you don’t do this for us now, we’re gonna hurt your business”. If is just flat out wrong and in my opinion, essentially illegal and possibly prosecutable under various statutes.

    Dear Business Owners being targeted:
    Call your local DA and demand prosecution under RICO or whatever statue applies.

  • junkbondtrader41

    I’m dying for a feisty business owner to reply with an open letter of his own.

    Dear Mr. Parett, it’s “unfortunate” we must tell you to get bent!

  • Change Jar Conservative

    This is America and we can boycott whatever we want. As noted higher up, this is how conservatives started their movement against the British … by boycotting their tea.

    Now, if they start picketing and threatening other people who shop there then they have crossed another line.

    • Next93

      Oh, wait…

      • Finrod

        .

      • melbedewy

        n/t

    • davesinsanantonio

      ripped up the chests and bags it was in and poured it into the harbor, because a tyrannical government was trying to force local businesses to sell it on a monopoly basis and collect the tax and forward it to the government.
      Regardless of the fact that we revere those men, it was a criminal act. It brought about government reprisals. The problem with the public unions is that they also hint at criminal acts, and that their implied threat that through their control over the monopoly power of the police and firefighters those agencies will not respond in emergencies (a form of reprisal), all because they want to make sure they get their share of our income through taxes.
      So, here we have the government unions trying to force or coerce businesses to do their bidding in a form of tyranny. Thus, in this case, the true patriots are the businesses who refuse to comply and in their customers who refuse to be intimidated by the boycott!

  • Finrod

    It’s probably a good thing I don’t live in Wisconsin, or else I’d get up close and personal in communicating my counter-message to any business that would display such a sign. I’d let them know that they wouldn’t get my business ever again until they renounce being the toadies of public service vampires that drain the state treasury dry and still demand more.

    Boycott those that put up the sign. More businesses will not display it than will display it.

    • shaitra

      and if I see this sign in a place I will be going elsewhere with my business. If I see a bunch of union thugs boycotting a place, I will be going in to buy something.

  • hunter10

    This information came to me in an email a week or so ago, along with the email address of one of the union thugs distributing the signs. Apparently he was a high mucky muck, but dumb enough to let his email add out..
    After receiving thousands of emails he closed it down.
    I sent him an email taking him to task for the tactics he was using, but the email was refused. It was called “spam”
    These people are not real bright.

  • redpenny

    defines a union as a band of thugs joined together for the sole purpose of adding un-necessary cost to goods and services while intimidating non union members and causing havoc at every opportunity.(Footnote): Unions benefit only a few at the expense of many and should be shunned whenever possible.

  • radicalrighty

    my answer is “THUGS!”

  • radicalrighty

    Exactly.

  • jiminga

    might expect the DOJ or NLRB to take action against the unions for extortion, but there are very few reasonable people in Obummer’s administration. DOJ will likely sue WI businesses for not supporting the unions.

  • gunslingr45

    Think they would do well to post their own sign that says the Unions are boycotting me because I won

  • wshrock

    I do not think this control would never been allowed if Americians had done what they should have done in the last Presidential election and thought for themselves, and not let the media sway their thoughts. We should have looked into the backgronds of everyone running for office, DEMANDED A BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Now, unless somthing is done SOON, we can only see more of the obama thugs causing more problems and taking more control of our lives and businesses. Have we lost the ability to think on our own? How long will we let the ANTI-AMERICAN people in office run us into thr ground, to take away ALL OUR FREEDOMS, will we wait untill we have lost EVERYTHING and CAN NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT or WILL WE DO SOMTHING NOW? DO WE WANT THE AMERICA WE HAD BEFORE THE UNIONS? DO WE WANT A LAND THAT IS OUT OF DEBT? DO WE WANT A LAND WHERE WE ARE FREE FROM ALL THE NEEDLESS GOVERNMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS?

  • synergyarts

    Threats by unions to harm or threaten to harm anyone or any business that supports the other side in a labor dispute is creating a “Secondary Boycott”. Secondary boycotts in all labor disputes are prohibited by the “Hot Cargo” provision of the Taft-Hartley Law, a part of the law intended to stop these tactics by making them a criminal offense. Why doesn’t the government of Wisconsin seek an injunction against these boycott threats by AFSCME as violations of this provision. This is a labor dispute; the Government of Wisconsin (employer) VS the Labor Unions et.al.(the unions) albeit it does not have the traditional presentation of a labor stoppage or contract negotiation. GET BUSY!!

    • ihateliberals

      give a rats Butt about the Taft-Hartley act. They will skip over it just like they do every other aspect of the constitution. they are a treasonist people yet we let them continue to destroy our country. Before much longer they will have enough control they won’t even allow elections anymore. It’s called Martial Law. the President can suspend elections through the use of this law. If a battle breaks out between the people and the Unions he can invoke this law. sound like a conspiracy, well what part of this administration has worked within the law in the last two years? Why would that stat being law abiding now?

  • http://www.nonstopca.blogspot.com nonstopca

    Any business….that caves in to the union THUGS, is admitting that the union runs that business, not the person that owns it….

  • ihateliberals

    when Union Thugs were trying to rule the world then. Unions are what gave Russia, Hitler and others the power to control the people. There aren’t any needs for Unions anymore. The only reason they exist is to extort money under the guise of protecting the worker. They were necessary in a time before we had labor laws. People are more able to bargain for themselves now than they were so many years ago. Unions are nothing more than legalized Organized crime units. The mafia gone legit. They need to be stopped.

  • silkywiley

    these tactics are chilling. I for one would not open a business in Wisconsin for love nor money. I suspect there are a lot of small business owners like me in Wisconsin who are starting to research other safer states to prosper in. I visited Madison once, pretty country, ugly politics.

  • Pingback: weiterlesen