The attempt by Wisconsin public unions to coerce businesses into supporting them under the threat of a boycott -- even to the point of saying that neutrality is not an option, and businesses that choose not to take sides will be treated as "the enemy" -- has fired up my imagination.
Wouldn't it be fun if one of the businesses were to answer the threat letter thus:
* * * * *
Dear Wisconsin State Employees Union:
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your letter demanding that we proclaim our public support in your struggle against the duly-elected government of the state, or face a boycott. It is our company policy to not take sides in political disputes as a company, instead focusing on our core functions, so we must respectfully decline your offer of a poster to display in our window and accept your threatened boycott.
In fact, we are willing to go even further. We will assist you in your boycott, as a way of supporting your legal right to do so. Effective Monday, April 4, we will be taking the following steps:
We will be posting a sign on our doors proclaiming our status as a boycott target, and asking all members of the WSEU and supporting unions to stay off our premises in accordance with your boycott.
Should we identify any members of the WSEU -- or any member of a public sector union -- within our premises at any time, we will remind them of their boycott, refuse them service, and ask them to leave.
We will offer a small reward to our customers who identify such members to our staff, so we can remind them of the boycott, refuse them service, and ask them to leave.
We will also notify you of any of your members or members of your supporting unions of the individual members who violate your boycott, with the full details of their time of visit.
Please notify us when your boycott has ended, so we can remove our notices and stop assisting you in making your boycott as effective.
Jay Tea
COO, Wizbang! Stores
* * * * *
Gosh, wouldn't that be fun? How long do you think it would take for there to be talk of civil rights violations and lawsuits and whatnot -- for the horrible crime of helping them achieve their goals?
I hereby dedicate this posting to union groupie/whore "jim x" (it's unclear if he's just a really dedicated amateur, or a well-paid professional in his support) for helping me come up with this idea. Couldn't have done it without ya, chum.
Wouldn't it be fun if one of the businesses were to answer the threat letter thus:
* * * * *
Dear Wisconsin State Employees Union:
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your letter demanding that we proclaim our public support in your struggle against the duly-elected government of the state, or face a boycott. It is our company policy to not take sides in political disputes as a company, instead focusing on our core functions, so we must respectfully decline your offer of a poster to display in our window and accept your threatened boycott.
In fact, we are willing to go even further. We will assist you in your boycott, as a way of supporting your legal right to do so. Effective Monday, April 4, we will be taking the following steps:
We will be posting a sign on our doors proclaiming our status as a boycott target, and asking all members of the WSEU and supporting unions to stay off our premises in accordance with your boycott.
Should we identify any members of the WSEU -- or any member of a public sector union -- within our premises at any time, we will remind them of their boycott, refuse them service, and ask them to leave.
We will offer a small reward to our customers who identify such members to our staff, so we can remind them of the boycott, refuse them service, and ask them to leave.
We will also notify you of any of your members or members of your supporting unions of the individual members who violate your boycott, with the full details of their time of visit.
Please notify us when your boycott has ended, so we can remove our notices and stop assisting you in making your boycott as effective.
Jay Tea
COO, Wizbang! Stores
* * * * *
Gosh, wouldn't that be fun? How long do you think it would take for there to be talk of civil rights violations and lawsuits and whatnot -- for the horrible crime of helping them achieve their goals?
I hereby dedicate this posting to union groupie/whore "jim x" (it's unclear if he's just a really dedicated amateur, or a well-paid professional in his support) for helping me come up with this idea. Couldn't have done it without ya, chum.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Modest Proposals, Thuggery, Unions
Comments (12)
Waiting for Moron.org flunk... (Below threshold)1. Posted by TexBob | April 1, 2011 6:27 AM | Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
Waiting for Moron.org flunky Galoob, Chico,Whoop whatever to begin whining in 3..2...1
1. Posted by TexBob | April 1, 2011 6:27 AM |
Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
Posted on April 1, 2011 06:27
2. Posted by Maggie Mama | April 1, 2011 7:21 AM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Great! Just love it.
2. Posted by Maggie Mama | April 1, 2011 7:21 AM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on April 1, 2011 07:21
3. Posted by Hank | April 1, 2011 8:11 AM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Excellent!!
3. Posted by Hank | April 1, 2011 8:11 AM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on April 1, 2011 08:11
4. Posted by Mighty Mouse | April 1, 2011 8:21 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
I do like the idea of the signs, But lets take it one step further, have the sign big enough to fit a window, the, put up a large copy of the boycott letter. How about placing pictures up of the leaders, and anyone caught not adhering to the boycott rules. Pictures are placed in stores for people that are caught on camera, suspected of shoplifting, and bad checks. Name attached and reason
4. Posted by Mighty Mouse | April 1, 2011 8:21 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on April 1, 2011 08:21
5. Posted by Duke DeLand | April 1, 2011 8:47 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
One other suggestion was to post the letter with a larger paper around it stating, "Posted Under Threat of Police boycott!"
5. Posted by Duke DeLand | April 1, 2011 8:47 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on April 1, 2011 08:47
6. Posted by Wyatt Earp | April 1, 2011 9:00 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jay, I think you misspelled "chump."
6. Posted by Wyatt Earp | April 1, 2011 9:00 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on April 1, 2011 09:00
7. Posted by epador | April 1, 2011 9:50 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Additionally, it shouldn't be too hard to determine the per centage of annual State Tax revenues processed by the business that support the wages and benefits of the WSEU workers. Post a big sign stating that: before the threatened boycott, this business provides X $$ through taxes to support WSEU workers. Next to the text a picture of a police dog biting a hand with a stash of cash in it.
7. Posted by epador | April 1, 2011 9:50 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on April 1, 2011 09:50
8. Posted by john | April 1, 2011 3:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
As a representative of the left, my response is... so what? Businesses have the right to serve anyone they want (save for legally protected classes). If a business wants to announce they will no longer service teachers or police officers, they can go right ahead. This is a good idea; I would actually like to see that. My response would be a big yawn as I walked past them to a competitor. Though it is amusing that you claim that police refusing to eat at a restaurant is out of bounds, but a restaurant refusing to serve the police is just fine.
And if enough business participated? The unions would probably have to cave. You see, boycotts are legitimate tools that work both ways. It's nice to see you finally acknowledge that.
How long do you think it would take for there to be talk of civil rights violations and lawsuits
Probably not as quickly as you started talking of "extortion".
8. Posted by john | April 1, 2011 3:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on April 1, 2011 15:57
9. Posted by Jay Tea | April 1, 2011 4:06 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
john, no big surprise. You miss my point. My objection wasn't to the boycott in and of itself, but the targeting -- not against one's opponents, not against even the supporters of one's opponents, but those who have expressed no interest in the struggle whatsoever. A whole bunch of businesses have been saying "we got enough to deal with already; we don't get involved with political stuff," and the unions are saying "sorry, if you're not going to back us, you're the enemy. Nobody's allowed to stay out of our fight."
That it's the police and fire officials doing it is a whole 'nother story, but not one I had addressed here.
Asshat.
J.
9. Posted by Jay Tea | April 1, 2011 4:06 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on April 1, 2011 16:06
10. Posted by john | April 1, 2011 4:17 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I got your point just fine, thanks. And I reiterate my apathy towards your proposed response. I can go into a shop and tell them to post my political sign or I'll boycott them. And they can comply or laugh me out of the store. If enough people side with me and boycott them, I achieve my goals. If enough people side with them and boycott me, I don't. My choice. Their choice. Nothing wrong with it.
Schmuck.
10. Posted by john | April 1, 2011 4:17 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on April 1, 2011 16:17
11. Posted by Jay Tea | April 1, 2011 4:26 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Two comments from someone who doesn't care? You must be a real typing demon on ones you do care about.
I've always believed that one of the most fundamental human rights is the right to be left alone. That's what these businesses were doing, and would like to continue to do. But the unions are trying to draft them into their war, and that pisses me off.
You don't care one way or another? Feel free to STFU. Unlike the unions, I don't demand you take a side on my postings. And I certainly don't demand loyalty under threats of punishment.
J.
11. Posted by Jay Tea | April 1, 2011 4:26 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on April 1, 2011 16:26
12. Posted by john | April 1, 2011 4:40 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I stated apathy towards your solution, not towards your post. I would have expected language basics to be one of your strengths.
Opening a business is not seeking to be left alone. It is proactively seeking interaction with your potential market. If you want to be left alone, go home. Otherwise, you need to deal with those who enter your establishment wearing shirts and shoes, and those who enter without. How you deal with them is a business decision left to you.
I don't mind being told to STFU, because it just shows that you got nothing else.
12. Posted by john | April 1, 2011 4:40 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on April 1, 2011 16:40