« Sutton tells Winona Daily News MNGOP would consider backing Draz before convention | Main | Kvetchin' Gretchen Hoffman so doesn't want you to blame her for school shift or anything else »

Sep 21, 2011


John Kysylyczyn

Fascinating: This commenter sign a union card even though he opposes unions but he did want to spy. That's integrity for you!

The comment:

Parry is correct in his assessment. Until you get past the issue of how a self employed daycare provider who is organized as a single member LLC with no employees, which is how I am organized as a provider, can somehow be a union, you cannot even begin to discuss the issue of voting.

Claiming that Parry or anyone else is against the right to vote is simply not true. Voting doesn't even apply here. The idea that self employed people who run their own businesses can be organized into a union is ridiculous. I signed a card to get invited to the meetings to see how the union was going to do this. I asked tough questions and basically got no answers.

This has nothing to do with democracy.

Dan McGrath

Editor's comment: Mr McGrath is of the name-calling school of rhetoric. If a representative of Minnesota Majority calls someone a gangster, it must be so.

In looking at the name of Mr. McGrath's organization, readers can see the flipside of this "God or Devil Word" approach, the classic strategy of a propagandist.

Bluestem think it would be appropriate --in order to avoid misleading people--for Minnesota Majority to conduct a sign-up that would be independently audited. If a majority indeed agreed, perhaps the organization could rightly bear the name it uses. But Bluestem sees little evidence that its positions are indeed the majority opinion in Minnesota.

As it is, simply the "nice" side of the same rhetorical strategy that McGrath uses when he calls union names.

But strong-arm tactics are nothing new for Mr. McGrath. For an example of intimidation in another form of election, check out "Minnesota Majority sues for right to intimidate at the polls:"


Stay classy, Mr. McGrath.

The comment:

Taking a vote among the 11,000 INDEPENDENT, PRIVATE childcare providers that would potentially compel every one of them into union membership and pay union dues, even if they don't want it is what's objectionable. This is a First Amendment freedom of association issue and a moral issue.

If all of your neighbors got together and had a vote and decided the whole neighborhood was now going to switch jobs and become bankers, would you be required to become a banker? After all, they had a secret ballot and let you vote!

If the majority of resturant owners voted on which food service supplier to use, would dissenting resturants be required to use that supplier?

Forcing unwilling independent businesses to pay a private association (the union) is gangsterism and tyranny, even if the majority of similar businesses want it. It's like protection money, but instead of breaking a leg or busting up your business, they use force of law to bust up your business by recinding your license.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Become a Fan

Bluestem Tweets

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad