Last week, when Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) lost a member amidst a flurry of misinformation and deflections, a Wisconsin State Journal interviewee added to the confusion, Epic won't deal with Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce backers
Schweber said while he shares Epic's views of WMC's role in the judicial campaign, he disagrees with the company's "secondary boycott" of vendors who may support the business group.
"Putting pressure on a person or business not to associate with another person or business is ethically dubious in my mind," he said. "If people have the power to coerce others to remain silent or change their views, that's a threat to personal liberty."
Unfortunately, either Professor Schweber's use of the term "secondary boycott" or the reporter's misunderstanding of the term only added to the silliness. and misled the public regarding an important legal term that has a very specific meaning.
In modern usage, a secondary boycott derives its meaning from its use within the Taft-Hartley Act, where a labor organization engaged in a dispute with an employer attempts to encourage other businesses to support their side of the dispute. To suggest there is a secondary boycott in the situation at hand is illogical. To claim dubious ethics flies in the face of some of the finest moments in American history starting with the refusal to drink the King's tea.
What is curious is that with the exception of Mike McCabe, director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, The good professor's Epic blunder, the commentators are silent.
McCabe:
...Howard Schweber, a professor of law and political science at UW-Madison, took exception to what he called Epic's "secondary boycott" of companies that support WMC. Professor Schweber told the Wisconsin State Journal that "putting pressure on a person or business not to associate with another person or business is ethically dubious in my mind. If people have the power to coerce others to remain silent or change their views, that's a threat to personal liberty."
Aside from Epic being totally within its rights, has Professor Schweber ever heard of the Montgomery bus boycott? Does he believe Rosa Parks was "ethically dubious" or a "threat to personal liberty" when she refused to give up her seat? Was the boycott that Martin Luther King and his allies organized soon thereafter unethical?... Ever hear of the Boston Tea Party?
There are a multitude of instances,outside of labor disputes where individuals or organizations made choices of conscience:
- The right wing anti-homosexual cabal who refuses to patronize Disney because of the company's embracing gay patrons.
- Jews and their friends who refused to purchase Ford automobiles in the 1930's and '40's, knowing of the anti-semitism of the company's founder.
- People who will not buy clothing from Forever 21 because it prints religious messages on the back of the receipts.
Meantime, the usual right wing bloggers picked up the chant of secondary boycott, including those who pride themselves in knowing something about the law. Crying 'secondary boycott" is like calling for hockey's high-sticking penalty when a batter takes a swing in a baseball game.
Here in Wisconsin many thousands boycotted the Gallo Wine Company in support of the Farm Workers Union in their strike against unjust working conditions in the grape vineyards. Many college students would call and ask 'which wines can we buy this time around'?
Lettuce and table grapes gave baptism to many a social justice advocate in the 60's...who I hope still advocate for social justice today.
The WMC is a perennial foe of social justice for those who must work in the markets but reject the greed which motivates its owners.
Democracy is too precious to leave it to those who can usually buy it.
Posted by: jim guilfoil | July 09, 2008 at 08:47 AM
I admit, I didn't know that "secondary boycott" was a legal term, or I would have gone off on that as well. But I did let off a little steam from Schweber's piece here:
http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/07/freedom-of-expression-or-moral-compass.html
And now on WMC's James Buchen's commentary here:
http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/07/wmc-vp-buchen-hates-liberals-proves.html
Posted by: John | July 09, 2008 at 02:17 PM
What about prohibition of American citizens visiting Cuba or purchasing cigars produced in Cuba? Or any business with Cuba. That is a federal law.
Posted by: Gary Schepp | July 10, 2008 at 12:20 AM
All because i voted for Ralph Nader
Posted by: merkley muckley | July 10, 2008 at 11:02 AM