What I’d like to know is who talks political strategy with a complete stranger?
“I’m kind of at the center of a maelstrom right now in terms of kicking Scott Walker’s (expletive),” said John-david Morgan, a lobbyist and spokesman for the Service Employees International Local 1, on Sept. 10 outside the Y-Not II tavern on E. Lyon St. “I’ve been kicking Scott Walker’s (expletive) for two months now. We’ve been on TV; we’ve done all kinds of stuff.”
Using his cell phone, a Walker campaign staffer recorded a 15-minute talk in which Morgan laid out what he said were his union’s plans to tie the problems at the O’Donnell Park garage and the Milwaukee County Mental Health Complex to the Republican nominee.
The Walker aide, Michael Brickman, didn’t disclose who he was during the one-on-one chat. He gave a false name and occupation at the end of the conversation.
Again….who talks political strategy with a complete stranger?
It’s not like we didn’t know the mismanagement and neglect of the MHC and O’Donnell Park would be used against Walker (and rightly so)…but this guy really needs to zip it.
No one ever accused union people of being overly bright. This guy is a walking testament to that.
Sad that in this day and age, there is no such thing as an “off the record” conversation. But this guy needed to keep his mouth shut. It’s that simple.
Agreed, especially considering the guy he was talking to was a complete stranger to him.
“off the record” lol. It’s not like this was a reporter type of situation. When has political strategy ever been off the record no matter day and age.
Yes, anyone in a similar situation needs to know who they are talking to before discussing political strategy. The same goes in business. But what’s the legality of secretly taping a private conversation?
It’s not illegal, so long as one of the parties being taped knows what’s going on.
Well obviously the person doing the taping knows what’s going on…so that makes it ok? But what about the other person involved?
Doesn’t matter if JD Morgan knew what was going on….as long as the other subject of the recording did know.
Ed, what you are thinking of is a phone conversation where the other party needs to know the conversation is being recorded. Anything goes out in public though.
Now we have a technology gray area…he used a ‘phone’ to make the recording.
Zach is correct. And rather that listen to people guess and apply their homespun, I heard from a friend “knowledge” about this, how about taking the time to read the law:
In other words, guy was an idiot and his stupidity isn’t going to be bailed out by the law since it’s against him. But nice try though. As they say, “Stupid Should Hurt.”
And BTW, took about 30 seconds to look up.
so you CANT tape a phone conversation, without the other person knowing it? what if they call you? what if they threaten you? What if you dont use it for profit? just curious.
I thought I could post the actual law and let that stand on it’s own, but apparently not. Let’s try one more time:
“If the person who records the wire, electronic, or oral communication is a party to the conversation or has obtained prior consent from one party, he may lawfully record and divulge the contents of the communication”
In other words, so long as you’re involved the conversation, you may record it without notifying the other party/parties. This is a one-party notification state. Somebody not involved (say a private eye) can’t record a conversation between two people without notifying one of them. But either of the parties can record the conversation without notifying the other.
Not in Wisconsin. Only one party needs to know they are being recorded.
What I’d like to get an answer to is why some conservatives are so inclined to label anyone who’s a member of a labor union and who happens to be politically involved as a “union thug.” Here’s an example of what I’m talking about.
Most certainly not all or even most members. But union heads? Frequently. When someone has power over others, and uses and abuses that power – for example, when dissenting opinions are not allowed, thug or bully is not an inappropriate descriptor.
Have you read the article? He’s a lobbyist with money and a ton of influence at his disposal. He said he effectively has the supervisors under his thumb, and local media will run whatever he wants: “They’ve really been willing partners in it. They come in with the TV cameras, and (channels) 58, 12 come, and 6 doesn’t always. But, yeah, they’ve been really helpful. They think it’s fun.”
“I’m kind of at the center of a maelstrom right now in terms of kicking Scott Walker’s (expletive).”
“I’ve been kicking Scott Walker’s (expletive) for two months now. We’ve been on TV; we’ve done all kinds of stuff.”
In his own words. Do you actually want to argue he’s not?
I guess it’s all about how you define thug. When I think of thug, I think of someone engaging in criminal behavior, not someone exerting political influence.
Because its one of the few collectives that give money solely to the dems so the repubs feel the need to discredit them.
That’s an interesting statement. So is every union member a democrat or are there a portion that are republicans or independents as well? Presumably, the numbers aren’t drastically different that the general public 40-40-20, republicans, democrats, independents/swing voters. If that’s true, then giving to only democrats is actually going against a majority of their members, no? Or even if the numbers are more in favor of the democrats than the general public, they’re still completely ignoring the wishes of a significant minority of their members.
No every union member is not a democrat, some actually vote against their best interest(not every dem is for the workers best interest, but much more so than repubs). When Reagan took office, unionization was around 24% and now its around 7%. There has been a definite war on labor from 1981 on. Firing the air traffic controllers was the first blow.
It is why they attack unions and then complain when restraints(however small) are put on wall st. Follow the money.
So your answer is, only stupid union members would actually support republican candidates and they don’t deserve any consideration of their opinions because you and the union heads know what’s really best for them.
Locke,
How is this different than WMC and the national chamber of commerce shilling for Republican candidates. When the vast majority of the members are small businesses and the Chamber and WMC shill for a small percentage of their memebrs who are the biggest companies.
The weaker argument is that WMC does not categorically support only on party, they support candidates they deem business-friendly. While their assessment skews heavily Republican, it’s not absolute and Democrats who choose to support their agenda can and do receive support.
But much more importantly, there is a very significant fundamental difference. Contributions to WMC are 100% voluntary. If you don’t think they are representing your interests, you can choose to no longer give them your money. Union dues on the other hand, are mandatory. As a dues-paying union member (union membership is also not optional at union shops) if you don’t like the political positions of your union and how it is spending money on candidates, you cannot choose to stop giving them your money.
Well Unions dont support 100% democrats either, I believe there are some unions in Fl who have endorsed Crist. So i would guess that unions and WMC have about the same percentage of endorsed candidates from one party.
As for the fundamental difference, if you dont feel that your union is representing your best interests, you can run for union rep or even an officer of the union and change that. Thats why Unions are like democracy. You get what you put in.
But again – union dues aren’t voluntary. And union membership is not optional. Which is distinctly un-Democratic and un-American to require people to join an organization whether they agree with it’s agenda or not.
Union dues are not voluntary but like a democracy, when a majority of the workers want a union then your in a union. Its VERY democratic and VERY American. I didnt want the war in iraq yet I have to pay for it.
Some years ago I worked at a company that had a union on the loading docks and I was in the maintenance dept which was not unionized.They tried for years to get our dept to join and non of us wanted anything to do with them. We suffered sporadic flat tires on our cars, harassment on the loading docks when we had to be up there for maintenance work, we did not dare leave our tools unattended otherwise we got the fun of trying to locate them throughout the plant. It was like dealing with a bunch of children, I worked there for 13 years and over the years had to replace 5 different tires that surprising suffered mysterious cuts.
Notalib, would you consider John-david Morgan to be a “union thug?”
I believe the majority of SEIU members would be a danger to non union people
That’s a non-answer.
Ok let me make a little clearer for you then, yes.
So he’s a thug because he supports unions, not because he actually did anything thuggish. Got it.
You are taking it much too literally. As if people on the right (especially pro-lifers) are never called names.
forgot, you raise a good point about the name calling, but I’m having a hard time figuring out what makes one a “union thug,” considering I’ve been called that by folks on the right.
What exactly makes me a “union thug?” Is it the fact that I’m a union member and I dare to express my opinion on politics?
Most SEIU members are janitors, burses and other health care workers. I think you’d find them quite harmless.
nurses, of course, not burses or purses
Question: What moron takes orders from a moron dumb enough to talk political strategy with a complete stranger?
Answer: John Weishan Jr.
Mr. Melnick….since you are a middle class union guy…I’m wondering how you feel about people being called union thugs just because they are in a union? Has anyone ever called you a union thug?