Posted on

Dear Editor,

You recently published some comments questioning or arguing against a boycott of businesses that supported Scott Walker. Asking if a boycott is good or not is the wrong question entirely.

The right question is, should workers be forced to purchase goods from companies whose agenda is to destroy their right to collectively bargain. Now, no one would question my “individual” decision not to buy from Wal-Mart, but suddenly its becomes controversial if it becomes a collective decision in the form of a boycott directed at Johnsonville brats. It baffles me why the same act becomes so controversial just because its a collective decision. Corporations, by definition, act collectively every day, why is it so offensive when workers do it.

I, as an individual or as part of a collective, should not be forced to patronize businesses who have spoken so soundly with their pocket book against my freedoms. Yes, in a world where money = speech, an owner of a business has the freedom to speak through his or her pocket book, but they do not have the right to be freed from the consequences of that speech.A boycott is an essential tool for adding morality into our economic decision making processes.

For those businesses who wanted to play, now is the time to pay.