I understand the symbiosis between local labor unions and local city government. The politicians who get elected and unions are quite close.
The politicians who do not get elected are the ones shunned by labor.
So here's the question: Is it inappropriate for political signs (ie: anti candidate signs) to be plastered all over the city owned vehicles in the parade?
Seems like those vehicles belong to the citizens, even though the politicians belong to the unions and are essentially owned by them.
Totally inappropriate - but it won't end in Toledo. I've seen it most every election cycle.
Of course, if the signs plastered on the taxpayer owned vehicles were for a candidate the unions didn't like, the howling would be deafening.
I would think so. Is it any different than the situation where Sylvania Schools employees getting their hands slapped for using school time and email accounts to push for the levy s couple years ago?
Perhaps plastering political signs on city vehicles is just an outward symbol of all the inappropriate things that start to occur behind the scenes when the city council and mayor are labor representatives first and community representatives a distant second.
Labor sets the priorities. Labor sets the price. Labor can pay all those levys in November.
Citizens without representation would be fools to.
God only knows what goes on behind closed doors.
Inappropriate posting of political signs on city vehicles, we gripe about it , but look the other way and it's a slippery slope from there .
God wasn't allowed in the meeting. He's management.