> > I don't believe anyone was forced to house their child in that center.
>
> It doesn't require force
>
> X (official/officer/etc in position of power) decides that a childcare
> facility would make an excellent 'human sheild' in place Y.  X then makes
> arrangements for decent child care facility, tells parents who work at Y
> 'Look. Your children can be near you, you can visit them at lunch time,
> you can drop them off and pick them up on your way in and out of the
> office respectively, and if something happens [in the normal sense -- kid
> falls off monkey bars and breaks arm sort of things] you'll be right
> there'
>
> No force necessary. Parents think they have a good deal. X thinks he has a
> good deal. Kids are up shit creek if anything actually goes down.
>
> And no, I'm not arguing this did, has or is happening. I'm not in a
> position to have data on that. I'm arguing that, contrary to what you
> said, it *is* a viable possibility.

No it's not a viable possibility except for those who see conspiratorial
agents around every corner.  Try running a large organization some time
and you will see just what kind of stupid shit you have to deal with.

You may well turn into one of those evil union-busting executives.  There
are a lot of incentive issues to deal with as well as contractual issues
if you are working with unioned employees.  Are you suggesting that the
unions may have been complicit in putting a daycare there?

This is total horse shit, and it is definitely NOT viable.

This sort of suggestion really makes this list look like it's inhabitted by
a bunch of loonies.  It's your right to suggest any shit you want, but it's
way out in left field.

Ern