> > 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