View Full Version : McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for
WASHINGTON — When workers in a McDonald’s restaurant in Canton, Ohio, opened their paychecks this month, they found a pamphlet urging them to vote for the Republican candidates for governor, Senate and Congress, or possibly face financial repercussions. The pamphlet appeared calculated to intimidate workers into voting for Republican candidates by making a direct reference to their wages and benefits, said Allen Schulman, a Democrat who is president of the Canton City Council and said he obtained a copy of the pamphlet on Wednesday.
The pamphlet said: “If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above the current levels. If others are elected, we will not.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/us/politics/30ohio.html?bl
Note:Published: October 29, 2010
Buddahaid
10-31-10, 10:51 PM
I'm lovin' it!
Castout
10-31-10, 11:57 PM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/guykawasaki/AayBxkICpFtejtoEAjBusyzEorBrfyEvfzGcBEoCEhqCfisqyf hFusoyctjE/media_httpdldropboxco_vhbvn.gif.scaled500.gif?AWSA ccessKeyId=1C9REJR1EMRZ83Q7QRG2&Expires=1288587726&Signature=kXQghvx35YhdIoG42TmJrmGE8C0%3D
:nope:
Stealth Hunter
11-01-10, 12:32 AM
Son...
...I am disappoint...:nope:
They're not being told who to vote for. Ballots are secret, they can vote for or against their own interests.
Their employer telling them that they will suffer under one party seems respectful to me. They can make an educated decision whether being shoved onto Medicaid, for example, beats whatever they have now, etc.
It's not like unions don't "tell their membership who to vote for." They do exactly the same.
GoldenRivet
11-01-10, 01:32 AM
The pamphlet said: “If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above the current levels. If others are elected, we will not.”
not necessarily untrue. ;)
Castout
11-01-10, 01:54 AM
You know slipping political pamphlet into paycheck envelope is at the very least UNETHICAL.
And to add negative implying that could be interpreted as soft threat in it is DISGUSTING.
The methods of THIRD WORLD flop democracies.
GoldenRivet
11-01-10, 02:10 AM
You know slipping political pamphlet into paycheck envelope is at the very least UNETHICAL.
And to add negative implying that could be interpreted as soft threat in it is DISGUSTING.
The methods of THIRD WORLD flop democracies.
True... every word.
papa_smurf
11-01-10, 05:42 AM
How arrogant of them......:nope:
Skybird
11-01-10, 06:03 AM
They're not being told who to vote for. Ballots are secret, they can vote for or against their own interests.
Their employer telling them that they will suffer under one party seems respectful to me. They can make an educated decision whether being shoved onto Medicaid, for example, beats whatever they have now, etc.
It's not like unions don't "tell their membership who to vote for." They do exactly the same.
You are wrong. That ballots are secret, does not change the fact that somebody tries to make them voting what he wants them to vote by implementing intimidation and pressure on them.
There is a legal term for this kind of intimidation they are doing: coercion. That's what it is in the most classical sense.
Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Intimidation) or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way.
In Germany it is a punishable crime that can see a sentence of up to three years (§240 StGB). I'm sure there is a comparable law in the US.
Betonov
11-01-10, 06:50 AM
Considering they are McDonalds workers, two thirds of them would cave in to the coertion since they dont realise that secret ballots are to nullifiy such measures
krashkart
11-01-10, 06:52 AM
"Just pay me my earnings and be done with it. See ya next week." :yep:
SteamWake
11-01-10, 08:49 AM
I guess they were able to negotiate that exemption from Obamacare. Little bit of back scratching going on here I think.
http://www.examiner.com/healthcare-policy-in-rockford/obamacare-waivers-exempt-30-companiessome-30-companies-including-mega-corporation-mcdonalds-have-c
See... the 'right' pepole !! :har:
Intimidation is not passing a note, sorry.
Unions have done this every single election since there were unions. Every election. Members give dues which are donated to candidates regardless of their personal feelings (any of them that don't toe the line on politics). They are harangued in an environment where they all know what happens to those that disagree (how do they treat "scabs," exactly?).
I assume if I search the forum for posts right before elections in past years I'll see the same posters complaining about this complaining about unions?
Look, the bottom line is that I see this like I see censorship. Many on forums will call some group of looks burning some books "censorship," or "book banning." It's NOT. Real censorship requires a state actor (a book can't be "banned" if the only place you can't get it is that church parking lot over there (if Amazon will have it in your hands tomorrow, it ain't banned).
This is similar. If the GOVERNMENT campaigns for a candidate (municipal union workers?) then that is a huge problem. If a private business does, I don't care, not even a little. No employee is FORCED since their employer has NO POSSIBLE WAY TO KNOW WHO THEY VOTED FOR. The proper market response would be if you don't like it, don't buy their stuff. I don;t like labor unions, so I avoid their cars, for example.
AVGWarhawk
11-01-10, 08:58 AM
I'm lovin' it!
:har:
Good one Buddahaid.
Skybird
11-01-10, 08:59 AM
@ tater,
If I participate in a discussion with people who have no further relation to me or do not depend on me, and I explain my argument why I think this or that policy will lead to these or those consequences, then that is one thing. Even if they work for me and I pay them, it would just be an argument.
But if you work for me and I pay your loan, and I give you a note with your latest cheque, telling you: "Vote for this party and you will have no troubles with me, vote for the other party and do not complain if I cut your payment", then that is something totally different.
"Vote for this party and you will have no troubles with me, vote for the other party and do not complain if I cut your payment", then that is something totally different.
Not the same thing.
For it to be a valid threat the employer would have to know how the employee voted. Unless the entire district votes the same way this is just not possible.
mookiemookie
11-01-10, 09:29 AM
How different the comments in this thread would be if someone had slipped an Obama campaign message into those paychecks. It'd be all sorts of righteous outrage and screams of "indoctrination!"
mookiemookie
11-01-10, 09:29 AM
Not the same thing.
For it to be a valid threat the employer would have to know how the employee voted. Unless the entire district votes the same way this is just not possible.
No they wouldn't. Making the threat is coercion enough.
How different the comments in this thread would be if someone had slipped an Obama campaign message into those paychecks. It'd be all sorts of righteous outrage and screams of "indoctrination!"
:sign_yeah:
TLAM Strike
11-01-10, 09:35 AM
Intimidation is not passing a note, sorry.
Intimidate: to compel or deter by or as if by threats.
“If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above the current levels." The compel part.
"If others are elected, we will not.” the threat.
Unions have done this every single election since there were unions
I'm a member of a union and I never saw such things. Ever.
(btw, I'm very aware that unions have some flaws)
How different the comments in this thread would be if someone had slipped an Obama campaign message into those paychecks. It'd be all sorts of righteous outrage and screams of "indoctrination!"
lol ...so true. ;)
gimpy117
11-01-10, 09:46 AM
Intimidation is not passing a note, sorry.
Unions have done this every single election since there were unions. Every election. Members give dues which are donated to candidates regardless of their personal feelings (any of them that don't toe the line on politics). They are harangued in an environment where they all know what happens to those that disagree (how do they treat "scabs," exactly?).
Unions encourage you to vote for a candidate. I'm in a union. We endorsed candidates, and our newsletter had an article about him. But never once was there a slip in my paycheck saying "If you don't vote for this candidate you might not get a raise".
BTW, McDonald have a LOT of restaurants in a LOT of countries in which there are LOT more left-wing home policies than United States and they are VERY able to make profitable business there.
gimpy117
11-01-10, 10:03 AM
the difference is between making a profitable business and an INSANELY profitable one.
there difference is between making a profitable business and an INSANELY profitable one.
hehe.. :DL
Unions encourage you to vote for a candidate. I'm in a union. We endorsed candidates, and our newsletter had an article about him. But never once was there a slip in my paycheck saying "If you don't vote for this candidate you might not get a raise".
How would they know?
This is not a "vote for X, then I dock your check."
This is "vote for X, and his policies (if enacted) will result in us having to dock everyone's check."
HUGE difference.
It is no different than the unions. Anyone offended is free to leave, or start a competitor to McDonalds.
I pretty consistently don't care in the least what employers do, I think they should be able to do pretty much what they want (I think the employer should have the right to fire employees for unionizing, for example)—except when the employer is the government, they need to be held to a FAR higher standard.
It is a fact that the new healthcare law is changing insurance with many companies. Their accountants tell them for planning purposes that if the thing passed we need to do X, Y, and Z. The employer telling the employees this ahead of an election is GOOD. "Regardless of what the candidates tell you, if bills like X, Y, or Z pass, the result for THIS company will be increased cost of your part of insurance, a slowing of raises, and fewer new jobs, or possibly cutbacks depending on how many of these legislative goals are met. Vote how you like, but be cognizant of how it might affect your workplace."
There is no coercion here because the employer cannot possibly know how thew employees voted.
Mookie, regarding Obama supporters doing the same, they DID as I said. Find the post started by me where I complain it's unfair (hint: I didn't). I would complain if a government agency did this, however (a school, municipal office, etc) as they'd be wasting taxpayer money to do so (a clear conflict of interest).
But if you work for me and I pay your loan, and I give you a note with your latest cheque, telling you: "Vote for this party and you will have no troubles with me, vote for the other party and do not complain if I cut your payment", then that is something totally different.
The employer cannot possibly know how anyone voted.
The implication is that the POLICIES of the "bad" candidate will result in a business environment that forces the employer to make these changes negative to the worker.
Let's say there is a new environmental law on the table that candidate X is in favor of that would literally put the employer's business almost out of business. Say it would wipe out 50% of their revenue. Are you suggesting that the employer should be forced to keep this information secret from the employees, or should hge be allowed to say, "BTW, if X is elected and that gives party Y the votes to pass this new law you've heard about, we'll have to close, or fire 50% of you."
Seems like important information for the employees to have.
There is no coercion here because the employer cannot possibly know how thew employees voted.
He doesn't NEED to know, he just have to doubt (or hear gossip, true or invented) for who the employee voted and he can fire him.
How different the comments in this thread would be if someone had slipped an Obama campaign message into those paychecks. It'd be all sorts of righteous outrage and screams of "indoctrination!"
QFT. :yeah:
Skybird
11-01-10, 11:12 AM
Not the same thing.
For it to be a valid threat the employer would have to know how the employee voted. Unless the entire district votes the same way this is just not possible.
No, for a coercion it is enough to try to raise an intimidation even on the basis of false claims or illusive threats. What you describe is already proven "assault".
Like attempted murder still is attempted murder ev en if the assault has not beenj successfully carried out. Or fraudery basing on trying to sell something that does not exist to somebody, remains to be fraudery nevertheless, no matter wshether the intended victim knows it from start on, or not.
In cases like this, the intention is what counts. Which is weikhted so heavily that courts can sentence the perpetrator even if he was unsuccessful and no material damage has been done.
Let's not twist and distort a very simple and very obvious story here. We all know very well what has been tried by McDonalds here. Shame on them.
How different the comments in this thread would be if someone had slipped an Obama campaign message into those paychecks. It'd be all sorts of righteous outrage and screams of "indoctrination!"
Yeah just like you are always complaining when the unions do the exact same thing.... oh wait, you never do that. Apparently you think when the leftist unions do it it's just fine and dandy.
From the article:
The pamphlet said: “If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above the current levels. If others are elected, we will not.” It then named three Republican candidates after stating, “The following candidates are the ones we believe will help our business move forward.”
Note that not once do they tell anyone that "you must vote for XXX or else".
Now viewed in light of your lack of history in complaining about similar union activities I have to doubt your objectivity here.
mookiemookie
11-01-10, 11:34 AM
Yeah just like you are always complaining when the unions do the exact same thing.... oh wait, you never do that. Apparently you think when the leftist unions do it it's just fine and dandy.
From the article:
Note that not once do they tell anyone that "you must vote for XXX or else".
Now viewed in light of your lack of history in complaining about similar union activities I have to doubt your objectivity here.
I've never been in a union. Haven't heard stories about it happening. Can't complain about it then, now can I?
Interesting how Meo has been in a union and he never saw it happen.
Let's not twist and distort a very simple and very obvious story here. We all know very well what has been tried by McDonalds here. Shame on them.
And lets not make mountains out of molehills out of every obvious story either.
When these people loose their jobs or have their wages frozen because the Democrats that were elected force that sorry situation upon businesses, will it also be "shame on them" for not warning their employees?
Nobody was told who to vote for.
Unions have been doing this exact same thing for years. So my question to Mookie goes to you as well. Why haven't you complained when they did it?
They are still doing it! Where is your outrage for their actions? Is it only when it favors the Republicans that you have a problem with the practice?
I've never been in a union. Haven't heard stories about it happening. Can't complain about it then, now can I?
Interesting how Meo has been in a union and he never saw it happen.
You mean to seriously tell me that you've never seen a union endorse a candidate?
mookiemookie
11-01-10, 11:40 AM
You mean to seriously tell me that you've never seen a union endorse a candidate?
You're deliberately confusing the issue. A union endorsement is not the same thing as this situation.
If my employer told me who to vote for (either way) using threats, I'd tell them to blow it out their behind. It's none of their business.
You're deliberately confusing the issue. A union endorsement is not the same thing as this situation.
If my employer told me who to vote for (either way) using threats, I'd tell them to blow it out their behind. It's none of their business.
That's your right. It's their right to speak their mond, too.
Interesting how Meo has been in a union and he never saw it happen.
It's true, maybe because I don't live in the U.S.
I mean, here, media and unions surely have preference in politics but they are a lot more subtle (not like Fox News..;))
We already had few union assembly and it have always been about work, I never heard anything about politics or never saw any pampflet.
----
Edit: Anyway, where I live, the political struggle is more about Separatists vs Federalists than Right vs Left.
It's true, maybe because I don't live in the U.S.
I mean, here, media and unions surely have preference in politics but they are a lot more subtle (not like Fox News..;))
We already had few union assembly and it have always been about work, I never heard anything about politics or never saw any pampflet.
----
Edit: Anyway, where I live, the political struggle is more about Separatists vs Federalists than Right vs Left.
Actually, independent studies of news media in the US show fox's NEWS to be only slightly right of center. Next was National Public Radio (slightly left), and all the other news media was much farther left than fox is right. All claim to be completely unbiased, all farther off center than fox except one (NPR). All in one direction except fox, too. Zero other mass media with any "right" bias at all. But fox must be stopped! LOL.
The single largest financial contributor in this election cycle is the AFL-CIO (union).
One, local Mickey D's franchise must be shut up, though, for telling it like it is to their employees!
Note to small business people: don't say anything about it, but if you need to lay people off (within the same productivity levels of employees—I'd not can a better worker), dump the ones with Obama stickers on the car first ;)
the_tyrant
11-01-10, 02:30 PM
The pamphlet said: “If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above the current levels. If others are elected, we will not.”
I think that this pamphlet simply encouraged people to vote for who they thought was best
It then named three Republican candidates after stating, “The following candidates are the ones we believe will help our business move forward.”
and this simply said who the boss thought was best
Come on, it could have been worse
Actually, independent studies of news media in the US show fox's NEWS to be only slightly right of center. Next was National Public Radio (slightly left), and all the other news media was much farther left than fox is right. All claim to be completely unbiased, all farther off center than fox except one (NPR). All in one direction except fox, too. Zero other mass media with any "right" bias at all. But fox must be stopped! LOL.
Quite surprising to say the least. :o
...can't say more, must go to work.
Quite surprising to say the least. :o
...can't say more, must go to work.
They used a metric to measure the news shows that is also used to rank congressional candidates (note they only examined news shows, not shows that were explicitly opinion (so no O'Reiley, Hannity, Olbermann, etc). Just the straight news.
Anyone who has seen US news (or heard it in the case of NPR), would have no trouble believing the results. Fox is right, the rest are all left, some much farther than others.
Other stats show that the large majority of reporters are personally "left" so again, it's unsurprising.
Actually, independent studies of news media in the US show fox's NEWS to be only slightly right of center. Next was National Public Radio (slightly left), and all the other news media was much farther left than fox is right.
I've seen that mentioned several time recently, but I keep forgetting to look into that. Does anyone have a link handy to any of these studies?
I've seen that mentioned several time recently, but I keep forgetting to look into that. Does anyone have a link handy to any of these studies?
Was a university study before the 2008 election. I think in CA.
The polling of reporters was a similar time frame (over 80% self-IDed left of center I think) (certainly true for the people I know at NPR and the NYT).
And pick up a pay check.....:O:
gimpy117
11-01-10, 03:01 PM
To me It looks like a pretty clear attempt to coerce a response. If it would have been a note saying "oh by the way employees, I like X candidate because of X reason". But instead it's a not telling them if they don't vote republican bad things will happen. That a clear case of holding negative consequences over their employees head to illicit a response. The fact that they can't see the employees votes is moot. They still attempted to use empty threats to change voters habits.
Was a university study before the 2008 election. I think in CA.
Thanks. That gives me a bit more to start searching with.
(note they only examined news shows, not shows that were explicitly opinion (so no O'Reiley, Hannity, Olbermann, etc). Just the straight news.
That's probably why the results seem a bit off from what I expected.
That's probably why the results seem a bit off from what I expected.
Absolutely. I'd not argue that the overall roster on fox news is not farther right than that, it probably is. Of course then you need to similarly analyze the non-news schedules of all the other outlets.
So when ranking ABC, you then need to not just look at the NEWS, but then also the comedies, etc. How many "conservative" sitcoms are there, exactly? Such a broad analysis will clearly throw the other outlets even farther to the left given the other ~20 hours of programming they air every day.
We know people of both parties. Pretty high level, actually, I find myself at functions with governors, senators, etc a couple times a year (the last, sadly was Friday at the memorial for my neighbor who was killed in a ballooning accident over the Adriatic—was odd to hear Gary Johnson say sh*t so many times giving a eulogy). This one couple we're friends with are hard core democratic players. They are docs, and highly partisan. They send invites to $1000 a plate dinners at their house for dem candidates. They send them to people they work with. You think the employees at one of their very large practices are not intimidated by being asked to donate? We typically manage to avoid politics much of the time, and I can avoid some pushiness because I will flat-out state I'm an independent to them. There is enough libertarian (lower case ;) ) crossover on some issues, they likely don't know exactly where I stand compared to them. I do that intentionally, because they'd retaliate with fewer referrals to my wife, likely. They're that partisan.
There are many places in the US where merely being more conservative is "intimidating"—at least as much as this pretty benign paycheck note. (try being conservative in NYC, Santa Fe, or San Francisco... it's just easier to not be political than to be honest and try to "network" there)
Ducimus
11-01-10, 03:28 PM
You know slipping political pamphlet into paycheck envelope is at the very least UNETHICAL.
And to add negative implying that could be interpreted as soft threat in it is DISGUSTING.
The methods of THIRD WORLD flop democracies.
I agree with this sentiment. Who their employee's vote for is none of their business, so they are way out of line here. It makes me wonder what else they've been doing to try and pull political strings.. on that note, i'll add, SHADY, to the above list. Very shady.
That a clear case of holding negative consequences over their employees head to illicit a response.
No it's not. What if every single McD employee votes republican like they *suggested* (ie did NOT demand) and the dems still win? It ain't like the McD vote holds much sway in an election.
Absolutely. I'd not argue that the overall roster on fox news is not farther right than that, it probably is. Of course then you need to similarly analyze the non-news schedules of all the other outlets.
Most of my exposure to Fox News has been due to the fact that my mother-in-law leaves it on all the time, and I only usually see it when I'm there in the evenings. That seems to be when they're running the opinion stuff.
So when ranking ABC, you then need to not just look at the NEWS, but then also the comedies, etc. How many "conservative" sitcoms are there, exactly? Such a broad analysis will clearly throw the other outlets even farther to the left given the other ~20 hours of programming they air every day.
But that would mean I'd actually have to watch TV, and I find that there is really nothing that I can stand to watch anymore...
:nope:
I agree with this sentiment. Who their employee's vote for is none of their business, so they are way out of line here. It makes me wonder what else they've been doing to try and pull political strings.. on that note, i'll add, SHADY, to the above list. Very shady.
You guys are just trying to make political hay out of a few lawn clippings because your party is going to get a bloody nose* tomorrow night. Well learn to deal with it.
* Lest you start accusing me of making threats I meant politically.
Ducimus
11-01-10, 04:17 PM
You guys are just trying to make political hay out of a few lawn clippings because your party is going to get a bloody nose* tomorrow night.
I already said, I'm not voting for either party, and i dislike both equally. Screw em both, because their both the same BS, under a different wrapper. One blue, one red, but the end result is the same BS. So your "your party" line, isnt applicable in my case. On that note, i find this, "us verses them" attitude, is a crock of excrement that needs to go. Your making yourselves into hyphenated Americans, only instead of using ethic backgrounds, your using political ones.
All i was saying, is that McD's is out of line. They're sticking their noses in places it doesn't belong. No employer has any business in their employee's dealings with politics and religion. None what so ever, in any shape or form. Not through direct means, nor implied ones. Doing so, is HIGHLY unethical.
Furthermore, if McD's were telling people to vote for democrates, you (and a few others here) would be having a cow. So i find any defense of McD's, hypocritical at the very least.
mookiemookie
11-01-10, 04:21 PM
I already said, I'm not voting for either party, and i dislike both equally. Screw em both, because their both the same BS, under a different wrapper. One blue, one red, but the end result is the same BS. So your "your party" line, isnt applicable in my case. On that note, i find this, "us verses them" attitude, is a crock of excrement that needs to go. Your making yourselves into hyphenated Americans, only instead of using ethic backgrounds, your using political ones.
All i was saying, is that McD's is out of line. They're sticking their noses in places it doesn't belong. No employer has any business in their employee's dealings with politics and religion. None what so ever, in any shape or form. Not through direct means, nor implied ones. Doing so, is HIGHLY unethical.
Furthermore, if McD's were telling people to vote for democrates, you (and a few others here) would be having a cow. So i find any defense of McD's, hypocritical at the very least.
:sign_yeah:
I'd not have a cow with a private business doing that at all (telling them to vote dem).
heck, a construction firm that works off the government porkbarrel crap likely tells the employees to keep the trough filled by voting democrat.
How is an employer endorsement worse than if the employer is, say, the editor of the newspaper you work for?
Again, if this is unethical, then it is not ethical for unions to get political, either. They ARE political, because they think they'll get pork, or special treatment from one party, so they ARE political. There is no difference whatsoever between unions being political, and management doing the same. None at all.
gimpy117
11-01-10, 04:41 PM
tater, second time, unions endorsing and financing is every different than sticking letters in paychecks that use fear tactics to scare them into voting republican.
the_tyrant
11-01-10, 04:43 PM
tater, second time, unions endorsing and financing is every different than sticking letters in paychecks that use fear tactics to scare them into voting republican.
but don't unions scare members too?
saying that you would lose your job if you voted for this guy.
tater, second time, unions endorsing and financing is every different than sticking letters in paychecks that use fear tactics to scare them into voting republican.
How, exactly? It's a NOTE that explains that the election of some critters might cause laws that force the business to constrain growth.
That is a simple reality.
The boss has exactly zero way to "enforce" this, so there is zero coercion. How are they "scared?" It's an argument, not yelling "boo." Several huge companies have already raised their employee premium on health plans as a result obamacare, for example. Others WILL be booted to medicaid over time as it is cheaper to do this and pay the penalty than actually insure.
I doubt the average McD's voter even shows up on "likely voter" rolls, anyway.
This is a total non-story, and is no different at all than being "intimidated" by a union boss (who might be your foreman, and give you crap jobs if you don't show up for political stuff, etc). Unions are worse, frankly, particularly since member dues are paifd out as contributions to candidates, regardless of the political side of the member.
Skybird
11-01-10, 05:06 PM
Said the guy at court who was sued for rape: "I did not coerce or demand her to get naked and lie down with me when showing her that knife of mine. Nobody can prove that I meant that knife to be a threat to her. I only suggested to her that lying down with me is an option available to her. It's a free country and I just spoke my mind. She then got undressed all by herself, I never told her to do so."
Translates into: "I did not coerce or demand employees of mine to not vote for that wrong party but for the right one, when waving with their paycheques in my hand and telling them they may face financial cuts if they don't do the "right" thing. I only suggested to them that they are free to make that choice of marking their ballots where I want them to mark them. I just spoke my mind."
Some of you guys just erect a smoke screen. You could as well argue that advertisement is not meant to make people stay with or try a given brand, and that all that money is wasted just for fun, with no return in use and effect.
mookiemookie
11-01-10, 05:11 PM
The boss has exactly zero way to "enforce" this, .
Uhh, saying you won't get any raises or bonuses unless this guy gets elected is pretty much coercion.
Furthermore, if McD's were telling people to vote for democrates, you (and a few others here) would be having a cow. So i find any defense of McD's, hypocritical at the very least.
Yeah whatever Ducimus. I think you're "having a cow" now about this McD thing because you care about the Dems more than you and mookie will admit here.
By the way, one of my neighbors is a union electrician (IBEW) and he tells me that they are indeed constantly asked to support democrat candidates. Between that and the fact that their union dues are also used to support the dems this McD story is nothing by comparison.
Uhh, saying you won't get any raises or bonuses unless this guy gets elected is pretty much coercion.
No it's not. Are you seriously trying to claim that McDonalds employees, even if they voted en masse for one side or the other would have any really measurable effect on an election?
gimpy117
11-01-10, 05:20 PM
but don't unions scare members too?
saying that you would lose your job if you voted for this guy.
never happened to me. Im in a union
unions asking to support a candidate is WAY different than putting a shady letter top scare your employees. You guys are just breaking your backs to find a way to make it seem like its not coercion
Uhh, saying you won't get any raises or bonuses unless this guy gets elected is pretty much coercion.
How? They all vote for the dem. How does the boss know, exactly?
Be specific.
BTW, if policies already passed by the supermajority, filibuster-proof, Democrat Congress are going to harm the business, causing fewer raises or even layoffs, that happens regardless of the election unless it gets repealed.
Translates into: "I did not coerce or demand employees of mine to not vote for that wrong party but for the right one, when waving with their paycheques in my hand and telling them they may face financial cuts if they don't do the "right" thing.
Your rape analogy (talk about smoke screens, sheesh!) just does not jibe with the fact that McDonalds (the "rapist") has absolutely no way of determining whether their employees (the rape victims) are complying with the "suggestion".
Your use of such an innacurate and incendiary analogy like rape just illustrates how weak your argument really is.
Ducimus
11-01-10, 05:32 PM
Yeah whatever Ducimus. I think you're "having a cow" now about this McD thing because you care about the Dems more than you and mookie will admit here.
.
You know what that statement tells me. It tells me you are so consumed by partisan hatred, it's blinded you. What i said, was the truth where I'm concerned. I have no reason to lie about personal beliefs. If i supported one party or the other, i would say so. I have nothing to gain by lieing about it, and if i am known for anything on subsim over the last few years, it's usually being brutally honest about what I think.
..unions asking to support a candidate
Tell me where McDonalds "demanded" anything. You can't because they didn't.
Mr. Schulman, who is a lawyer, said that distribution of the pamphlet — which was printed on a McDonald’s letterhead — violates a 1953 Ohio statute that prohibits political material from being attached to wage envelopes.
Anyone want to comment on the fact that, ethical or not, the company seems to be in violation of the law?
gimpy117
11-01-10, 05:43 PM
Tell me where McDonalds "demanded" anything. You can't because they didn't.
yes but instead of talking up the positive points of candidate saying what he can do for you and why you should vote, Mickey D's started twisting their employees arms telling them that if they didn't vote republican bad things would happen to them.
yes but instead of talking up the positive points of candidate saying what he can do for you and why you should vote, Mickey D's started twisting their employees arms telling them that if they didn't vote republican bad things would happen to them.
So what?
Anyone want to comment on the fact that, ethical or not, the company seems to be in violation of the law?
If it's illegal, it's illegal, though I'd argue it as a 1st amendment thing and try to get the law thrown out.
gimpy117
11-01-10, 05:46 PM
So what?
so, when you start using fear tactics and throwing out consequences to gain votes, you go from promoting a candidate to trying to coerce a group of people
so, when you start using fear tactics and throwing out consequences to gain votes, you go from promoting a candidate to trying to coerce a group of people
No.
Coercion requires a credible threat of force.
A credible threat in this case requires that the employer be able to read the employees' minds, or has access to how they voted.
Paramilitary looking guys with nightsticks blocking a polling place... there's a credible threat of force.
gimpy117
11-01-10, 05:52 PM
saying that someone will lost their pay or not get a raise IS a threat
saying that someone will lost their pay or not get a raise IS a threat
No it's not. It's not credible.
Here, I'm going to threaten YOU. Personally, right now. If you don't vote Republican tomorrow your employer will have space aliens vaporize your retirement fund!
How will I he know how you vote?
gimpy117
11-01-10, 06:03 PM
hey tater, you're splitting hairs.
the point is, were not discussing wither or not the threats were credible, were comment on the fact that McDonalds attempted to threaten their employees to make them vote republican. Even if what they say is an empty threat, it's still a threat.
You know what that statement tells me. It tells me you are so consumed by partisan hatred, it's blinded you. What i said, was the truth where I'm concerned. I have no reason to lie about personal beliefs. If i supported one party or the other, i would say so. I have nothing to gain by lieing about it, and if i am known for anything on subsim over the last few years, it's usually being brutally honest about what I think.
Indeed, well let me tell you Ducimus. I am no more blinded by partisan hatred than you are, and that's also being "brutally honest" in my opinion.
hey tater, you're splitting hairs.
the point is, were not discussing wither or not the threats were credible, were comment on the fact that McDonalds attempted to threaten their employees to make them vote republican. Even if what they say is an empty threat, it's still a threat.
It's no threat at all if no one could possibly take it seriously on a personal level.
The "threat" is the argument that more intrusive government policy will hinder business. The threat is REAL if you believe the argument. That is a CHOICE on the part of the employee. If they think the "threat" is overstated, they vote dem (if they were so inclined anyway). If they think it's a reasonable argument, and could be swayed anyway, then they don't vote dem.
In no case are they actually worried about retribution.
Note that the law violate probably doesn't apply to union stuff going out in the mail. Business constrained from political speech, unions get a pass.
Takeda Shingen
11-01-10, 06:12 PM
When I was teaching in the public schools, I recieved countless union newsletters telling me exactly how I was supposed to vote. Much of it was phrased so that the recipient understood that voting a certain way would make it easier for the union to continue to fight for better pay and benefits. I see McDonald's approach here as no different; they are both reprehensible acts.
Bubblehead1980
11-01-10, 06:15 PM
Nothing wrong with the employer informing his employees if they vote for the party is typically anti-business, everyone in the company will suffer.Defthat initely not coercion,unethical? Well prob depends on who you ask.I see nothing wrong with letting employees, who are likely not that educated or informed(not being a snob, but most employees at the Mac are in high school or barely finished, few exceptions I am sure but talking most) So the man who gives these people their jobs is informing them that one side is a bit anti-business, their place of employment may suffer if that party retains power.Yep, nothing wrong, just being a good boss really.
Bubblehead1980
11-01-10, 06:17 PM
When I was teaching in the public schools, I recieved countless union newsletters telling me exactly how I was supposed to vote. Much of it was phrased so that the recipient understood that voting a certain way would make it easier for the union to continue to fight for better pay and benefits. I see McDonald's approach here as no different; they are both reprehensible acts.
Unions are different.They are a third party....supposedly represenative of the employees in the union but unions are just a big money/power scheme really.They get people to join but playing on the fears and promising to stand up for the rights of employees etc, just a bunch of lies really.
Takeda Shingen
11-01-10, 06:19 PM
The problem with saying that they are targeting the high school-aged employees is that the majority of them would be inelligible to vote. No, they are clearly targeting the long-term employees.
EDIT: Regarding unions, I have said repeatedly that the teacher unions are a major obstacle towards reform. Still, if you look at teacher wages and benefits 60 years ago and now, I don't think that there can be any doubt that they have had a major effect on the viability of a career in education. Certainly that change was neither a lie nor an illusion. Whether you agree with their current stance or not is another matter.
Ducimus
11-01-10, 06:20 PM
Indeed, well let me tell you Ducimus. I am no more blinded by partisan hatred than you are, and that's also being "brutally honest" in my opinion.
From what i can tell, the difference is:
you seem to think the object of your loyalties crap doesn't stink, you buy and spout rhetoric and jingoism hook line and sinker, you keep an attitude of them verses us, of acting like your a Republican-American, and your close minded to the everything else.
I say it's all a crock of crap and it stinks, I don't buy into any of their horsecrap, I keep an attitude of there is no whatever-American, only American, nor do i stand off against or shun my countrymen because of their political beliefs, and I am not fixated on just one point of view.
We're done here.
When I was teaching in the public schools, I recieved countless union newsletters telling me exactly how I was supposed to vote. Much of it was phrased so that the recipient understood that voting a certain way would make it easier for the union to continue to fight for better pay and benefits. I see McDonald's approach here as no different; they are both reprehensible acts.
^^^ read and learn, gimpy. This is how it's done.
I can actually find some real agreement here. It's a consistent view, which is a huge plus. It is also probably my "gut" reaction.
Still, on more consideration, I tend towards the least interference on free expression—on the part of employers, or employees (unions)—possible. What groups of people become permitted to engage in political speech then? If an employee sees the boss in the town square on a soapbox pitching for a candidate, would that be illegal, or just if the soapbox is "mailed?" See what I mean? Boss might be saying (to public at large), "If this jerk is elected, I'll have to suspend raises, and maybe fire people!" Is it illegal if an employee ever hears that?
Better to have totally free speech, and suffer some whining, IMHO.
hey tater, you're splitting hairs.
the point is, were not discussing wither or not the threats were credible, were comment on the fact that McDonalds attempted to threaten their employees to make them vote republican. Even if what they say is an empty threat, it's still a threat.
No it's you who is splitting hairs. They didn't threaten anyone. What they said was a simple statement of fact.
If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above the current levels. If others are elected, we will not.
Basically: "If Obamacare is not repealed then it will be financially impossible for the company to maintain it's current compensation levels" - Simple statement of fact.
If you can disprove this somehow then go ahead and make your case. Otherwise I see it as a company doing it's employees a favor by appraising them of the true situation while they still have a chance to at least help do something to stop it.
Let me tell you from personal experience that it is a far better thing than a company telling it's employees "not to worry, everything is just fine" then suddenly lowering the boom without warning. If Obamacare comes on line you are going to see this happen, a lot. But the Democrats do not want you to think about that right now. They want your vote.
This all reminds me of Dukakis claiming during his presidential bid that the "Massachusetts Miracle" was still running at full steam when he knew it was failing. He was willing to ignore the truth in his attempt to get elected. He wanted our votes too. Remember that.
From what i can tell, the difference is:
you seem to think the object of your loyalties crap doesn't stink, you buy and spout rhetoric and jingoism hook line and sinker, you keep an attitude of them verses us, of acting like your a Republican-American, and your close minded to the everything else.
I say it's all a crock of crap and it stinks, I don't buy into any of their horsecrap, I keep an attitude of there is no whatever-American, only American, nor do i stand off against or shun my countrymen because of their political beliefs, and I am not fixated on just one point of view.
We're done here.
No Ducimus, your posts are the total opposite of what you claim and as long as you want to make it personal I have no use for you.
- Now we're done.
DarkFish
11-01-10, 06:31 PM
Basically: "If Obamacare is not repealed then it will be financially impossible for the company to maintain it's current compensation levels" - Simple statement of fact. Still it's a threat.
If threats couldn't be facts, there'd be no reason to be scared of one. Threats are threats because the thing that's threatened with can actually happen.
gimpy117
11-01-10, 06:43 PM
No it's you who is splitting hairs. They didn't threaten anyone. What they said was a simple statement of fact.
you're joking right? It's basically Do what the company wants or your wages will be cut. Telling somebody to do something that will benefit you, whilst reminding them that if they don't, bad things will happen is coercion and a threat.
Bubblehead1980
11-01-10, 06:46 PM
The problem with saying that they are targeting the high school-aged employees is that the majority of them would be inelligible to vote. No, they are clearly targeting the long-term employees.
EDIT: Regarding unions, I have said repeatedly that the teacher unions are a major obstacle towards reform. Still, if you look at teacher wages and benefits 60 years ago and now, I don't think that there can be any doubt that they have had a major effect on the viability of a career in education. Certainly that change was neither a lie nor an illusion. Whether you agree with their current stance or not is another matter.
Well Unions have to get some things done or they wouldnt make money and get power.
As far as the McDonalds things go, the employer was simply trying to let all his employees know that they need to vote for the party that won't harm the business, and thus their jobs.end of story.
High school I was thinking maybe someone who is 18 and plans that to be their college job or just has not real ambitions at the time and wants the steady check etc hoping to move up a little.Bottom line is the D party has an agenda that does not exactly stimulate business.So the owners informing employees and asking them to vote for the one that does care about business, nothing wrong with it.
Ducimus
11-01-10, 06:53 PM
No Ducimus, your posts are the total opposite of what you claim
I have never claimed anything except a dislike of both parties, and of expressing the intention of not voting because i dont see the point in it.
and as long as you want to make it personal
You cast the first stone in a well crafted and pointed sentence. Not I.
I have no use for you.
Oh, i'm heart broken. Boo hoo. Some politically myopic dude on the internet has no use for me. Oh woe is me. Oh what will ever i do?
- Now we're done.
Yeah i know how this works. We keep going back and forth to get the last word in until one of us gives up, or gets brigged, thereby effecting a victory. Ok fine, you "win". Ill put you back on my ignore list now. For awhile there, i was wondering how you ended up there. Now i see why, and i wonder why I ever gave your character the bennfit of the doubt to begin with.
Buh bye.
Still it's a threat.
If threats couldn't be facts, there'd be no reason to be scared of one. Threats are threats because the thing that's threatened with can actually happen.
So someone warning you against stepping out in front a moving bus is threatening you? Interesting theory you got there Dude.
gimpy117
11-01-10, 07:21 PM
So someone warning you against stepping out in front a moving bus is threatening you? Interesting theory you got there Dude.
but that person does not really stand to gain from stopping you from getting hit, other than the common decency and good feeling of saving a life.
McDonalds doesn't want their profits hurt, so them conveniently brining up the "fact" that you're wages might go down if you vote democrat serves their agenda. So no McDonald's is not really helping out their employees at all, they know that Republicans are pro big-business and I'm sure they can't wait to get a boost from the laws they'll pass.
you're joking right? It's basically Do what the company wants or your wages will be cut. Telling somebody to do something that will benefit you, whilst reminding them that if they don't, bad things will happen is coercion and a threat.
So again Gimpy. What happens if the employees actually do what the company wants them to do, completely, 100%, total compliance, but the Democrats still win and Obamacare goes into effect?
Yeah that's right, the wages will still be cut, and maybe some jobs will be lost for good measure.
You are confusing threats to force compliance with events that will occur regardless of whether they comply or not. Totally different things.
Now I don't know about you but as an employee of that company I would want to know the real deal upfront.
but that person does not really stand to gain from stopping you from getting hit, other than the common decency and good feeling of saving a life.
McDonalds doesn't want their profits hurt, so them conveniently brining up the "fact" that you're wages might go down if you vote democrat serves their agenda. So no McDonald's is not really helping out their employees at all, they know that Republicans are pro big-business and I'm sure they can't wait to get a boost from the laws they'll pass.
You didn't read the letter. Not might go down, would go down.
Do you actually prefer that they had concealed this fact from their employees?
The Third Man
11-01-10, 07:42 PM
I get adds in the mail everyday telling me who to vote for. An since when does letting folks know what is in their best interest unethical?
nikimcbee
11-01-10, 07:54 PM
You know slipping political pamphlet into paycheck envelope is at the very least UNETHICAL.
And to add negative implying that could be interpreted as soft threat in it is DISGUSTING.
The methods of THIRD WORLD flop democracies.
Public employee unions do this all the time. So, who cares.
Money speaks its own language, and a conscious employee will not be affected by this
you're joking right? It's basically Do what the company wants or your wages will be cut. Telling somebody to do something that will benefit you, whilst reminding them that if they don't, bad things will happen is coercion and a threat.
The bad things happen regardless of employee action. In addition, the management has ZERO way of knowing if anyone complies with the suggestion, and all the employees know this. The "threat" is imaginary.
I suppose if the employee is so stupid they think the boss can know who they voted for it might be a threat, but frankly someone that stupid shouldn't be voting in the first place.
gimpy117
11-01-10, 09:22 PM
The bad things happen regardless of employee action. In addition, the management has ZERO way of knowing if anyone complies with the suggestion, and all the employees know this. The "threat" is imaginary.
I suppose if the employee is so stupid they think the boss can know who they voted for it might be a threat, but frankly someone that stupid shouldn't be voting in the first place.
but it's still a threat
Takeda Shingen
11-01-10, 09:25 PM
but it's still a threat
Come on, gimpy. It's been clearly illustrated that this is the same as union endorsement. Don't be the guy who gets his points refuted but still continues with 'nuh-uh' ad nauseum.
Takeda Shingen, while I agree at first blush it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, what is the alternative? Laws that forbid political speech on the part of employers only? That forbid unions—which are simply groups of people, or do unions then need to be officially recognized to exist and be subject to restrictions? It gets needlessly complicated, IMO. I'd rather see no holds barred.
gimpy117
11-01-10, 09:32 PM
Come on, gimpy. It's been clearly illustrated that this is the same as union endorsement. Don't be the guy who gets his points refuted but still continues with 'nuh-uh' ad nauseum.
how it is the same as a union endorsement? theres no supporting of the candidates, no "we support this candidate press release" just a shady letter in your paycheck saying you need to vote republican or be afraid. Im sorry. but I cannot for a second believe that attempting to manipulate your employees through fear is anything like an endorsement.
Takeda Shingen
11-01-10, 09:32 PM
Takeda Shingen, while I agree at first blush it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, what is the alternative? Laws that forbid political speech on the part of employers only? That forbid unions—which are simply groups of people, or do unions then need to be officially recognized to exist and be subject to restrictions? It gets needlessly complicated, IMO. I'd rather see no holds barred.
I certainly don't like it, but I also agree with you that there is very little that can be done largely, as you said, due to the slippery slope that would follow.
Takeda Shingen
11-01-10, 09:34 PM
how it is the same as a union endorsement? theres no supporting of the candidates, no "we support this candidate press release" just a shady letter in your paycheck saying you need to vote republican or be afraid. Im sorry. but I cannot for a second believe that attempting to manipulate your employees is anything like an endorsement.
I'm just saying that the union pamphlets that I recieved for many years read exactly the same as the what was given to the McDonalds employees.
gimpy117
11-01-10, 09:35 PM
I'm just saying that the union pamphlets that I recieved for many years read exactly the same as the what was given to the McDonalds employees.
well those are shady was well. Two wrongs to not make a right Takeda.
and McDonalds isn't a 3rd party union as well...this is a company trying to directly manipulate voters.
DarkFish
11-01-10, 09:37 PM
So someone warning you against stepping out in front a moving bus is threatening you? Interesting theory you got there Dude.Nope, because the guy warning you doesn't want anything from you.
Now if that guy said "give me all your money or you might end up under that bus", that would sound very different, wouldn't it?
If you replace "give me your money" with "vote Republicans", and "under that bus" with "with a lower pay", in what exactly does it differ?
Good threats always have the potential to be true. If a mobster says to a shop owner "Pay protection money or you might get robbed," the shop owner knows for a fact he *will* get robbed if he doesn't pay.
Any threat that can't be true is not a good threat. For example, if a random subsim member who doesn't even know you in RL told you he's gonna send a kill squad over to your place, would you feel threatened?
So your saying that it cannot be a threat because it is a fact, just isn't right. At all.
Takeda Shingen
11-01-10, 09:42 PM
well those are shady was well. Two wrongs to not make a right Takeda.
and McDonalds isn't a 3rd party union as well...this is a company trying to directly manipulate voters.
The line from the teacher's union was not at all subtle either: A career in education is a tumultuous one. All teachers will eventually run into problems with parents and students. Administrators and union representatives are part of a critical support team for the professional educator. Educators that voice opinions contrary to the stated goals and preferences of the union may not recieve an adequate amount of support.
You hear very little dissent from teachers for that very reason. Thou shalt not break the unwritten rule.
gimpy117
11-01-10, 09:46 PM
The line from the teacher's union was not at all subtle either: A career in education is a tumultuous one. All teachers will eventually run into problems with parents and students. Administrators and union representatives are part of a critical support team for the professional educator. Educators that voice opinions contrary to the stated goals and preferences of the union may not recieve an adequate amount of support.
You hear very little dissent from teachers for that very reason. Thou shalt not break the unwritten rule.
well that equally wrong. Luckily the UFCW does not do that. but it isn't so much of a memo to get you to vote a way as it to get you to fall in line and not rock the boat. But yes, out of all the unions...the teachers union is a very stubborn beast. It's no wonder they demand such conformity from members
Takeda Shingen
11-01-10, 09:48 PM
well that equally wrong. Luckily the UFCW does not do that. but it isn't so much of a memo to get you to vote a way as it to get you to fall in line and not rock the boat. But yes, out of all the unions...the teachers union is a very stubborn beast. It's no wonder they demand such conformity from members
The reason I wanted to get my doctorate was to get out of K-12 education. And the reason that I wanted out of K-12 education was the teachers union.
The bad things happen regardless of employee action. In addition, the management has ZERO way of knowing if anyone complies with the suggestion, and all the employees know this. The "threat" is imaginary.
I suppose if the employee is so stupid they think the boss can know who they voted for it might be a threat, but frankly someone that stupid shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Tater,
the "threat" is not if the employees don't vote for the "chosen ones". The threat is about the "chosen ones" not getting elected. The "management" does not have to track individual employee vote (which is impossible) but merely the results of the election. And in this context it not only "promotes" what an employ should vote but it also suggests, indirectly, a more active role in the campaign (not only "your" vote but your friend's, too).
.
The Third Man
11-01-10, 11:02 PM
If people don't know their vote is private, and the MC'Ds insert is a political ad then our education system has failed.
Tater,
the "threat" is not if the employees don't vote for the "chosen ones". The threat is about the "chosen ones" not getting elected. The "management" does not have to track individual employee vote (which is impossible) but merely the results of the election. And in this context it not only "promotes" what an employ should vote but it also suggests, indirectly, a more active role in the campaign (not only "your" vote but your friend's, too).
The end result is the same. The big-spenders in power will result in a bad business environment (except for a business that sucks at the government teat). So it behoves those people to try and avoid that, or they too will be at risk job wise.
It's merely a statement of reality and would have happened if the boss had not sent the letter. Sending it was a nice heads up to the employees, frankly (maybe they're still waiting for Obama to pay their bills?).
Submarine
11-01-10, 11:52 PM
Isn't this move against federal law?
Nope, because the guy warning you doesn't want anything from you.
Now if that guy said "give me all your money or you might end up under that bus", that would sound very different, wouldn't it?
If you replace "give me your money" with "vote Republicans", and "under that bus" with "with a lower pay", in what exactly does it differ?
Good threats always have the potential to be true. If a mobster says to a shop owner "Pay protection money or you might get robbed," the shop owner knows for a fact he *will* get robbed if he doesn't pay.
Any threat that can't be true is not a good threat. For example, if a random subsim member who doesn't even know you in RL told you he's gonna send a kill squad over to your place, would you feel threatened?
So your saying that it cannot be a threat because it is a fact, just isn't right. At all.
Baldersdash. Look for one last time.
1. McDonalds has absolutely no way of determining how an employee will vote.
2. They could get full employee compliance and it will still make little difference to the outcome of the election.
3. If the Dems win the Federal laws that are responsible for the pay cut will remain in force and the pay cut will happen even if every employee voted for the recommended candidates like they have been asked.
Now every one of these ridiculous and increasingly violent analogies you and the others put forth here are rendered totally invalid by those essential facts. If you're going to make analogies at least make them plausibly accurate. This isn't Hollywood, vivid imagery doesn't substitute for substance.
Basically: "If Obamacare is not repealed then it will be financially impossible for the company to maintain it's current compensation levels" - Simple statement of fact.
A fact or something they want you to believe as a fact. ;)
----
Imagine the news!!
from Mcdonald's officials:
''As responsible managers we have decided that it's no longer profitable to make business here in the U.S. due to the Obamacare''.
''Rest assured, all our remaining restaurants in China, Russia, India, Egypt and France will still operate as usual''. :)
----
1. McDonalds has absolutely no way of determining how an employee will vote.
Again, McDonald's doesn't need to prove anything.
If I'm your boss and I suspect you didn't vote ''correctly'' then I can fire you right now (by inventing another excuse).
A fact or something they want you to believe as a fact.
Well like you said they don't need to have proof, so what makes you require proof before you will believe they will do what they have publicly said they will do?
Imagine the news!!
from Mcdonald's officials:
''As responsible managers we have decided that it's no longer profitable to make business here in the U.S. due to the Obamacare''.
Are you actually saying that McDonalds couldn't give it's employees a pay or benefits cut without having to close it's doors totally? Really? Man these fail analogies are becoming positively epic! :DL
Are you actually saying that McDonalds couldn't give it's employees a pay or benefits cut without having to close it's doors totally? Really? Man these fail analogies are becoming positively epic! :DL
Well I don't have any business data and I would be surprised if you would. ;)
But what I know is that they are fully able to make profitable business in contries that have a LOT more left-wing home policies than the United States.
Let's try to be reasonable and not cede to panic, I'm sure an arrangement would be possible.
Let's try to be reasonable and not cede to panic, I'm sure an arrangement would be possible.
Well yeah, the arraignment will be that the employees will take a pay and/or benefits cut and everyone (or at least most) will get to keep their jobs.
The employer could fire them then anyway, after reading their minds and determining they voted wrong.
You have to bend over backwards to make this a "threat." It's ridiculous. My guess is that it has the opposite effect, too, my reaction to being told to do something has traditionally been to try and do the opposite :)
They employees are brainwashed, :doh:
Catfish
11-02-10, 08:54 AM
Hello,
it is a bit like this sign "Do not pee against the lamp post."
No one would ever have thought of doing it, but this sign ... :D
Maybe the republicans just lost a lot of McD workers.
Greetings,
Catfish
Or is it vice versa, :lurk:
The employer could fire them then anyway, after reading their minds and determining they voted wrong.
True story.
2 months ago, my cousin wrote on Facebook that he had an interview on Friday (IIRC, and he took a day off or half a day?? anyway..). Many of his ''Friends'' were workmate. On Monday, his boss told him to come in his office and told him: ''So it looks like you hate your job...''
For some reason, I don't think his employer read his mind...
The employer could fire them then anyway, after reading their minds and determining they voted wrong.
You have to bend over backwards to make this a "threat." It's ridiculous. My guess is that it has the opposite effect, too, my reaction to being told to do something has traditionally been to try and do the opposite :)
As I said before the criterion is if "they" are elected not if the employees vote for "them" :doh:. You know, when the "managment" wrote down that note, they should be more specific on what they actually communicated to the employees, putting aside the legality or how proper the whole thing was. You are quite on the point, on the "reactionary" effect all this might actually have! :yep:
.
SteamWake
11-02-10, 10:35 AM
I just realized this morning that all this tizzy is over one single store where the manager decided to do this.
Now I dont know about your office / workplace but we discuss who to vote for alot.
I'm pretty confident that most of the burger flippers saw this note in their pay envelope and promptly filed it in the waste basket unread.
As always this seems to be much to do about nothing.
I'm pretty confident that most of the burger flippers saw this note in their pay envelope and promptly filed it in the waste basket unread.
As always this seems to be much to do about nothing.
Of course, I agree.
What amaze me is that some folks here seems to see it as an interesting concept (i.e. for any jobs).
DarkFish
11-02-10, 10:40 AM
1. McDonalds has absolutely no way of determining how an employee will vote.Doesn't matter, since McDonalds isn't the "executing force" behind the threat.
2. They could get full employee compliance and it will still make little difference to the outcome of the election.Doesn't matter either, they try to make their employers think otherwise.
3. If the Dems win the Federal laws that are responsible for the pay cut will remain in force and the pay cut will happen even if every employee voted for the recommended candidates like they have been asked.Doesn't matter. At the very most this makes it an empty threat, but a threat nonetheless.
Now every one of these ridiculous and increasingly violent analogies you and the others put forth here are rendered totally invalid by those essential facts.Facts that have no influence whatsoever over if it's a threat or not.
If you're going to make analogies at least make them plausibly accurate. This isn't Hollywood, vivid imagery doesn't substitute for substance.Does "vivid imagery" make an analogy false?
EDIT: Just a reminder: who came up with the "vividly imagined" false analogy of the man warning you to step in front of a bus? It wasn't me. Pot calling the kettle black.
@DarkFish! In your headline "edit" (at the bottom of your mail) on any bus story so it can be taken from the "air"
Webster
11-02-10, 11:29 AM
You know slipping political pamphlet into paycheck envelope is at the very least UNETHICAL.
And to add negative implying that could be interpreted as soft threat in it is DISGUSTING.
The methods of THIRD WORLD flop democracies.
i see it as an advance notice of a change in benefits and its a common practice done by many companies and as someone else has already stated its even worse by unions who DO actually tell you who to vote for by name.
the notice these employees got was only pointing out the truth by stating facts which is no more of a threat then telling someone if you touch a hot stove you will burn your hand. there is no difference there.
if the democrats continue and the republicans cant put a stop to the madness then yes companies large and small will continue to cut benefits and lay off more and more workers.
Just a reminder: who came up with the "vividly imagined" false analogy of the man warning you to step in front of a bus? It wasn't me. Pot calling the kettle black.
It's ridiculous to compare an accurate friendly warning meant to save a person from harm with a threat uttered during the act of a heinous crime like rape. If you don't understand the difference it is a waste of my time arguing with you about it.
Have a nice day *
* That was not intended as a threat.
DarkFish
11-02-10, 12:05 PM
It's ridiculous to compare an accurate friendly warning meant to save a person from harm with a threat uttered during the act of a heinous crime like rape. If you don't understand the difference it is a waste of my time arguing with you about it.It would be utterly easy to explain this to you, but since you don't give me the chance as you've finished discussing, why should I?
Have a nice day *you too. Please know I don't have any ill feelings towards you.
an accurate friendly warning
This is where we disagree, you think of them as ''friends''.
I think they are neither my friend nor my enemy, they just want to maximise their profits no matter what it takes (even if they have to get in very unethical practices).
Honesty, probity and transparency are not qualities of a ''good corporate manager''.
This is where we disagree, you think of them as ''friends''.
I think they are neither my friend nor my enemy, they just want to maximise their profits no matter what it takes (even if they have to get in very unethical practices).
Honesty, probity and transparency are not qualities of a ''good corporate manager''.
Dude, it comes down to this:
You either prefer that a company share this type of information with it's employees or you don't.
For those who don't, perhaps you could explain why being blindsided by a pay cut later on is preferable to being given advance warning.
Edit: Oh and "friendly" was referring to a warning against stepping in front of moving bus.
I posed a hypothetical someplace above.
Your workplace subsists on government pork as a primary revenue source.
Is it OK for your employers to tell the employees that one side of a coming political season will increase business, while the other might gut it, resulting in layoffs?
If you maintain they should be forbidden from making such statements, by law, then what? Who may engage in political speech?
I'll take virtually any amount of distasteful speech in order to protect unfettered political speech (1st Amendment).
Harrah's employees told to vote for Reid.
http://watchdogmedia.org/national/Harrahs/Harrahs_Early_Vote_Email_trail_110210.pdf
So what.
See, don't care about that, either.
Harrah's employees told to vote for Reid.
http://watchdogmedia.org/national/Harrahs/Harrahs_Early_Vote_Email_trail_110210.pdf
So what.
See, don't care about that, either.
But, but, the forum Democrats clearly told us that there'd be all sorts of righteous outrage and screams of "indoctrination!.
The wouldn't lie about our feelings would they? :doh:
AVGWarhawk
11-02-10, 02:34 PM
I vote McRib!
mookiemookie
11-02-10, 05:09 PM
But, but, the forum Democrats clearly told us that there'd be all sorts of righteous outrage and screams of "indoctrination!.
The wouldn't lie about our feelings would they? :doh:
Just because you don't think these kind of things are wrong doesn't make them right. I don't care who's doing it for which side.
Yeah, but if we look at the forum archives, will we see the same OP posting about Unions coercing members to vote a certain way?
Also, are you only against this harrah's thing because it was management doing the asking?
I think this sort of thing is less heinous than abridging free political speech. So even if I think it's distasteful, I don't see a better alternative that preserves a fair ability for all sides to speak...
mookiemookie
11-02-10, 06:01 PM
Yeah, but if we look at the forum archives, will we see the same OP posting about Unions coercing members to vote a certain way?
Also, are you only against this harrah's thing because it was management doing the asking?
I think this sort of thing is less heinous than abridging free political speech. So even if I think it's distasteful, I don't see a better alternative that preserves a fair ability for all sides to speak...
I'm against anyone in a position of power over someone to influence their vote. Free speech has limits.
I'm against anyone in a position of power over someone to influence their vote. Free speech has limits.
So no employer is allowed to publicly state a political opinion? Business magnate gets on TV and says party A needs to win or his many businesses will face losses and layoffs. Send him to jail?
That's practical, and not a massive attack on liberty?
Just because you don't think these kind of things are wrong doesn't make them right. I don't care who's doing it for which side.
Uh huh.
How different the comments in this thread would be if someone had slipped an Obama campaign message into those paychecks. It'd be all sorts of righteous outrage and screams of "indoctrination!"
Well that is what you said. It didn't happen. Now why not just apologize for saying it instead of trying to weasel out of it?
gimpy117
11-02-10, 07:40 PM
I vote McRib!
yes! this candidate will surely not leave a bad taste in our mouths!
yes! this candidate will surely not leave a bad taste in our mouths!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-bYaXed-rQU/TKpQiOG6YbI/AAAAAAAAFLo/vjMgkwnJfPk/s400/things-that-reportedly-taste-like-chicken.gif
mookiemookie
11-02-10, 08:21 PM
Uh huh.
Well that is what you said. It didn't happen. Now why not just apologize for saying it instead of trying to weasel out of it?
http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/n/pukeface.gif
http://forums.slipknot1.com/images/style-slipknot/smilies-2/neener.gif
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
11-03-10, 12:56 AM
So no employer is allowed to publicly state a political opinion? Business magnate gets on TV and says party A needs to win or his many businesses will face losses and layoffs. Send him to jail?
That's practical, and not a massive attack on liberty?
Personally, I'll strongly encourage employers, should they feel the need to express a political opinion, to do so in an appropriate forum, such as with their own peers at dinner parties. Or at least mixing in a Net forum where all are anonymous.
The intent of free speech is to allow the free flow of information and ideas. However, when a person in power speaks, his words inevitably become a crimp on further flow of expression. This is why a smart boss at a meeting tactfully does his best to hide his opinion till all arguments have been heard, at least if he actually WANTS to hear an exchange of ideas.
Thus, for the same reason that governmental officials have their rights restricted on this point, so should bosses. As far as the proletariat are concerned, they are not very different.
As for this particular incident, I must say I see you and August blubbering to cover and minimize something that you know is wrong but for some reason do not want to admit.
Even though you are right that in theory the boss can't know what is voted, that's not the same as saying this will have no chilling effect on the freedom of expression which you claim to value so much. At the very least, I'll bet that no employee will dare advocate for the Democrats after such a stunt. They'll even have to be very careful on forums or Facebook, lest the boss or some informer see it.
Correct moves for the boss, in descending order of favorability:
a) Allow the Republicans already in the mob to carry the banner for him. The correct use of intermediaries is a basic boss skill.
b) Should there be no Republicans in the mob, well, who knows maybe his employees are right so he should shut his trap.
c) Should he feel very compelled to express his opinion, he might quietly use some bulletin board and anonymously put up some suitable article supporting his opinion.
d) If he cannot express his opinion anonymously, he must realize whatever he does will have a de facto chilling effect, but the decision to express his opinion in someone's paycheck is pretty much rock bottom.
A different view of the "status quo"!
As for this particular incident, I must say I see you and August blubbering
You know what Kaz. I reject your analysis and I resent your insulting characterizations. There is nothing at all wrong with an employer giving his opinion and that's the same whether and while you may object to the idea, (while completely ignoring the fact that unions do the exact same thing and to a much greater degree).
The bottom line is that the "mob" won back part of Congress. We now have shared power. Live with it.
No, I honestly don't see how you can reasonably legislate their speech away without causing greater harm.
Should unions be forced to be a-political in all mailings, and only political at dinner parties, etc?
Just don't see a good stopping point.
VonHesse
11-03-10, 09:03 AM
It seems that some of you are intentionally missing the point. No one is infringing on the company's right to free speech. The fact of the matter is that attaching the note to employee paychecks is ILLEGAL under current Ohio law. There's really no grey area here. The law says not to do it, therefore it shouldn't have been done, and the franchise owner (not McDonalds) is in violation of the law.
From the original artlcle :
...distribution of the pamphlet — which was printed on a McDonald’s letterhead — violates a 1953 Ohio statute that prohibits political material from being attached to wage envelopes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/us/politics/30ohio.html?_r=1&bl
Not that I expect that the introduction of facts to into the discussion will change anyone's opinion...
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
11-03-10, 09:06 AM
You know what Kaz. I reject your analysis and I resent your insulting characterizations.
There is nothing at all wrong with an employer giving his opinion and that's the same whether and while you may object to the idea,
Sorry, the idea that our friend was merely innocently giving his opinion by sticking it into his employees' paychecks has less credibility than the idea that all those American recce planes that went into the Eastern bloc (and vice versa) did so due to "navigation error".
It would be ignoring human nature to deny that a boss expressing his opinion on any issue, even in a far more innocent manner than employed here, has a chilling effect.
Given this, if we take Freedom of Expression as a good to be maximized as much as possible, then we may argue that a boss' chilling effect is great enough that the net loss of partially muzzling him may be less than allowing him to shoot his big, powerful mouth off in public. A similar consideration has led to restrictions on governmental officials. I don't see why a boss, with similar de facto power over his subje ... err employees, should necessarily be exempt from such considerations.
We may also conclude if a boss has to express himself, he should endeavor to minimize the loss of Freedom of Expression. Which, uh, is not, by the most generous interpretation, happening here - in fact, he seems flat out set to maximize it.
(while completely ignoring the fact that unions do the exact same thing and to a much greater degree).
I'm not very familiar with American unions, but if you can show me them threatening (whether you think the threat is effective or not) their members, I'll consider the merits of the case.
In any case, even if the world does raise louder screams over Israeli strafing of Palestinians than the inverse, it does not mean Israel was not evil in strafing the Palestinians. Same thing here.
The bottom line is that the "mob" won back part of Congress. We now have shared power. Live with it.
Well, I don't have to live with it either way (at least not directly), since I don't live in America, so I get to look at this issue on its merits.
I don't see why a boss, with similar de facto power over his subje ... err employees
And this illustrates very clearly why we American should never listen to foreigners. We don't have subjects in this country. The whole idea is repellent to us.
mookiemookie
11-03-10, 09:34 AM
And this illustrates very clearly why we American should never listen to foreigners. We don't have subjects in this country. The whole idea is repellent to us.
Did you really not get the joke or are you willfully ignoring it? Do you really think that he believes we have subjects in this country?
The 1953 Ohio law strikes me as unconstitutional.
Again, those who find this repellant, what would the law be? No political stuff in a paycheck envelope? But when they hand out the checks they could also give you a separate envelope? Could they do it with your retirement info mailer? Is the point just that they need to waste another envelope, or is the employer forbidden to mail such speech? Can the employer state political views at the office?
What about worker organizations, shouldn't they be similarly constrained?
Did you really not get the joke or are you willfully ignoring it? Do you really think that he believes we have subjects in this country?
Weren't you just claiming in another thread that humorous fiction "proved" your point? Now we're not supposed to take such comparisons seriously? :roll:
The 1953 Ohio law strikes me as unconstitutional.
Again, those who find this repellant, what would the law be? No political stuff in a paycheck envelope? But when they hand out the checks they could also give you a separate envelope? Could they do it with your retirement info mailer? Is the point just that they need to waste another envelope, or is the employer forbidden to mail such speech? Can the employer state political views at the office?
What about worker organizations, shouldn't they be similarly constrained?
Note that not one of them had an answer to the question of whether they preferred the company to withhold that pay cut information from it's employees instead of telling them up front.
VonHesse
11-03-10, 11:37 AM
The 1953 Ohio law strikes me as unconstitutional.
Whether or not you believe it to be unconstitutional, the fact remains that it is the law of the land in Ohio. Given that it has been on the books since '53, and neither struck down by the courts, nor repealed by the voters of Ohio, it should be considered to represent the will of the people of Ohio. You wouldn't be suggesting that a State's right to govern itself as it sees fit should be infringed upon just because you dissagree with the result, would you?
Again, those who find this repellant, what would the law be?
Not what "should" it be, but what it is. The law (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3599.05):
No employer or his agent or a corporation shall print or authorize to be printed upon any pay envelopes any statements intended or calculated to influence the political action of his or its employees; or post or exhibit in the establishment or anywhere in or about the establishment any posters, placards, or hand bills containing any threat, notice, or information that if any particular candidate is elected or defeated work in the establishment will cease in whole or in part, or other threats expressed or implied, intended to influence the political opinions or votes of his or its employees.
Therefore:
No political stuff in a paycheck envelope?
None.
But when they hand out the checks they could also give you a separate envelope?
No. That would be a hand bill.
Could they do it with your retirement info mailer?
Probably, since you would no longer be an employee of the company.
Is the point just that they need to waste another envelope, or is the employer forbidden to mail such speech?
The point as I see it (just my opinion) is to avoid the appearance of impropriety, coercion, and/or voter intimidation in the workplace. The central point, though (and one that requires no opinion at all), is that this is a statute that the citizens of Ohio have voted for and upheld. It is the law that they have chosen to enact, and that's really all there is to it.
Can the employer state political views at the office?
Absolutely. Freedom of speech, and whatnot.
What about worker organizations, shouldn't they be similarly constrained?
No. Workers organizations are not employers. There is no paycheck involved, therefore no paycheck to attacth a political hand bill to. Should the Chamber of Commerce be restricted from advocating for their legislator of choice? Of course not.
UnderseaLcpl
11-03-10, 11:57 AM
I'm with tater on this one.:salute:
Take it from me, I work in one of the most heavily unionized private industries in the country, but the unions aren't even as nice or discreet as a paycheck pamphlet when it comes to this sort of thing. There are rallies and propaganda and office posterboards galore, to say nothing of the stigma that comes with being identified as anything other than a staunch Democrat.
Skybird brought up the point of coercion, and he is somewhat correct that the association between a paycheck and a vote can be coercive.... to weak-willed idiots. Granted, a significant portion of the electorate is comprised of said idiots, but there is no cure for idiocy and trying to develop a system in which they are not taken advantage of in some way is an exercise in futility. Moreover, it's an outright repudiation of the principles of individual human sovereignty and dignity.
I ask the naysayers to think about it for a moment. Where the McDonalds corporation will never know if its employees voted, much less how they voted, unions are comprised of people who are ever on the alert for anyone who might sabotage the Democratic agenda they are so heavily invested in for their own benefit. Again, I ask you to believe me on this one as a man who has been stigmatized as a "company man", a "fascist", and even a "Pinkerton".
The really interesting thing about this is the attention it has recieved in the media and on this forum. Unions take advantage of us (Americans) every day with their completely illogical and excessive demands by abusing our system of government to further their own interests at the cost of others in this nation and throughout the world; an agenda which is decidedly against progressive ideals.* Even so, the rather trivial act of a corporation, which itself is a bunch of people working to achieve prosperity for themselves by actually providing something other people want at a reasonable price (even Democrats choose to eat at McDonalds), is suddenly rebuked for daring to support a party which is somewhat less disinclined to their interests!? Really!?
Such a concept probably sounds idiotic and beneath the dignity of honest liberals when I say it the way I did above, but it is the truth. For those who still don't understand, let me make it perfectly clear; You have been prostituted by the collective self-interest of people who can simply make convincing arguments as to why their prosperity is critical to your own.
Admittedly, I don't work for BNSF Railways Inc out of the goodness of my heart, or because I have a passion for trains. I work for BNSF because it's an easy ride to prosperity. I am no saint, but at least I have the temerity and honesty to admit that I'm prospering and making insane wages for the very simple work I do because my union uses every mechanism it can to dupe you out of your money. I'm not proud of it, but at least I'm honest. You are, all of you, being railroaded by the railroad unions, amongst others. You have to pay more for goods so that I can enjoy a relatively carefree lifestyle. That is not right. Were I a better man, I would quit out of principle, but I need to keep a roof over my head, and I'm a lazy jerk to boot. But you don't even have the choice of kicking a-holes like me out of our positions.
The unions, which are comprised of like-minded, and often worse people, won't let you. They've already co-opted the political system by pulling on your heartstrings; an easy thing to do in prosperous nation where people have the resources and therefore the freedom to be inattentive.
Do you get it yet? You've been had by people who have capitalized on their own self-interst at your expense, unknowingly or not. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should be attacking McDonalds for pursuing its own self-interest at no-one's expense whilst labor unions circumvent discussions such as these and rely upon federal mandate to force you to pay for their prosperity. It isn't right, it isn't fair, and it certainly isn't productive. It isn't this ridiculous indictment of McDonalds that needs to be pursued, it's the already effective agenda of unions who try to circumvent the laws of free trade for their own benefit, and the politicians who shamelessly court their vote for their own benefit.
nikimcbee
11-03-10, 12:30 PM
Hey James, good to see you!:salute:
If you don't like it, go work for burger king:shucks:.
AVGWarhawk
11-03-10, 12:40 PM
http://www.funcage.com/photos/Relax.jpg (http://www.funcage.com/?)
Squeeze out this thread, :yawn:
I think a law is unconstitutional if I think it is unconstitutional. I disagree with all unconstitutional laws, so in that sense, yeah, I disagree with it. I don't think it's unconstitutional because I disagree, I disagree because I think it's unconstitutional. To be challenged, a case has to be brought to court, then make it to the SCOTUS. It is possible that it has simply never happened yet.
BTW, I never said that the guy could not be prosecuted, or even that he should not if that's the law of Ohio. In fact I said he should (so he can take it to the SCOTUS). What I said was that I didn't have a problem with the mailer, personally, as I think it is free speech.
Arbitrary limits on speech are... arbitrary. Speech in paychack or handbill = bad. Boss calling a meeting and saying the same thing = OK? Makes no sense whatsoever, the difference is arbitrary, and stupid. A law that constrains employer speech, leaving employee speech unfettered is an arbitrary limitation.
Since we have secret ballots in the US, the notion that the employer has some power over the vote is absurd on its face. His only power comes from how compelling his argument is.
gimpy117
11-03-10, 03:21 PM
I think that Ohio law is a good one.
free speech isn't a licence to be able to say absolutely everything.
you can't verbally harass somebody, You can't use your speech to slander, and it seems appropriate to have a law saying that you cannot use your speech coerce or threaten.
McDonald's can ask their employees to vote for a candidate, and It's well within the franchise owners rights to support his candidate. However the memo in the paycheck was an attempt at subtle coercion, and that should not stand. especially when that memo attempts to influence somebody's protected right to vote.
I do however, feel that when companies get involved in elections it is a very dangerous game to play. many corporations already hold very big steaks in Washington via lobbies. I feel that them also trying to influence elections is a scary, scary proposition
CaptainHaplo
11-03-10, 05:11 PM
So one McDonalds Manager is to be roasted for this... but I guess the executives at Harrahs casino in nevada, and the staff for Harry Reid get a pass on this?
http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/251906/collusion-harrahs-bosses-put-squeeze-employees-vote-reid-elizabeth-crum
The quote to:
The Reid staffer suggests that Harrah’s execs “put a headlock on your supervisors to get them to follow through.” is in fact a suggestion to use PHYSICAL COERCION.
But funny - no one wants to discuss this little tidbit do they? You don't hear a blip on it - but how many of you subsimmers think that the one McDonalds employs more than Harrahs in Nevada?
Edit - as for the pamphlet being illegal - the law says no political material may be "attached" to their paycheck. Unless the manager stapled the pamphlet to their check, or he required some level of proof that the employee had voted as he wanted to recieve their paycheck, there was no "attachment" involved, and thus no violation of law. What is it when you suggest someone physically assault someone to get them to do what you want though? If it is actually done its definitely a violation of law....
The Third Man
11-03-10, 06:19 PM
I read that a certain Las Vegas Casino did the same thing for its employees.
Unions do the same thing with its membership. This is much ado about nothing. SCOTUS has ruled on many occasions that donations in kind and money is a form of speech protected against government intervention by the fourth amendment.
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
11-04-10, 12:35 AM
Note that not one of them had an answer to the question of whether they preferred the company to withhold that pay cut information from it's employees instead of telling them up front.
OK, I'll bite the bullet. Given the relative benefits and costs, I'll say that I prefer for the boss to hold his tongue on this issue. It is his employee's duty, in a reasonably free country w/ a reasonably free press, to educate themselves of the pros and cons of each party's position to themselves, and make a choice. The employer marks his ballot in a way that he hopes will favor him, and his employees do the same.
Further, even if you insist that the net costs and benefits means the employer should have informed them in some manner, I repeat
We may also conclude if a boss has to express himself, he should endeavor to minimize the loss of Freedom of Expression. Which, uh, is not, by the most generous interpretation, happening here - in fact, he seems flat out set to maximize it.
If a boss must educate (rather than instruct) his subordinates about how to vote, he should be as NPOV as possible. One possible idea may be, if the company has the equivalent of a newsletter, to use that to explain the platform of both sides, and the pros and cons of each. That may not be perfect but it beats the idea of slipping only one position into a paycheck all hollow.
As for Unions, one should graduate from the defense "everyone is doing it" by the time they leave primary school...
CaptainHaplo
11-04-10, 06:19 AM
To say that "everyone is doing it is a grade school defense" is fine - but ONLY if you are fairly castigating ALL entities that are participating. To fail to do so is to support an existing double standard.
Notice that the pamphlet didn't say wages would be CUT - it said future raises, etc would be at risk. It didn't say that if you voted wrong that you would lose your job, it said that depending on who was elected, future growth opportunity could be affected.
There was no violation of law, though one could argue it was rather a "dirty" thing to do. Yet there is a clear violation of law in the Harrah's example, but it seems that the left on this board is intent on continuing to ignore that episode entirely.
Wonder why? Same reason they want to ignore the fact that union programmed machines repeatedly demonstrated "programming errors" that resulted in many votes for republicans being recorded as votes for democrats, which were caught and corrected by voters......
Etc Etc....
Ignore all you want, the reality is you have one minor thing that you want to harp on, when there are demonstrable misconduct on the part of the left that isn't making a blip on the radar. Corruption exists everywhere, but its on one side more than the other.
It is his employee's duty, in a reasonably free country w/ a reasonably free press, to educate themselves of the pros and cons of each party's position to themselves, and make a choice. The employer marks his ballot in a way that he hopes will favor him, and his employees do the same.
That sounds all well and good, sort of a legislative "caveat emptor" but the health care bill was how many thousands of pages of legalese? Even the people who signed the bill did not understand the ramifications, so how can we reasonably expect that some kid working the drive thru lane will be able to educate himself to the pros and cons of each parties position?
If a boss must educate (rather than instruct) his subordinates about how to vote, he should be as NPOV as possible. One possible idea may be, if the company has the equivalent of a newsletter, to use that to explain the platform of both sides, and the pros and cons of each. That may not be perfect but it beats the idea of slipping only one position into a paycheck all hollow.
This is not one side of a political argument, it is a statement of intent.
ie "If X occurs then Y will be the result."
ersonally I would be majorly pissed off if I had my pay cut without notice then I found out later they could have informed me but were afraid to tell me.
As for Unions, one should graduate from the defense "everyone is doing it" by the time they leave primary school...
So does that mean the unions long standing and far more egregious history of doing the same type thing should be ignored in favor of lambasting a single instance initiated by a local manager of a business? That is a rather blatant hypocrisy that I'm surprised you actualy favor.
Takeda Shingen
11-04-10, 10:24 AM
To say that "everyone is doing it is a grade school defense" is fine - but ONLY if you are fairly castigating ALL entities that are participating. To fail to do so is to support an existing double standard.
Notice that the pamphlet didn't say wages would be CUT - it said future raises, etc would be at risk. It didn't say that if you voted wrong that you would lose your job, it said that depending on who was elected, future growth opportunity could be affected.
There was no violation of law, though one could argue it was rather a "dirty" thing to do. Yet there is a clear violation of law in the Harrah's example, but it seems that the left on this board is intent on continuing to ignore that episode entirely.
Wonder why? Same reason they want to ignore the fact that union programmed machines repeatedly demonstrated "programming errors" that resulted in many votes for republicans being recorded as votes for democrats, which were caught and corrected by voters......
Etc Etc....
Ignore all you want, the reality is you have one minor thing that you want to harp on, when there are demonstrable misconduct on the part of the left that isn't making a blip on the radar. Corruption exists everywhere, but its on one side more than the other.
Someone has been drinking the smart juice. Seriously, you've been on fire lately, Haplo. Remind me not to cross you. :up:
CaptainHaplo
11-04-10, 10:34 AM
Thank ya Takeda. :salute:
I just call it like I see it and am glad that people on BOTH sides are starting - just starting - to see that BOTH sides screw up. I won't defend the manager much in this case - he did something that was dirty, underhanded and violated the INTENT of voter protection laws, regardless of not violating the letter of the law. If anything - the guy should be skewered for violating the core ethics of the group he was trying to support.
On the other hand, the lack of attention to other "irregularities" does get to me, because its almost like we, the general public, "expect" bad behavior from some and without calling it out - it can't be fixed. Its not to deride the group - because its not everyone that does it. But if its not addressed publicly - it will keep going - on BOTH sides.
DarkFish
11-04-10, 01:23 PM
This is not one side of a political argument, it is a statement of intent.Isn't that exactly what each side of a political argument is, a statement of intent? Each party states what his intent is, and the pros of it, and the cons of the opponent's intents.
AVGWarhawk
11-04-10, 01:34 PM
All I know is the friggin happy meal is being banned. :down:
gimpy117
11-04-10, 01:41 PM
All I know is the friggin happy meal is being banned. :down:
crap...now where will i get all my free toys? :wah:
Isn't that exactly what each side of a political argument is, a statement of intent? Each party states what his intent is, and the pros of it, and the cons of the opponent's intents.
No a political argument is a statement of preference, not intent.
"If elected I will push for a ban on dark beer." <-- Preference
"If dark beer is banned I will stop serving it in my pub" <--- Intent
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.