:sign_yeah:

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.

I'm a member of a union and I never saw such things. Ever.

(btw, I'm very aware that unions have some flaws)

lol ...so true. ;)

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.

the difference is between making a profitable business and an INSANELY profitable one.

hehe.. :DL

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).

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.

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.

QFT. :yeah:

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.

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.

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?

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.

That's your right. It's their right to speak their mond, too.

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 ;)