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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

^^^ 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.

No it's you who is splitting hairs. They didn't threaten anyone. What they said was a simple statement of fact.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You cast the first stone in a well crafted and pointed sentence. Not I.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.