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.

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?

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?

yes! this candidate will surely not leave a bad taste in our mouths!

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/n/pukeface.gif

http://forums.slipknot1.com/images/s...s-2/neener.gif

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"!

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.

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 :

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/us...o.html?_r=1&bl

Not that I expect that the introduction of facts to into the discussion will change anyone's opinion...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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?

Not what "should" it be, but what it is. The law:

Therefore:

None.

No. That would be a hand bill.

Probably, since you would no longer be an employee of the company.

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.

Absolutely. Freedom of speech, and whatnot.

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.

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.