McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for

[gimpy117]

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.

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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.

[Bubblehead1980]

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.

[Takeda Shingen]

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.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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?

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?

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

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.