McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

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?

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.

[tater]

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by tater

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.

[Gerald]

A different view of the "status quo"!

[August]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.

[tater]

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.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

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?