McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for

[Gerald]

WASHINGTON — When workers in a McDonald’s restaurant in Canton, Ohio, opened their paychecks this month, they found a pamphlet urging them to vote for the Republican candidates for governor, Senate and Congress, or possibly face financial repercussions. The pamphlet appeared calculated to intimidate workers into voting for Republican candidates by making a direct reference to their wages and benefits, said Allen Schulman, a Democrat who is president of the Canton City Council and said he obtained a copy of the pamphlet on Wednesday.

The pamphlet said: “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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/us...30ohio.html?bl


Note:Published: October 29, 2010

[Buddahaid]

I'm lovin' it!

[Méo]

Disgusting.

[Castout]

[Stealth Hunter]

Son...

...I am disappoint...

[tater]

They're not being told who to vote for. Ballots are secret, they can vote for or against their own interests.

Their employer telling them that they will suffer under one party seems respectful to me. They can make an educated decision whether being shoved onto Medicaid, for example, beats whatever they have now, etc.

It's not like unions don't "tell their membership who to vote for." They do exactly the same.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Vendor

The pamphlet said: “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.”

not necessarily untrue.

[Castout]

You know slipping political pamphlet into paycheck envelope is at the very least UNETHICAL.

And to add negative implying that could be interpreted as soft threat in it is DISGUSTING.

The methods of THIRD WORLD flop democracies.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Castout

You know slipping political pamphlet into paycheck envelope is at the very least UNETHICAL.

And to add negative implying that could be interpreted as soft threat in it is DISGUSTING.

The methods of THIRD WORLD flop democracies.

True... every word.

[papa_smurf]

How arrogant of them......

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by tater

They're not being told who to vote for. Ballots are secret, they can vote for or against their own interests.

Their employer telling them that they will suffer under one party seems respectful to me. They can make an educated decision whether being shoved onto Medicaid, for example, beats whatever they have now, etc.

It's not like unions don't "tell their membership who to vote for." They do exactly the same.

You are wrong. That ballots are secret, does not change the fact that somebody tries to make them voting what he wants them to vote by implementing intimidation and pressure on them.

There is a legal term for this kind of intimidation they are doing: coercion. That's what it is in the most classical sense.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way.

In Germany it is a punishable crime that can see a sentence of up to three years (§240 StGB). I'm sure there is a comparable law in the US.

[Betonov]

Considering they are McDonalds workers, two thirds of them would cave in to the coertion since they dont realise that secret ballots are to nullifiy such measures

[krashkart]

"Just pay me my earnings and be done with it. See ya next week."

[SteamWake]

I guess they were able to negotiate that exemption from Obamacare. Little bit of back scratching going on here I think.

http://www.examiner.com/healthcare-p...donalds-have-c

See... the 'right' pepole !!

[tater]

Intimidation is not passing a note, sorry.

Unions have done this every single election since there were unions. Every election. Members give dues which are donated to candidates regardless of their personal feelings (any of them that don't toe the line on politics). They are harangued in an environment where they all know what happens to those that disagree (how do they treat "scabs," exactly?).

I assume if I search the forum for posts right before elections in past years I'll see the same posters complaining about this complaining about unions?

Look, the bottom line is that I see this like I see censorship. Many on forums will call some group of looks burning some books "censorship," or "book banning." It's NOT. Real censorship requires a state actor (a book can't be "banned" if the only place you can't get it is that church parking lot over there (if Amazon will have it in your hands tomorrow, it ain't banned).

This is similar. If the GOVERNMENT campaigns for a candidate (municipal union workers?) then that is a huge problem. If a private business does, I don't care, not even a little. No employee is FORCED since their employer has NO POSSIBLE WAY TO KNOW WHO THEY VOTED FOR. The proper market response would be if you don't like it, don't buy their stuff. I don;t like labor unions, so I avoid their cars, for example.