McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for

[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.

[Skybird]

@ tater,

If I participate in a discussion with people who have no further relation to me or do not depend on me, and I explain my argument why I think this or that policy will lead to these or those consequences, then that is one thing. Even if they work for me and I pay them, it would just be an argument.

But if you work for me and I pay your loan, and I give you a note with your latest cheque, telling you: "Vote for this party and you will have no troubles with me, vote for the other party and do not complain if I cut your payment", then that is something totally different.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"Vote for this party and you will have no troubles with me, vote for the other party and do not complain if I cut your payment", then that is something totally different.

Not the same thing.

For it to be a valid threat the employer would have to know how the employee voted. Unless the entire district votes the same way this is just not possible.

[mookiemookie]

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!"

[razark]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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!"

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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!"

QFT.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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!"

Yeah just like you are always complaining when the unions do the exact same thing.... oh wait, you never do that. Apparently you think when the leftist unions do it it's just fine and dandy.


From the article:

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.” It then named three Republican candidates after stating, “The following candidates are the ones we believe will help our business move forward.”

Note that not once do they tell anyone that "you must vote for XXX or else".


Now viewed in light of your lack of history in complaining about similar union activities I have to doubt your objectivity here.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah just like you are always complaining when the unions do the exact same thing.... oh wait, you never do that. Apparently you think when the leftist unions do it it's just fine and dandy.


From the article:


Note that not once do they tell anyone that "you must vote for XXX or else".


Now viewed in light of your lack of history in complaining about similar union activities I have to doubt your objectivity here.

I've never been in a union. Haven't heard stories about it happening. Can't complain about it then, now can I?

Interesting how Meo has been in a union and he never saw it happen.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I've never been in a union. Haven't heard stories about it happening. Can't complain about it then, now can I?

Interesting how Meo has been in a union and he never saw it happen.

You mean to seriously tell me that you've never seen a union endorse a candidate?

[Méo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Interesting how Meo has been in a union and he never saw it happen.

It's true, maybe because I don't live in the U.S.

I mean, here, media and unions surely have preference in politics but they are a lot more subtle (not like Fox News..)

We already had few union assembly and it have always been about work, I never heard anything about politics or never saw any pampflet.

----

Edit: Anyway, where I live, the political struggle is more about Separatists vs Federalists than Right vs Left.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Not the same thing.

For it to be a valid threat the employer would have to know how the employee voted. Unless the entire district votes the same way this is just not possible.

No they wouldn't. Making the threat is coercion enough.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Not the same thing.

For it to be a valid threat the employer would have to know how the employee voted. Unless the entire district votes the same way this is just not possible.

No, for a coercion it is enough to try to raise an intimidation even on the basis of false claims or illusive threats. What you describe is already proven "assault".

Like attempted murder still is attempted murder ev en if the assault has not beenj successfully carried out. Or fraudery basing on trying to sell something that does not exist to somebody, remains to be fraudery nevertheless, no matter wshether the intended victim knows it from start on, or not.

In cases like this, the intention is what counts. Which is weikhted so heavily that courts can sentence the perpetrator even if he was unsuccessful and no material damage has been done.

Let's not twist and distort a very simple and very obvious story here. We all know very well what has been tried by McDonalds here. Shame on them.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Let's not twist and distort a very simple and very obvious story here. We all know very well what has been tried by McDonalds here. Shame on them.

And lets not make mountains out of molehills out of every obvious story either.

When these people loose their jobs or have their wages frozen because the Democrats that were elected force that sorry situation upon businesses, will it also be "shame on them" for not warning their employees?

Nobody was told who to vote for.

Unions have been doing this exact same thing for years. So my question to Mookie goes to you as well. Why haven't you complained when they did it?
They are still doing it! Where is your outrage for their actions? Is it only when it favors the Republicans that you have a problem with the practice?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Skybird

But if you work for me and I pay your loan, and I give you a note with your latest cheque, telling you: "Vote for this party and you will have no troubles with me, vote for the other party and do not complain if I cut your payment", then that is something totally different.

The employer cannot possibly know how anyone voted.

The implication is that the POLICIES of the "bad" candidate will result in a business environment that forces the employer to make these changes negative to the worker.

Let's say there is a new environmental law on the table that candidate X is in favor of that would literally put the employer's business almost out of business. Say it would wipe out 50% of their revenue. Are you suggesting that the employer should be forced to keep this information secret from the employees, or should hge be allowed to say, "BTW, if X is elected and that gives party Y the votes to pass this new law you've heard about, we'll have to close, or fire 50% of you."

Seems like important information for the employees to have.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by tater

Intimidation is not passing a note, sorry.

Intimidate: to compel or deter by or as if by threats.


“If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above the current levels." The compel part.

"If others are elected, we will not.” the threat.