McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for

[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.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by August

No Ducimus, your posts are the total opposite of what you claim

I have never claimed anything except a dislike of both parties, and of expressing the intention of not voting because i dont see the point in it.

and as long as you want to make it personal

You cast the first stone in a well crafted and pointed sentence. Not I.

I have no use for you.

Oh, i'm heart broken. Boo hoo. Some politically myopic dude on the internet has no use for me. Oh woe is me. Oh what will ever i do?

- Now we're done.

Yeah i know how this works. We keep going back and forth to get the last word in until one of us gives up, or gets brigged, thereby effecting a victory. Ok fine, you "win". Ill put you back on my ignore list now. For awhile there, i was wondering how you ended up there. Now i see why, and i wonder why I ever gave your character the bennfit of the doubt to begin with.

Buh bye.

[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

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.

So again Gimpy. What happens if the employees actually do what the company wants them to do, completely, 100%, total compliance, but the Democrats still win and Obamacare goes into effect?

Yeah that's right, the wages will still be cut, and maybe some jobs will be lost for good measure.

You are confusing threats to force compliance with events that will occur regardless of whether they comply or not. Totally different things.

Now I don't know about you but as an employee of that company I would want to know the real deal upfront.

[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?

[nikimcbee]

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.

Public employee unions do this all the time. So, who cares.

[Gerald]

Money speaks its own language, and a conscious employee will not be affected by this

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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.

The bad things happen regardless of employee action. In addition, the management has ZERO way of knowing if anyone complies with the suggestion, and all the employees know this. The "threat" is imaginary.

I suppose if the employee is so stupid they think the boss can know who they voted for it might be a threat, but frankly someone that stupid shouldn't be voting in the first place.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by tater

The bad things happen regardless of employee action. In addition, the management has ZERO way of knowing if anyone complies with the suggestion, and all the employees know this. The "threat" is imaginary.

I suppose if the employee is so stupid they think the boss can know who they voted for it might be a threat, but frankly someone that stupid shouldn't be voting in the first place.

but it's still a threat

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

but it's still a threat

Come on, gimpy. It's been clearly illustrated that this is the same as union endorsement. Don't be the guy who gets his points refuted but still continues with 'nuh-uh' ad nauseum.

[tater]

Takeda Shingen, while I agree at first blush it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, what is the alternative? Laws that forbid political speech on the part of employers only? That forbid unions—which are simply groups of people, or do unions then need to be officially recognized to exist and be subject to restrictions? It gets needlessly complicated, IMO. I'd rather see no holds barred.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Come on, gimpy. It's been clearly illustrated that this is the same as union endorsement. Don't be the guy who gets his points refuted but still continues with 'nuh-uh' ad nauseum.

how it is the same as a union endorsement? theres no supporting of the candidates, no "we support this candidate press release" just a shady letter in your paycheck saying you need to vote republican or be afraid. Im sorry. but I cannot for a second believe that attempting to manipulate your employees through fear is anything like an endorsement.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

Takeda Shingen, while I agree at first blush it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, what is the alternative? Laws that forbid political speech on the part of employers only? That forbid unions—which are simply groups of people, or do unions then need to be officially recognized to exist and be subject to restrictions? It gets needlessly complicated, IMO. I'd rather see no holds barred.

I certainly don't like it, but I also agree with you that there is very little that can be done largely, as you said, due to the slippery slope that would follow.