McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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 is anything like an endorsement.

I'm just saying that the union pamphlets that I recieved for many years read exactly the same as the what was given to the McDonalds employees.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I'm just saying that the union pamphlets that I recieved for many years read exactly the same as the what was given to the McDonalds employees.

well those are shady was well. Two wrongs to not make a right Takeda.
and McDonalds isn't a 3rd party union as well...this is a company trying to directly manipulate voters.

[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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

well those are shady was well. Two wrongs to not make a right Takeda.
and McDonalds isn't a 3rd party union as well...this is a company trying to directly manipulate voters.

The line from the teacher's union was not at all subtle either: A career in education is a tumultuous one. All teachers will eventually run into problems with parents and students. Administrators and union representatives are part of a critical support team for the professional educator. Educators that voice opinions contrary to the stated goals and preferences of the union may not recieve an adequate amount of support.

You hear very little dissent from teachers for that very reason. Thou shalt not break the unwritten rule.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The line from the teacher's union was not at all subtle either: A career in education is a tumultuous one. All teachers will eventually run into problems with parents and students. Administrators and union representatives are part of a critical support team for the professional educator. Educators that voice opinions contrary to the stated goals and preferences of the union may not recieve an adequate amount of support.

You hear very little dissent from teachers for that very reason. Thou shalt not break the unwritten rule.

well that equally wrong. Luckily the UFCW does not do that. but it isn't so much of a memo to get you to vote a way as it to get you to fall in line and not rock the boat. But yes, out of all the unions...the teachers union is a very stubborn beast. It's no wonder they demand such conformity from members

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

well that equally wrong. Luckily the UFCW does not do that. but it isn't so much of a memo to get you to vote a way as it to get you to fall in line and not rock the boat. But yes, out of all the unions...the teachers union is a very stubborn beast. It's no wonder they demand such conformity from members

The reason I wanted to get my doctorate was to get out of K-12 education. And the reason that I wanted out of K-12 education was the teachers union.

[Diopos]

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.

Tater,
the "threat" is not if the employees don't vote for the "chosen ones". The threat is about the "chosen ones" not getting elected. The "management" does not have to track individual employee vote (which is impossible) but merely the results of the election. And in this context it not only "promotes" what an employ should vote but it also suggests, indirectly, a more active role in the campaign (not only "your" vote but your friend's, too).


.

If people don't know their vote is private, and the MC'Ds insert is a political ad then our education system has failed.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Tater,
the "threat" is not if the employees don't vote for the "chosen ones". The threat is about the "chosen ones" not getting elected. The "management" does not have to track individual employee vote (which is impossible) but merely the results of the election. And in this context it not only "promotes" what an employ should vote but it also suggests, indirectly, a more active role in the campaign (not only "your" vote but your friend's, too).

The end result is the same. The big-spenders in power will result in a bad business environment (except for a business that sucks at the government teat). So it behoves those people to try and avoid that, or they too will be at risk job wise.

It's merely a statement of reality and would have happened if the boss had not sent the letter. Sending it was a nice heads up to the employees, frankly (maybe they're still waiting for Obama to pay their bills?).

[Submarine]

Isn't this move against federal law?

[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.

[Méo]

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.

A fact or something they want you to believe as a fact.

----

Imagine the news!!

from Mcdonald's officials:

''As responsible managers we have decided that it's no longer profitable to make business here in the U.S. due to the Obamacare''.

''Rest assured, all our remaining restaurants in China, Russia, India, Egypt and France will still operate as usual''.

----

Originally Posted by August

1. McDonalds has absolutely no way of determining how an employee will vote.

Again, McDonald's doesn't need to prove anything.

If I'm your boss and I suspect you didn't vote ''correctly'' then I can fire you right now (by inventing another excuse).

[August]

Originally Posted by Méo

A fact or something they want you to believe as a fact.

Well like you said they don't need to have proof, so what makes you require proof before you will believe they will do what they have publicly said they will do?

Imagine the news!!

from Mcdonald's officials:

''As responsible managers we have decided that it's no longer profitable to make business here in the U.S. due to the Obamacare''.

Are you actually saying that McDonalds couldn't give it's employees a pay or benefits cut without having to close it's doors totally? Really? Man these fail analogies are becoming positively epic!

[Méo]

Originally Posted by August

Are you actually saying that McDonalds couldn't give it's employees a pay or benefits cut without having to close it's doors totally? Really? Man these fail analogies are becoming positively epic!

Well I don't have any business data and I would be surprised if you would.

But what I know is that they are fully able to make profitable business in contries that have a LOT more left-wing home policies than the United States.

Let's try to be reasonable and not cede to panic, I'm sure an arrangement would be possible.

[August]

Originally Posted by Méo

Let's try to be reasonable and not cede to panic, I'm sure an arrangement would be possible.

Well yeah, the arraignment will be that the employees will take a pay and/or benefits cut and everyone (or at least most) will get to keep their jobs.