McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for

[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.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

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

Doesn't matter, since McDonalds isn't the "executing force" behind the threat.

2. They could get full employee compliance and it will still make little difference to the outcome of the election.

Doesn't matter either, they try to make their employers think otherwise.

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.

Doesn't matter. At the very most this makes it an empty threat, but a threat nonetheless.

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.

Facts that have no influence whatsoever over if it's a threat or not.

If you're going to make analogies at least make them plausibly accurate. This isn't Hollywood, vivid imagery doesn't substitute for substance.

Does "vivid imagery" make an analogy false?

EDIT: Just a reminder: who came up with the "vividly imagined" false analogy of the man warning you to step in front of a bus? It wasn't me. Pot calling the kettle black.

[Gerald]

@DarkFish! In your headline "edit" (at the bottom of your mail) on any bus story so it can be taken from the "air"

[August]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

Just a reminder: who came up with the "vividly imagined" false analogy of the man warning you to step in front of a bus? It wasn't me. Pot calling the kettle black.

It's ridiculous to compare an accurate friendly warning meant to save a person from harm with a threat uttered during the act of a heinous crime like rape. If you don't understand the difference it is a waste of my time arguing with you about it.


Have a nice day *























































* That was not intended as a threat.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

It's ridiculous to compare an accurate friendly warning meant to save a person from harm with a threat uttered during the act of a heinous crime like rape. If you don't understand the difference it is a waste of my time arguing with you about it.

It would be utterly easy to explain this to you, but since you don't give me the chance as you've finished discussing, why should I?

Have a nice day *

you too. Please know I don't have any ill feelings towards you.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by August

an accurate friendly warning

This is where we disagree, you think of them as ''friends''.

I think they are neither my friend nor my enemy, they just want to maximise their profits no matter what it takes (even if they have to get in very unethical practices).

Honesty, probity and transparency are not qualities of a ''good corporate manager''.

[August]

Originally Posted by Méo

This is where we disagree, you think of them as ''friends''.

I think they are neither my friend nor my enemy, they just want to maximise their profits no matter what it takes (even if they have to get in very unethical practices).

Honesty, probity and transparency are not qualities of a ''good corporate manager''.

Dude, it comes down to this:

You either prefer that a company share this type of information with it's employees or you don't.

For those who don't, perhaps you could explain why being blindsided by a pay cut later on is preferable to being given advance warning.


Edit: Oh and "friendly" was referring to a warning against stepping in front of moving bus.

[CaptainHaplo]

So one McDonalds Manager is to be roasted for this... but I guess the executives at Harrahs casino in nevada, and the staff for Harry Reid get a pass on this?

http://www.nationalreview.com/battle...elizabeth-crum

The quote to:
The Reid staffer suggests that Harrah’s execs “put a headlock on your supervisors to get them to follow through.” is in fact a suggestion to use PHYSICAL COERCION.

But funny - no one wants to discuss this little tidbit do they? You don't hear a blip on it - but how many of you subsimmers think that the one McDonalds employs more than Harrahs in Nevada?

Edit - as for the pamphlet being illegal - the law says no political material may be "attached" to their paycheck. Unless the manager stapled the pamphlet to their check, or he required some level of proof that the employee had voted as he wanted to recieve their paycheck, there was no "attachment" involved, and thus no violation of law. What is it when you suggest someone physically assault someone to get them to do what you want though? If it is actually done its definitely a violation of law....

[Gerald]

Good link!