McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for - Page 10

tater · 11-02-10, 02:11 PM

I posed a hypothetical someplace above.

Your workplace subsists on government pork as a primary revenue source.

Is it OK for your employers to tell the employees that one side of a coming political season will increase business, while the other might gut it, resulting in layoffs?

If you maintain they should be forbidden from making such statements, by law, then what? Who may engage in political speech?

I'll take virtually any amount of distasteful speech in order to protect unfettered political speech (1st Amendment).

tater · 11-02-10, 02:15 PM

Harrah's employees told to vote for Reid.

http://watchdogmedia.org/national/Ha...ail_110210.pdf

So what.

See, don't care about that, either.

August · 11-02-10, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Harrah's employees told to vote for Reid.

http://watchdogmedia.org/national/Ha...ail_110210.pdf

So what.

See, don't care about that, either.

But, but, the forum Democrats clearly told us that there'd be all sorts of righteous outrage and screams of "indoctrination!.

The wouldn't lie about our feelings would they?

AVGWarhawk · 11-02-10, 02:34 PM

I vote McRib!

mookiemookie · 11-02-10, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

But, but, the forum Democrats clearly told us that there'd be all sorts of righteous outrage and screams of "indoctrination!.

The wouldn't lie about our feelings would they?

Just because you don't think these kind of things are wrong doesn't make them right. I don't care who's doing it for which side.

tater · 11-02-10, 05:24 PM

Yeah, but if we look at the forum archives, will we see the same OP posting about Unions coercing members to vote a certain way?

Also, are you only against this harrah's thing because it was management doing the asking?

I think this sort of thing is less heinous than abridging free political speech. So even if I think it's distasteful, I don't see a better alternative that preserves a fair ability for all sides to speak...

mookiemookie · 11-02-10, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Yeah, but if we look at the forum archives, will we see the same OP posting about Unions coercing members to vote a certain way?

Also, are you only against this harrah's thing because it was management doing the asking?

I think this sort of thing is less heinous than abridging free political speech. So even if I think it's distasteful, I don't see a better alternative that preserves a fair ability for all sides to speak...

I'm against anyone in a position of power over someone to influence their vote. Free speech has limits.

tater · 11-02-10, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I'm against anyone in a position of power over someone to influence their vote. Free speech has limits.

So no employer is allowed to publicly state a political opinion? Business magnate gets on TV and says party A needs to win or his many businesses will face losses and layoffs. Send him to jail?

That's practical, and not a massive attack on liberty?

August · 11-02-10, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Just because you don't think these kind of things are wrong doesn't make them right. I don't care who's doing it for which side.

Uh huh.

Quote:

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!"

Well that is what you said. It didn't happen. Now why not just apologize for saying it instead of trying to weasel out of it?

gimpy117 · 11-02-10, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I vote McRib!

yes! this candidate will surely not leave a bad taste in our mouths!

August · 11-02-10, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117

yes! this candidate will surely not leave a bad taste in our mouths!

mookiemookie · 11-02-10, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Uh huh.

Well that is what you said. It didn't happen. Now why not just apologize for saying it instead of trying to weasel out of it?

Kazuaki Shimazaki II · 11-03-10, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

So no employer is allowed to publicly state a political opinion? Business magnate gets on TV and says party A needs to win or his many businesses will face losses and layoffs. Send him to jail?

That's practical, and not a massive attack on liberty?

Personally, I'll strongly encourage employers, should they feel the need to express a political opinion, to do so in an appropriate forum, such as with their own peers at dinner parties. Or at least mixing in a Net forum where all are anonymous.

The intent of free speech is to allow the free flow of information and ideas. However, when a person in power speaks, his words inevitably become a crimp on further flow of expression. This is why a smart boss at a meeting tactfully does his best to hide his opinion till all arguments have been heard, at least if he actually WANTS to hear an exchange of ideas.

Thus, for the same reason that governmental officials have their rights restricted on this point, so should bosses. As far as the proletariat are concerned, they are not very different.

As for this particular incident, I must say I see you and August blubbering to cover and minimize something that you know is wrong but for some reason do not want to admit.

Even though you are right that in theory the boss can't know what is voted, that's not the same as saying this will have no chilling effect on the freedom of expression which you claim to value so much. At the very least, I'll bet that no employee will dare advocate for the Democrats after such a stunt. They'll even have to be very careful on forums or Facebook, lest the boss or some informer see it.

Correct moves for the boss, in descending order of favorability:
a) Allow the Republicans already in the mob to carry the banner for him. The correct use of intermediaries is a basic boss skill.
b) Should there be no Republicans in the mob, well, who knows maybe his employees are right so he should shut his trap.
c) Should he feel very compelled to express his opinion, he might quietly use some bulletin board and anonymously put up some suitable article supporting his opinion.
d) If he cannot express his opinion anonymously, he must realize whatever he does will have a de facto chilling effect, but the decision to express his opinion in someone's paycheck is pretty much rock bottom.

Gerald · 11-03-10, 07:08 AM

A different view of the "status quo"!

August · 11-03-10, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

As for this particular incident, I must say I see you and August blubbering

You know what Kaz. I reject your analysis and I resent your insulting characterizations. There is nothing at all wrong with an employer giving his opinion and that's the same whether and while you may object to the idea, (while completely ignoring the fact that unions do the exact same thing and to a much greater degree).

The bottom line is that the "mob" won back part of Congress. We now have shared power. Live with it.

11-02-10, 02:34 PM	#139
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,303 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	I vote McRib! __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

11-03-10, 07:08 AM	#149
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	A different view of the "status quo"! __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

11-02-10, 02:11 PM	#136
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	I posed a hypothetical someplace above. Your workplace subsists on government pork as a primary revenue source. Is it OK for your employers to tell the employees that one side of a coming political season will increase business, while the other might gut it, resulting in layoffs? If you maintain they should be forbidden from making such statements, by law, then what? Who may engage in political speech? I'll take virtually any amount of distasteful speech in order to protect unfettered political speech (1st Amendment).

11-02-10, 02:15 PM	#137
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Harrah's employees told to vote for Reid. http://watchdogmedia.org/national/Ha...ail_110210.pdf So what. See, don't care about that, either.

11-02-10, 05:24 PM	#141
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Yeah, but if we look at the forum archives, will we see the same OP posting about Unions coercing members to vote a certain way? Also, are you only against this harrah's thing because it was management doing the asking? I think this sort of thing is less heinous than abridging free political speech. So even if I think it's distasteful, I don't see a better alternative that preserves a fair ability for all sides to speak...