McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I'm lovin' it!

Good one Buddahaid.

[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!"

[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.

[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!"

[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.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by tater

Unions have done this every single election since there were unions

I'm a member of a union and I never saw such things. Ever.

(btw, I'm very aware that unions have some flaws)

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!"

lol ...so true.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by 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?).

Unions encourage you to vote for a candidate. I'm in a union. We endorsed candidates, and our newsletter had an article about him. But never once was there a slip in my paycheck saying "If you don't vote for this candidate you might not get a raise".

[Méo]

BTW, McDonald have a LOT of restaurants in a LOT of countries in which there are LOT more left-wing home policies than United States and they are VERY able to make profitable business there.

[gimpy117]

the difference is between making a profitable business and an INSANELY profitable one.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

there difference is between making a profitable business and an INSANELY profitable one.

hehe..

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Unions encourage you to vote for a candidate. I'm in a union. We endorsed candidates, and our newsletter had an article about him. But never once was there a slip in my paycheck saying "If you don't vote for this candidate you might not get a raise".

How would they know?

This is not a "vote for X, then I dock your check."

This is "vote for X, and his policies (if enacted) will result in us having to dock everyone's check."

HUGE difference.

It is no different than the unions. Anyone offended is free to leave, or start a competitor to McDonalds.

I pretty consistently don't care in the least what employers do, I think they should be able to do pretty much what they want (I think the employer should have the right to fire employees for unionizing, for example)—except when the employer is the government, they need to be held to a FAR higher standard.

It is a fact that the new healthcare law is changing insurance with many companies. Their accountants tell them for planning purposes that if the thing passed we need to do X, Y, and Z. The employer telling the employees this ahead of an election is GOOD. "Regardless of what the candidates tell you, if bills like X, Y, or Z pass, the result for THIS company will be increased cost of your part of insurance, a slowing of raises, and fewer new jobs, or possibly cutbacks depending on how many of these legislative goals are met. Vote how you like, but be cognizant of how it might affect your workplace."

There is no coercion here because the employer cannot possibly know how thew employees voted.

Mookie, regarding Obama supporters doing the same, they DID as I said. Find the post started by me where I complain it's unfair (hint: I didn't). I would complain if a government agency did this, however (a school, municipal office, etc) as they'd be wasting taxpayer money to do so (a clear conflict of interest).

[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.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by tater

There is no coercion here because the employer cannot possibly know how thew employees voted.

He doesn't NEED to know, he just have to doubt (or hear gossip, true or invented) for who the employee voted and he can fire him.