McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for

[gimpy117]

saying that someone will lost their pay or not get a raise IS a threat

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

saying that someone will lost their pay or not get a raise IS a threat

No it's not. It's not credible.

Here, I'm going to threaten YOU. Personally, right now. If you don't vote Republican tomorrow your employer will have space aliens vaporize your retirement fund!

How will I he know how you vote?

[gimpy117]

hey tater, you're splitting hairs.

the point is, were not discussing wither or not the threats were credible, were comment on the fact that McDonalds attempted to threaten their employees to make them vote republican. Even if what they say is an empty threat, it's still a threat.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

You know what that statement tells me. It tells me you are so consumed by partisan hatred, it's blinded you. What i said, was the truth where I'm concerned. I have no reason to lie about personal beliefs. If i supported one party or the other, i would say so. I have nothing to gain by lieing about it, and if i am known for anything on subsim over the last few years, it's usually being brutally honest about what I think.

Indeed, well let me tell you Ducimus. I am no more blinded by partisan hatred than you are, and that's also being "brutally honest" in my opinion.

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

hey tater, you're splitting hairs.

the point is, were not discussing wither or not the threats were credible, were comment on the fact that McDonalds attempted to threaten their employees to make them vote republican. Even if what they say is an empty threat, it's still a threat.

It's no threat at all if no one could possibly take it seriously on a personal level.

The "threat" is the argument that more intrusive government policy will hinder business. The threat is REAL if you believe the argument. That is a CHOICE on the part of the employee. If they think the "threat" is overstated, they vote dem (if they were so inclined anyway). If they think it's a reasonable argument, and could be swayed anyway, then they don't vote dem.

In no case are they actually worried about retribution.

Note that the law violate probably doesn't apply to union stuff going out in the mail. Business constrained from political speech, unions get a pass.

[Takeda Shingen]

When I was teaching in the public schools, I recieved countless union newsletters telling me exactly how I was supposed to vote. Much of it was phrased so that the recipient understood that voting a certain way would make it easier for the union to continue to fight for better pay and benefits. I see McDonald's approach here as no different; they are both reprehensible acts.

[Bubblehead1980]

Nothing wrong with the employer informing his employees if they vote for the party is typically anti-business, everyone in the company will suffer.Defthat initely not coercion,unethical? Well prob depends on who you ask.I see nothing wrong with letting employees, who are likely not that educated or informed(not being a snob, but most employees at the Mac are in high school or barely finished, few exceptions I am sure but talking most) So the man who gives these people their jobs is informing them that one side is a bit anti-business, their place of employment may suffer if that party retains power.Yep, nothing wrong, just being a good boss really.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

When I was teaching in the public schools, I recieved countless union newsletters telling me exactly how I was supposed to vote. Much of it was phrased so that the recipient understood that voting a certain way would make it easier for the union to continue to fight for better pay and benefits. I see McDonald's approach here as no different; they are both reprehensible acts.

Unions are different.They are a third party....supposedly represenative of the employees in the union but unions are just a big money/power scheme really.They get people to join but playing on the fears and promising to stand up for the rights of employees etc, just a bunch of lies really.

[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.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by August

Indeed, well let me tell you Ducimus. I am no more blinded by partisan hatred than you are, and that's also being "brutally honest" in my opinion.

From what i can tell, the difference is:
you seem to think the object of your loyalties crap doesn't stink, you buy and spout rhetoric and jingoism hook line and sinker, you keep an attitude of them verses us, of acting like your a Republican-American, and your close minded to the everything else.

I say it's all a crock of crap and it stinks, I don't buy into any of their horsecrap, I keep an attitude of there is no whatever-American, only American, nor do i stand off against or shun my countrymen because of their political beliefs, and I am not fixated on just one point of view.

We're done here.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

When I was teaching in the public schools, I recieved countless union newsletters telling me exactly how I was supposed to vote. Much of it was phrased so that the recipient understood that voting a certain way would make it easier for the union to continue to fight for better pay and benefits. I see McDonald's approach here as no different; they are both reprehensible acts.

^^^ read and learn, gimpy. This is how it's done.

I can actually find some real agreement here. It's a consistent view, which is a huge plus. It is also probably my "gut" reaction.

Still, on more consideration, I tend towards the least interference on free expression—on the part of employers, or employees (unions)—possible. What groups of people become permitted to engage in political speech then? If an employee sees the boss in the town square on a soapbox pitching for a candidate, would that be illegal, or just if the soapbox is "mailed?" See what I mean? Boss might be saying (to public at large), "If this jerk is elected, I'll have to suspend raises, and maybe fire people!" Is it illegal if an employee ever hears that?

Better to have totally free speech, and suffer some whining, IMHO.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

hey tater, you're splitting hairs.

the point is, were not discussing wither or not the threats were credible, were comment on the fact that McDonalds attempted to threaten their employees to make them vote republican. Even if what they say is an empty threat, it's still a threat.

No it's you who is splitting hairs. They didn't threaten anyone. What they said was a simple statement of fact.

If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above the current levels. If others are elected, we will not.

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.

If you can disprove this somehow then go ahead and make your case. Otherwise I see it as a company doing it's employees a favor by appraising them of the true situation while they still have a chance to at least help do something to stop it.

Let me tell you from personal experience that it is a far better thing than a company telling it's employees "not to worry, everything is just fine" then suddenly lowering the boom without warning. If Obamacare comes on line you are going to see this happen, a lot. But the Democrats do not want you to think about that right now. They want your vote.

This all reminds me of Dukakis claiming during his presidential bid that the "Massachusetts Miracle" was still running at full steam when he knew it was failing. He was willing to ignore the truth in his attempt to get elected. He wanted our votes too. Remember that.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

From what i can tell, the difference is:
you seem to think the object of your loyalties crap doesn't stink, you buy and spout rhetoric and jingoism hook line and sinker, you keep an attitude of them verses us, of acting like your a Republican-American, and your close minded to the everything else.

I say it's all a crock of crap and it stinks, I don't buy into any of their horsecrap, I keep an attitude of there is no whatever-American, only American, nor do i stand off against or shun my countrymen because of their political beliefs, and I am not fixated on just one point of view.

We're done here.

No Ducimus, your posts are the total opposite of what you claim and as long as you want to make it personal I have no use for you.

- Now we're done.

[DarkFish]

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.

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.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

No it's you who is splitting hairs. They didn't threaten anyone. What they said was a simple statement of fact.

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.