This is against the law in Ohio:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lm2JI7sGwYI/TMzUjwbkhiI/AAAAAAAALdA/UiBSSdYyCMU/s320/mcdonald%27s+pay+insert.png)
The McDonalds franchise owner has since apologized for his illegal act. Gosh, would that work if I were pulled over for speeding? How about if I shoplifted, robbed or vandalized someone's property? I'm sure that if I said, "Oh, sorry about that. It won't happen again." the cops would let me walk away.
Link:
http://bestoftheblogs.com/Home/34064 (http://bestoftheblogs.com/Home/34064)
Recall Mayor McCheese
And how about that Hamburglar? He's been on the loose for 30 or 40 years now. You'd think they'd have been able to catch him!
I bet he's good for sales. After all, if your burger gets stolen before you can eat it, you'll have to buy another one.
Quote from: Ed W on October 31, 2010, 04:07:13 PM
This is against the law in Ohio:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lm2JI7sGwYI/TMzUjwbkhiI/AAAAAAAALdA/UiBSSdYyCMU/s320/mcdonald%27s+pay+insert.png)
The McDonalds franchise owner has since apologized for his illegal act. Gosh, would that work if I were pulled over for speeding? How about if I shoplifted, robbed or vandalized someone's property? I'm sure that if I said, "Oh, sorry about that. It won't happen again." the cops would let me walk away.
Link:
http://bestoftheblogs.com/Home/34064 (http://bestoftheblogs.com/Home/34064)
It's surprising that this sort of smile doesn't occur more often (or we simply just do not know). The article itself was way slanted.
What part of illegally pressuring employees is slanted?
Quote from: Ed W on October 31, 2010, 08:04:03 PM
What part of illegally pressuring employees is slanted?
Come on Ed, how about this? The first paragraph:
QuoteWell, no one can say the Republicans aren't trying every dirty trick in their repertoire to try and win the 2010 elections. All across the country they have been piling lie upon lie as they campaign -- so many lies that I wonder if they even have a concept of what truth is. In Houston they are putting out misleading political flyers and intimidating voters in minority precincts.
Check the campaign mailers against democrat Potts for state senate. Even the republican candidate disavows them. They were printed and mailed by the local Republican committee and include accusations that Potts is pro-abortion, pro-tax and anti-business. Neither candidate has much background to make judgement on. The kid was an assistant to the outgoing Lucky Lamons and has made no such statements or actions to support the lies.
Apparently he is guilty of the sin of ommission not having made overt statements promising to follow what every good little conservative repub in Oklahoma has tattooed on their hiney. ;D
There's been anecdotal evidence for years in low-income areas where voters are bused er given complimentary rides to the polls it's suggested who and what they vote for.
Anecdotal evidence is worth the paper it's printed on. Now, I'll grant that the piece I cited has a left wing bias, but that doesn't change the fact - supported by an actual piece of paper included with the employee's paychecks - that this businessman broke the law in Ohio. The slant of the article doesn't change that fact.
Quote from: Ed W on November 01, 2010, 04:55:21 PM
Anecdotal evidence is worth the paper it's printed on. Now, I'll grant that the piece I cited has a left wing bias, but that doesn't change the fact - supported by an actual piece of paper included with the employee's paychecks - that this businessman broke the law in Ohio. The slant of the article doesn't change that fact.
If there were anecdotal evidence Tea Partiers were driving people to polls and suggesting who they should vote for, would you be talking about it?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2010, 04:57:11 PM
If there were anecdotal evidence Tea Partiers were driving people to polls and suggesting who they should vote for, would you be talking about it?
Well hell yeah. I've never actually met one so I don't even know if a tea partier actually exists. So an anecdote is just as good as a signed affidavit for me on that issue.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2010, 04:57:11 PM
If there were anecdotal evidence Tea Partiers were driving people to polls and suggesting who they should vote for, would you be talking about it?
I've met Randy Brogdon a few times. Does he count? If he made suggestions as to who to vote for, I'd listen politely, then make up my own mind. But that's considerably different from an employer's heavy handed approach to coercing his employees to make the 'right' choice.
Quote from: Ed W on November 01, 2010, 04:55:21 PM
Now, I'll grant that the piece I cited has a left wing bias, but that doesn't change the fact - supported by an actual piece of paper included with the employee's paychecks - that this businessman broke the law in Ohio. The slant of the article doesn't change that fact.
That's why I consider you an honest adversary on issues we find ourselves in opposing views.
Ed, are you outraged this went against Ohio law? If no law were broken, would you care as much? This employer, by far, isn't the only one engaging in electioneering. Unions publish voting guides for their members. One could safely assume they publish these guides to encourage their members to vote for candidates and initiatives which benefit the union.
While no laws were broken, I had this reminder from the SEIU that I am tentative member of. I got an email from them as to a suggestion as to who I should vote for and if I find it I will share it.
Internet blogs have been popping up since July with false accusations about Mi Familia Vota and SEIU. Now, FOX News is getting into the act, with more misinformation. Here's what they're saying...and here's the truth:
Rumor:
SEIU owns and operates Mi Familia Vota to further its political agenda.
Reality:
SEIU does help fund the efforts of Mi Familia Vota and is proud to support this non-partisan organization that is dedicated to increasing participation of eligible Latino voters, who have traditionally been less inclined to vote. At no time has SEIU asked Mi Familia Vota to support any political agenda.
Rumor:
65 percent of more than 3,000 voter registrations delivered to the Yuma County Recorder's office by Mi Familia Vota are invalid, due to the registrant being a non-citizen, or other reasons.
Reality:Yuma County Recorder Robyn Stallworth Pouquette says the accusations are false. Mi Familia Vota has turned in 3,000 requests to be on the permanent early voting registration list (not voter registration) for eligible voters in Yuma County. See the article headlined "Election Official: Claims of Voter Fraud Untrue," published by Yuma Daily Sun on Oct. 25.
Rumor:Voter fraud is being committed on a massive scale to help Raúl Grijalva keep the Congressional seat he holds by stealing the election.
Reality:Mi Familia Vota is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that does not support any candidate. This is not the first time fringe groups have lied in an attempt to confuse and divide the public on the eve of an election.
However you choose to vote, before you check your ballot, check the facts.
Don Carr
SEIU Arizona
SEIU Arizona
http://seiuaz.seiu.org/page/m/18a1f113/140cae7/5848af11/388a663/2169650875/VEsH/
(http://seiuaz.seiu.org/page/m/18a1f113/140cae7/5848af11/388a663/2169650875/VEsH/)
http://seiuaz.seiu.org/page/m/18a1f113/140cae7/5848af11/388a66c/2169650875/VEsE/ (http://seiuaz.seiu.org/page/m/18a1f113/140cae7/5848af11/388a66c/2169650875/VEsE/)
As for the vote suggestion, it was not an email, it was a memo that was sent to members, and I will try and find it and scan it it to share. But it was similar to the McD's message, and it suggested who to vote for, but not vote for these or else, so their "suggestions" are legal, even the OP is legal because it suggests who you might vote for.
Ed, I'm sorry but with what you posted there is nothing illegal about it. What you included as a document from the franchisee is a suggestion, a campaign ad at best, but not a "Vote for these people or you will lose your job threat". I had the same here in AZ, and suggestions from SEIU, but I voted my own thoughts, and my own research on the topics and candidates, and I don't care that I am a member of SEIU, Republican, I voted what I know and feel, not what anyone, (TV/Radio) told me to do.
There's a great deal of difference between an employer making voting recommendations and a union doing the same. The employer is in a position to punish or sack those employees who differ with his political opinions. A union doesn't have that authority.
I've read voter guides from the Oklahoma AFL-CIO on the state questions, as well as similar material from the League of Women Voters. I was surprised to find that the League took some positions on several questions, but they're congruent with long-standing policies on good government issues. Those of us who belong to unions, however, should come to realize that while we often have common cause with the organization, at times we are going to differ. My own union advocates for Democratic causes and candidates, but the membership reflects Oklahoma, so they mostly vote Republican.
I find it ironic a labor union would advocate drug use. SEIU in California tells it's members in their voter guide to vote for legalization of marijuana. Since drug use is frowned on in the work place and by insurers, this seems like a contrary position for a labor union. Will this law make it illegal to dismiss a worker or deny employment for a hot piss test?
Real shocker: vote for Boxer, Pelosi, Waxman, Brown, etc. Nowhere on the guide did it list the party affilliation of those candidates.
I'll post the link to the Cali SEIU after I go do my civic duty this morning.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 02, 2010, 07:45:35 AM
I find it ironic a labor union would advocate drug use. SEIU in California tells it's members in their voter guide to vote for legalization of marijuana. Since drug use is frowned on in the work place and by insurers, this seems like a contrary position for a labor union. Will this law make it illegal to dismiss a worker or deny employment for a hot piss test?
Real shocker: vote for Boxer, Pelosi, Waxman, Brown, etc. Nowhere on the guide did it list the party affilliation of those candidates.
I'll post the link to the Cali SEIU after I go do my civic duty this morning.
The reason they support Prop 19, is they support immigration reform and who better than a labor union in California to support two things that would bring a ton of money to the Colorado River basin in SoCal, legalize pot, and bring the migrant workers in to tend the fields. ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14marijuana.html?_r=3 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14marijuana.html?_r=3)
http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/2010/08/19/longshore-workers-endorse-prop-19-while-prison-guards-union-stays-neutral/ (http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/2010/08/19/longshore-workers-endorse-prop-19-while-prison-guards-union-stays-neutral/)
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/22/local/la-me-0922-pot-union-20100922 (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/22/local/la-me-0922-pot-union-20100922)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 02, 2010, 07:45:35 AM
Will this law make it illegal to dismiss a worker or deny employment for a hot piss test?
Union member + Failed drug test = Trip to rehab to preserve job.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 02, 2010, 07:45:35 AM
I find it ironic a labor union would advocate drug use. SEIU in California tells it's members in their voter guide to vote for legalization of marijuana. Since drug use is frowned on in the work place and by insurers,
Alcohol use in the workplace is equally frowned upon, yet you don't see a bunch of folks trying to ban alcohol. And somehow they still manage to fire your donkey (or at least force you into treatment if you want to keep your job) if you show up to work drunk.
Quote from: nathanm on November 02, 2010, 12:54:42 PM
Alcohol use in the workplace is equally frowned upon, yet you don't see a bunch of folks trying to ban alcohol. And somehow they still manage to fire your donkey (or at least force you into treatment if you want to keep your job) if you show up to work drunk.
Is this conversation a reference to John Sullivan or something else?
Quote from: Trogdor on November 02, 2010, 02:42:05 PM
Is this conversation a reference to John Sullivan or something else?
Yes
So, curious how this will be spun as being different than the Ohio incident:
"Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) – According to an article by Channel 13 Political Analyst Elizabeth Crum, editor of the Nevada News Bureau, executives from Harrah's Entertainment in Las Vegas have been encouraging employees to vote for Harry Reid in the 2010 election.
A Reid staffer allegedly sent emails to Harrah's executives throughout the company in an effort to push employees to vote.
A spreadsheet showing employees' names, at which property they worked, and why they had not voted was also disseminated.
Click here to read the email chain.
http://www.ktnv.com/global/link.asp?l=463922 (http://www.ktnv.com/global/link.asp?l=463922)
Neither Harrah's Entertainment nor the Federal Election Commission has commented.
http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13431320
National review online:
http://www.ktnv.com/global/link.asp?l=463921
"The Reid campaign staffer, whose name was removed in the email Batjer sent to Harrah's executives, said "ANYTHING" would be done to help with the company's get out the vote effort. The staffer cited the fact that 1,100 MGM employees had already voted and indicated dissatisfaction with the turnout from Harrah's.
The staffer told Jones, senior vice president of communications and government relations, that the Reid campaign had "connected with Culinary" and that the problem was with mid-level supervisors. "They simply are not cooperating with and listening to upper management," wrote the staffer.
The Reid staffer then indicated that the culinary union had money available for more busses to take Harrah's employees to the polls. The Reid staffer suggests that Harrah's execs "put a headlock on your supervisors to get them to follow through."
The staffer also offered Senator Reid's personal involvement, writing, "PLEASE... PLEASE tell me how I can help. Would it help to have the Senator call Gary and help give you the backing you need?"
In her email to management, Harrah's Batjer requested of her colleagues to "PLEASE do whatever we need" to communicate to company supervisors that there is "NOTHING more important than to get employees out to vote."
She even issued an express endorsement. "Waking up to the defeat of Harry Reid Nov. 3 will be devastating for our industry's future," Batjer wrote.
On Friday, Western Regional President Tom Jenkin sent out a follow-up email showing a total vote count for Harrah's properties along with the percentages of employees who had voted at each property. Attached to the email was a spreadsheet showing employee names and at which property they worked. Supervisors were asked to fill in codes explaining why their employees had not yet voted."
The union and employer are involved here, actually altering schedules and paying for shuttles to get employees to the polls. Anyone care to tell me how this is any different than the Ohio case? If anything this represents something far more egregious.
Would it bother you if your employer had a record of whether or not you had voted and was requesting to know why you had not voted yet?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 02, 2010, 04:56:28 PM
So, curious how this will be spun as being different than the Ohio incident:
"Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) – According to an article by Channel 13 Political Analyst Elizabeth Crum, editor of the Nevada News Bureau, executives from Harrah's Entertainment in Las Vegas have been encouraging employees to vote for Harry Reid in the 2010 election.
A Reid staffer allegedly sent emails to Harrah's executives throughout the company in an effort to push employees to vote.
A spreadsheet showing employees' names, at which property they worked, and why they had not voted was also disseminated.
...Would it bother you if your employer had a record of whether or not you had voted and was requesting to know why you had not voted yet?
The first question to ask is whether this is illegal in Nevada and whether it runs afoul of federal election laws too. Regardless, it stinks on several levels. It's always problematic when an employer tries to pressure his employees to vote one way or another, and while it's annoying to realize the campaigns and the employer can collect voting information, I think all of that is a public record. If I'm wrong, someone will correct me, I'm certain. I don't think there's any indication of how you voted. It's just a record of your appearances at the polls.
Quote from: Ed W on November 02, 2010, 05:11:51 PM
The first question to ask is whether this is illegal in Nevada and whether it runs afoul of federal election laws too. Regardless, it stinks on several levels. It's always problematic when an employer tries to pressure his employees to vote one way or another, and while it's annoying to realize the campaigns and the employer can collect voting information, I think all of that is a public record. If I'm wrong, someone will correct me, I'm certain. I don't think there's any indication of how you voted. It's just a record of your appearances at the polls.
What creeps me out is supervisors actually asking an employee why they have not voted yet.
Sounds like Harrah's and the employee union (SEIU, yes?) are making a heavy-handed approach to coercing their employees to make the 'right' choice. Up to, and including, making sure they use their break time to vote and providing transportation to the poll.
Did you read the email chain yet? I'm anxious to hear if this ran afoul of Federal election laws.
I don't have any problem with employers making it easy to vote. (too many make little, if any, accommodation for those who desire to do so) If, however, that employer attempts to influence how their employees vote, that's a serious problem in my book.
Now, if a labor union wants to put out voting guides for their members, whatever, let 'em. That's no different than the League of Women Voters in my mind.
Quote from: nathanm on November 02, 2010, 06:04:44 PM
I don't have any problem with employers making it easy to vote. (too many make little, if any, accommodation for those who desire to do so) If, however, that employer attempts to influence how their employees vote, that's a serious problem in my book.
Now, if a labor union wants to put out voting guides for their members, whatever, let 'em. That's no different than the League of Women Voters in my mind.
I don't see how that's the same. The League of Women Voters isn't organized labor and is characterized as non-partisan since they refuse to endorse candidates, though they will take a position on issues.
It's hard to characterize labor unions as non-partisan since they support
left-leaning candidates. Unions benefit from laws and lawmakers which/who favor organized labor and help steer government contracts.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 02, 2010, 05:19:01 PM
Did you read the email chain yet? I'm anxious to hear if this ran afoul of Federal election laws.
No, I haven't read the email, Conan. I've been making dinner. And I can't speak to the legality of any of this. I'm not an attorney, just a professional electronics geek with a heavy typing habit.
As an aside, tonight's menu: Baked pasta with pepperoni and cheese, fresh salad, and Italian bread that was still warm from the oven when I brought it home. I'll try not to eat my way into a coma. No promises.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 02, 2010, 06:15:01 PM
I don't see how that's the same. The League of Women Voters isn't organized labor and is characterized as non-partisan since they refuse to endorse candidates, though they will take a position on issues.
It's hard to characterize labor unions as non-partisan since they support left-leaning candidates. Unions benefit from laws and lawmakers which/who favor organized labor and help steer government contracts.
It's not the same in that they aren't the source of your income, unless you're an employee of the union. Thankfully, in many states, you can tell them to love right off. Conversely, in most states your employer can fire your butt for no reason at all.
Somehow a union pressing an agenda is so much worse than a corporation doing the same. As if, I as a stockholder has any say about where corporate money goes....
At least with a union, there would be an advocate for me, the worker, whereas with a corporation, the advocacy is for the CEO and the board.