• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for

apdst said:
No, but they can expel a member.
Click to expand...

I think only trade unions have that ability


I believe unions that are site/company specific do not have that ability. All they can do is fine people for not paying union dues. Autoworker unions could not expell a membe. r when being employed means you are part of the union. As the auto worker unions can not fire people, they could not expell a member from its union. All they could do I believe is not provide said employee with any support regarding grievences with the company
 
Kali said:
So are you suggesting that employers should be able to do whatever they want and laws be damned? There is a reason why certain things are not allowed in the workplace and this is one of em buster!
Click to expand...

Um, no.

I'm saying "it's illegal" is not in and of itself enough of an argument for why anybody should avoid doing anything.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I think only trade unions have that ability


I believe unions that are site/company specific do not have that ability. All they can do is fine people for not paying union dues. Autoworker unions could not expell a membe. r when being employed means you are part of the union. As the auto worker unions can not fire people, they could not expell a member from its union. All they could do I believe is not provide said employee with any support regarding grievences with the company
Click to expand...

All private sector unions have that ability.

Either way, by your own admission, a union can seriously ****-over a member. Not much difference.
 
apdst said:
All private sector unions have that ability.

Either way, by your own admission, a union can seriously ****-over a member. Not much difference.
Click to expand...
LT is wrong about auto unions....if a member brings a complaint/grievance to his union rep, that rep, under the law, is obligated to investigate the complaint, and if the rep believes it has merit, to file the grievance for the member. representation can't be denied . if the rep doesnt believe the complaint has merit, he/she is obligated to inform the member that he will not file a grievance on the complaint and explain his/her reasoning on why the complaint is not a grievance ....if the member is still is not satisfied and still believes that they have a legitimate grievance, they may pursue the matter higher, and speak to a representative from the regional office....i come by this knowledge as i have served as a shop chairperson and a shift steward.
 
randel said:
LT is wrong about auto unions....if a member brings a complaint/grievance to his union rep, that rep, under the law, is obligated to investigate the complaint, and if the rep believes it has merit, to file the grievance for the member. representation can't be denied . if the rep doesnt believe the complaint has merit, he/she is obligated to inform the member that he will not file a grievance on the complaint and explain his/her reasoning on why the complaint is not a grievance ....if the member is still is not satisfied and still believes that they have a legitimate grievance, they may pursue the matter higher, and speak to a representative from the regional office....i come by this knowledge as i have served as a shop chairperson and a shift steward.
Click to expand...


Question Randelll


A person is an autoworker currently employeed and part of a union. The job site he is at is a closed shop and all employees are required to be in the union, can the union expell the member essentially causing the person to lose their job?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Question Randelll


A person is an autoworker currently employeed and part of a union. The job site he is at is a closed shop and all employees are required to be in the union, can the union expell the member essentially causing the person to lose their job?
Click to expand...
to my knowledge, and under normal circumstances, i would say no....a person would have to do something pretty heinous i would think to get kicked out....in my personal experience, the only ways i have seen a person lose their job was to

A) point out--in my work place, you are allowed a total of 8 absence points in a year, anything over that, and your done.

B) destroy company property/intentionally cause 'downtime' on a press

C) fail a drug test

D) repeatedly not following work instructions to make quality parts/constantly passing bad parts

the company and my union have had a decent working relationship, and just reached agreement on a tentative contract(which i get to hear all about next week) the company has zero tolerance and won't discuss people who lose their jobs for 'pointing out', but will discuss almost anything else....though they are not obligated to rehire those who have failed a drug test, they have on several occasions, rehired those who have failed provided they have, what we call, a 'come to jesus' meeting with the company and the union bargaining committee, admit they have a problem, agree to counseling and entering a drug treatment program, and agreeing to be tested at 'any time ' for a period of up to two years. these folks, if they were forklift drivers, or serves as 'support' operators( making checks on part, giving breaks, cleaning the plant) are demoted back to regular production operators.


getting back to your question again, i could hate your guts, absolutely despise you and all that you stand for, but if i'm your rep, i can't deny you representation, and i'm obligated by law(since you would be a dues paying member) to represent you to the absolute best of my ability. i can't intentionally screw you over by lack of effort on my part.
 
From the article:

The spokesman, Joe Woods, e-mailed a statement on Mr. Siegfried’s behalf. “For those that I have offended, I sincerely apologize,” the statement said.

Mr. Woods said Mr. Siegfried’s action did not represent the policy of McDonald’s.

Mr. Schulman, who is a lawyer, said that distribution of the pamphlet — which was printed on a McDonald’s letterhead — violates a 1953 Ohio statute that prohibits political material from being attached to wage envelopes. He declined to comment on how he got a copy, or who gave it to him, but said it was distributed to employees within the past week.

He said he had forwarded a copy to the authorities in Canton, requesting that they investigate.
Click to expand...

Sounds like this guys ass is in hot water, as it should be.
 
randel said:
the guy could possibly lose his franchise.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to work for person that apparently thought I was stupid enough to think that what he did was OK. Talk about insulting a persons intelligence.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
I wouldn't want to work for person that apparently thought I was stupid enough to think that what he did was OK. Talk about insulting a persons intelligence.
Click to expand...
true dat....then again, the majority of folks that work at mickey d's are young, probably right aroung voting age, and are impressionable...threaten their paycheck is a nice scare tactic.
 
It this was a heads up that their health care would be dropped, if the Dems stay in power, than I see no problem with it. Why shouldn't they have this knowledge, before voting.
 
Bonnie Franklin said:
It this was a heads up that their health care would be dropped, if the Dems stay in power, than I see no problem with it. Why shouldn't they have this knowledge, before voting.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?

I am against Obama-care (that's another thread topic entirely) but the bottom line is - what this man did was illegal. Period. If I got a polical 'threat' with pamphets with my paycheck stub? I would own that restaurant.

Do YOU want someone shoving their politics down your throat with the threat of losing your job? That is OK with you?
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, the owner is wrong for asking his employees to vote Republican, yet this can be perfectly fine....



Wonderful world we live in isn't it?


j-mac
Click to expand...
I'd like to see this catch on for both sides all over the country. We'd all get good free food and the world could see that we all still break bread together.

/win-win
 
I was sent an email as were other parishiners of our diocese of the Catholic Church by a decon that didn't name any names, but indicated we should know which candidate in the 2004 presidential election we should vote for as one was "for" abortion. Not only does a nonprofit organization have no business being involved in politics, but to actually say Kerry was "for" abortion was blatantly wrong. I made it know that such an email was not acceptable as it was not true, and I was insulted.

I think we'd be surprised how many businesses and churches try and shove their political choices on their employees or parishiners. Many just don't know any better.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's his business, he can do whatever he wants.
No one being forced to vote for anyone.
Click to expand...
bull...the implied threat against someone's economic well being should never be tolerated.
 
randel said:
bull...the implied threat against someone's economic well being should never be tolerated.
Click to expand...

Yes implied political fallout from a poor choice in voting.
Not from the employer himself.

Even if all the McDonalds workers voted Republican, the rest of the state could vote Democrat and the results would not favor the owner.

He's stating what he thinks will happen if Republicans don't get elected, he's giving his opinion to his employees but there are no employment consequences, so it doesn't matter.
Besides this kinda crap goes on in other, "protected" areas of employment.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes implied political fallout from a poor choice in voting.
Not from the employer himself.

Even if all the McDonalds workers voted Republican, the rest of the state could vote Democrat and the results would not favor the owner.

He's stating what he thinks will happen if Republicans don't get elected, he's giving his opinion to his employees but there are no employment consequences, so it doesn't matter.
Besides this kinda crap goes on in other, "protected" areas of employment.
Click to expand...
hmmmm....either vote the 'right' way, or don't expect any pay increase.....hmmmmmm
 
randel said:
hmmmm....either vote the 'right' way, or don't expect any pay increase.....hmmmmmm
Click to expand...

He has no idea which way they will vote, it doesn't matter.

Now if he was docking their paychecks to support a particular political group, you'd have a good point, but we aren't talking about a unionized work force. ;)
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
He has no idea which way they will vote, it doesn't matter.

Now if he was docking their paychecks to support a particular political group, you'd have a good point, but we aren't talking about a unionized work force. ;)
Click to expand...
what he did is against the law, and he is trying to 'influence' those working for him, with a barely hidden threat to their financial wellbeing...how can you honestly support this?
 
randel said:
what he did is against the law, and he is trying to 'influence' those working for him, with a barely hidden threat to their financial wellbeing...how can you honestly support this?
Click to expand...

I don't care if something is illegal or not, that doesn't automatically make it right or wrong.
Yes I can support it, he has the freedom to state his beliefs, 1st amendment over everything else.
His employees have the freedom to disregard it.

What if what he says is true?
Is he wrong then?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't care if something is illegal or not, that doesn't automatically make it right or wrong.
Yes I can support it, he has the freedom to state his beliefs, 1st amendment over everything else.
His employees have the freedom to disregard it.

What if what he says is true?
Is he wrong then?
Click to expand...
harry guerrilla, as your employer, i feel that is in the best interest of both of us, if you were to vote to elect certain individuals named on the enclosed pamphlet, as it is the belief of the company that these individuals will help the company to continue to grow and prosper...it is the belief of the company that if these individuals are not elected, we will not be able to give raises or implement better benefits, and may have to consider reducing our staffing levels. we ask that you carefully consider who you vote for on november 2nd...sincerely, management...

you are ok with this? and if what he said is 'true'...that is a matter of conjecture on his part, and it wouldnt matter to me if he was right, i don't care for employers pulling this bs
 
randel said:
harry guerrilla, as your employer, i feel that is in the best interest of both of us, if you were to vote to elect certain individuals named on the enclosed pamphlet, as it is the belief of the company that these individuals will help the company to continue to grow and prosper...it is the belief of the company that if these individuals are not elected, we will not be able to give raises or implement better benefits, and may have to consider reducing our staffing levels. we ask that you carefully consider who you vote for on november 2nd...sincerely, management...

you are ok with this? and if what he said is 'true'...that is a matter of conjecture on his part, and it wouldnt matter to me if he was right, i don't care for employers pulling this bs
Click to expand...

I'd be fine with it, particularly for me because I don't vote any way.

I get told all the time by party officials on both sides, that if I don't vote for them, I will face some kind of negative economic consequences.

What's the difference?
Neither my employer, nor the party officials, know who I vote for.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't care if something is illegal or not, that doesn't automatically make it right or wrong.
Yes I can support it, he has the freedom to state his beliefs, 1st amendment over everything else.
His employees have the freedom to disregard it.

What if what he says is true?
Is he wrong then?
Click to expand...

As of this writing, if you choose to have children - your employment will be considered for termination. We figure it won't be cost effective to keep you on as an employee as your insurance costs will be more expensive for you AND for me. Therefore, you will not be allowed to have children. We hope you understand and will choose to make the right decision.

I have the right to disregard this as well... and he certainly has the right to state his beliefs. Right?

Please.

I'm as Libertarian as anyone - but really? How much power DO we give employers to hold over their employees? I'm not so much into the anarchy of the LP, apparently as I still believe employess should still have some rights in the workplace...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'd be fine with it, particularly for me because I don't vote any way.

I get told all the time by party officials on both sides, that if I don't vote for them, I will face some kind of negative economic consequences.

What's the difference?
Neither my employer, nor the party officials, know who I vote for.
Click to expand...
your ok with those tactics being used? good grief
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom