My employer is more subtle. They have a page which lists their “preferred” candidates.
Makes me want to vote for the other guy, just for spite.
There was no “threatening the livelihood” of anybody. A threat is a statement of the form “I will do bad thing X.” An opinion about what would be more profitable for a business does not constitute a threat.
The letter does say that if the eeeeeevil bad candidates are elected, “we will not [be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels.]”
They didn’t say people would lose their jobs. They didn’t say people would get demoted or lose benefits or even take paycuts. They said things would stay the same.
Like I said, I’m not condoning this guy. I don’t think it’s appropriate for a boss to tell their employees who they should vote for. Nonetheless, the employees of this McD’s franchise are free to vote or not vote as they please, with a secret ballot. There is no coercion, fraud, threat or terrorism involved.
My conclusion: BFD.
No, they didn’t say that. Look, normally I don’t do this, because I’m a busy guy and all, but for you, I’ll give a short lesson in Reading Comprehension.
See there where you quoted the letter? The part I bolded and colored red? See how it says “will not be able to continue at… our present levels”? That means that things will not stay the same. The clue is the word “not” followed shortly thereafter by the word “continue” with the subsequent modifier “present levels”. That means things will not stay the same.
Glad I could help you out with that. If you’re still having trouble, I highly recommend the book My Pet Goat. It’s a well known literary tract that seems to be well-received by the cognitively impaired.
I can only assume that the abbreviation means “been fully discredited”.
Believe it or not, Domino’s pizzas have gotten pretty good.
Blockbuster, well, let’s just say you’ll likely be able to say “boycott successful!” sometime REALLY soon.
-Joe
You’re right, I read the original letter incorrectly. I still don’t think it constitutes a threat; people are allowed to speculate on what would happen to their businesses if a given candidate is elected.
No, they aren’t, not without some caveats. WTF did you think this thread was about? :rolleyes:
How is this any different
It’s not. Why would you think it is? The subtext in that article certainly seems to be that they are investigating wrongdoing. I know it makes me disgusted on a personal level, even if they’re stopping just short of threatening pay cuts.
Who here said it’s any different?
Oh wait, I bet I know why we would think it’s different. Harrah’s is pushing for a Democrat, therefore we would reflexively try to explain it away as okay.
Frankly I hope Reid gets the boot, myself.
Basically, it’s a case of the lack of hand wringing and/or tar & feather preparation speaks for itself
Wow, you’re special.
And the fact that the topic of this particular conversation has nothing to do with whatever the fuck it is you’re yammering about speaks to everyone except yourself.
Were you expecting someone to defend Harrah while simultaneously bashing the McDonald’s franchise?
Sorry.
They both suck. Employers should not pressure their employees to vote for a particular candidate.
Feel free to point it out, and we will criticize Harrah’s casino.
Oh wait, you did and then I did.
Did I not wring my hands quick enough or prepare the tar and feathers to your liking?
-
It’s not clear that anyone has told their subordinates they must vote for Reid or face reprisals, as was the case with Mickey D’s. The story even is careful to note that the email was sent to other executives only, and even refers to the recipients as colleagues
-
You’ll notice in the text of the email that it’s the Culinary Union members that are resisting talking about whether or not they voted, with the support of the union that they do not and should not have to discuss this with management.
The story is dated 2 November 2010… which is today. Exactly how much handwringing did you expect to see in the few hours since the story was posted? Do you think everyone has a neural interface now, and we all get the news the exact second it’s put up?
Also, it’s unclear whether or not Nevada bars employers from advocating to their employees, unlike Illinois, where they clearly cannot. So this may be distasteful and abhorrent, but not illegal, which would be a major difference in the conduct of the 2 employers in question.
I have never understood “Conditional Morality”, where something is wrong unless someone else does it, then all cases that are remotely similar in appearance(if not degree) must equally and at the same time be condemned and/or dismissed. If what happened at McDonalds is wrong, then it is wrong period, and if the same thing happens elsewhere, then what happened at McDonalds is still wrong, isn’t it?
Indeed it is. What happened at the McDonalds was wrong yesterday. It’s still wrong today.
Yesterday, I did not know what happened at Harrah’s, so I could not comment on it. Now that I do know, I criticize them, and I still maintain my criticism of the McDonald’s in question.
It seems that flickster expects us to know of all equivalent cases through a mind meld or something, and if we don’t comment on everything, then we can’t comment on anything.
I’ll freely admit, it was an assumption on my part that this side of the coin would get zero notice around here, but it’s really not that hard of an assumption to make.
Oddly enough, a search on Fox News’ site turns up the McDonald’s story, but not the Harrah’s one.
Someone is gonna get fired.