The problem?
You forgot the ending:
Burger King keeps bringing this up again and again, pillorying McDonalds in the popular press. Fans of Burger King products phone in to talk shows, complaining about how “McDonalds dumped trash in their streets” Blogs talk about McDonalds poisoning the water supplies with illegally dumped trash.
The Government then passes laws against selling burgers if your company name starts with “Mc”.
McDonald’s goes out of business.
Well, not only did a few Doper nutcases think I was a McDonald’s employee, but the US Congress has declared that I was a McDonald’s employee.
If you’ll excuse me I need to go update my resume.
(This may not be clear. The resolution Bricker posted refers to ACORN employees, but at least one of those cases involves a person incentivized to collect voter registration. So they had the same level of employment as I did.)
That’s not clear at all. If the person receives hourly pay for doing a specific job during those hours, plus a bonus for doing good work, that person is an employee. Are you disputing that these were the conditions of remuneration?
Euphonious, I totally agree that this was blown out of proportion; your ending to the story is good. I was just addressing one particular part of the story.
Some of them may have been. I was under the impression that at least in a few cases these workers were paid in proportion to the registrations they brought in (is that a quota system?), like $1 per form.
And like my garbage example, that’s what lead to these workers filling out fraudulent forms. Paying them by the hour would have resulted in zero registration forms being turned in.
I’m not sure how to verify any of this. A lot of my arguments were based on this belief, any one care to prove me wrong?
I think you’re close to right, but allow me to amplify.
Indeed, there were a few cases where a quota system, or at least a bonus system, was used contrary to law and contrary to ACORN policy. Cites are already provided by others, upthread. Violations of internal policy and external law should of course be avoided. But it is hard to envision any reasonable (meaning less than Draconian) internal controls that could completely prevent an area supervisor from disobeying both his training and the law and setting up his own quotas. And this would be true whether the registrations received were legitimate or fraudulent. Catching and punishing him *after the fact *though should be simple. ACORN apparently did so. ACORN should not be faulted for failure to have a 100% compliance record unless 100% compliance is an industry norm. ACORN should be faulted only if there was no policy in place, or if it was not communicated to staff, or if ACORN failed to take steps against internal transgressors. It appears that in some places at some times ACORN was a bit sloppy in this aspect of its responsibilities.
But paying by the hour is no guarantee of truthful performance either. Any hourly worker who failed to turn in at least some registrations would probably not expect to be asked to return to work the following day. So, depending on the level of dishonesty of that employee, anything from totally legitimate to totally illegitimate, and any mixture between, could be turned in as a daily batch. And this could vary from day to day, depending on that employee’s mood, laziness, or conflicting appointments. This kind of transgression, this fraud perpetrated against ACORN, is virtually impossible to completely prevent and much harder to catch when it occurs. Provided the perpetrator exercises a bit of care (like not using multiple iterations of Mickey Mouse) simply padding one’s valid registrations with a few made-up ones might allow an afternoon nap while giving the appearance of a hard working employee. These would not come to light until the local elections office sought to verify the registrations. Clearly, in such cases ACORN’s level of culpability is extremely low as ACORN itself was duped. However, once rejected, these illegitimate registrations would come to be blamed on ACORN.
In other similar instances the perpetrators of fraud were apparently dumb asses who used names and addresses that were so off the wall as to alert ACORN itself of the possible problem. By all reports, ACORN paid these people off as employment law requires, and showed them the door as good conscience would dictate. But ACORN was still required by elections law to turn in all registrations, even registrations that ACORN knew or suspected were bogus. And again ACORN was condemned for perpetration of the fraud that was actually attempted against ACORN.
All accusations of voter *registration *fraud by ACORN have but the smallest of grounding in reality. Accusations of *voter fraud *attributable to ACORN are the stuff of fantasy. Neither of these validate what can only be described as a witch hunt produced and orchestrated entirely for partisan political purposes. Vile it was, and vile it is. Apologists cannot stretch the truth sufficiently to cover this display of naked power against an ideological rival.
Bricker, Bricker, Bricker.
When this issue came up. i cited several legal types with national reputations saying it was a Bill of Attainder. You said it was wrong. Now a Federal judge rules it was. I half hoped you would offer a response saying you were in error.
The preponderance of evidence is against you. you must forfeit half of your Legal hit points until you demonstrate that you can make legal points not slanted by your political bias.
Right now, her ruling is not law. It’s not binding; another district court judge can rule the exact opposite of her ruling.
So… if the Court of Appeals overturns her ruling, what then? What will you say then?
Speculation. You want me to make a decision on a hypothetical, yet you do not admit error after a federal judge makes the ruling. Makes the ruling. it actually happened. Yet you are willing to piss away even more hit points?
Interesting - Judge Gershon’s order restoring funding to ACORN has been stayed and an appeal has been granted.
What do you say, gonzomax?
It’s just a temporary (30 day), emergency stay pending appeal. It’s not a ruling on anything. What gave you the impression that this is meaningful?
Are you under the impression that because permission has been given to appeal, that this means the appeal will necessarily be successful?
Do you think that the judicial decision to grant a stay and hear an appeal means that the original order by Judge Gershon is therefore incorrect?
Perhaps check back if the appeal succeeds. Then there will be something to talk about. Until the appeal is heard…
Meh.
Her ruling has no precedential effect, is why. But I’ve already said that of a rulign comes out with precedential effect, I will admit error.
Now I’m asking you: if a precedential ruling comes out against your position, will you admit error?
Has anybody seen those goalposts lately? I thought I saw them around here somewhere …
Did the decision to appeal necessitate a stay?
Leave to appeal often does include a stay, if there are reasonable grounds for it. I have not read the specifics of the judges decision in this case.
It is a tired old story. No matter how often the facts are made clear, a Doper who holds a position because of emotions and political one sidedness will not likely relent. This story has been completely and totally trashed. ACORN was not guilty of the horrible actions the righties concocted. The Biebert, Okeefe film was a fraud. It was edited for a political agenda. It worked. ACORN got killed. But do not pretend it was a real and honest expose. It was not. You can take pleasure in knowing an organization that helped the poor and a lot of blacks has been defunded. For some reason you can derive satisfaction from that. But it was an organization that was wronged and cheated.
^^Your ability to overlook information that you don’t agree with is pretty impressive.
Bricker, why are you talking to gonzomax like that, using big words and all. It’s like asking your dog his opinion on how to achieve Mideast peace. He’s just going to hump your leg.
Still preferable to the incessant, mindless, yap!-yap!-yap! of that libertarian poodle.
You know, it may be impossible to separate the analogy from the participants, but I swear by all that I hold dear: yapping seems prefereable to leg-humping, no matter who’s doing it.
YMMV, of ocurse.