So imagine you worked for Merrill Lynch like in the story below, and received a letter “suggesting” you contribute to President’s Bush reelection campaign. Given that donors can be identified via FundRace and other sites, it would seem to be prudent to ante up and follow the bosses wishes or at least don’t contribute to the other side.
Seems to me that letters like this from higher-ups should be illegal, since as an employee, it puts you between the proverbial “a rock and a hard place”. There doesn’t seem to be any easy way to stop this sort of pressure outside of making the action illegal. Any thoughts or ideas?
And as an aside, it seems to me that if the fat cats on Wall Street are heavily for Bush, then that’s more than enough reason to vote the other way since I’ve never been in synch with their interests.
How do you feel about union contributions to the Democrats and Democrat-friendly PACs? This practice has an even more coercive aspect – the unions donate money directly, rather then merely “suggesting” union members contribute.
You know, theoretically, union members can request that their dues be used for collective bargaining only, and not political activity.
I say theoretically, since the request is seldom made. Unions don’t, as a rule, let their members know they can do this, even though they’re required by law to do so. Requests by union members that their dues be so restricted are sometimes completely ignored. There have even been cases of coercion and violence against members making such requests.
Thats a hell of a lot worse than what O’Neal did. Especially since there isn’t any suggestion of a quid pro quo jobs for political donations ploy. He could just have been doing some particularly aggressive politicking - inappropriate, maybe, but not illegal.
Note that the article says letters went to “senior executives” at Merrill. I doubt those guys are too worried about being fired for not contributing to a campaign fund. I would think there would be ethical (and possibly legal) problems if this were to trickle down the ranks.
From what the facts seem to be, though, this is a non-story.
He was never informed of his Beck rights, guaranteeing him collective bargaining even if he withdrew, by his union. Consequently, they held up thousands of dollars of back pay due him, saying, falsely, that he owed them dues.
George won his case with the NLRB.
I can easily find more, but do you really want me to?
One must certainly concede that Wall Street investment firms committment to egalitarianism and “fair play”, thier fretful obsession with the concerns of the small investor, the widowsandorphans, is the stuff of legend. As well, one must wonder why we even have labor unions, given corporate America’s passionate committment to the well-being of the laboring classes. Given such shining examples of humanitarian capitalism as Tyson Foods, Enron, and other paragons of virture, one must wonder why cigar-chomping labor bosses are tolerated in our enlightened age!
Given the everyday munificence of white Christians in suits, how can one doubt that a loving and just Providence has placed money and power in the hands of the wise and the just? Is not our history replete with examples of corporate executives offering up enormous self-sacrifice in order to ensure the well-being of the lesser ilk, we, who are well-advised to tug our forelock in grateful obeisance, secure in the knowledge that the meek shall surely inherit thier plot of earth in due time, as Mammon wills.
So corporations are always evil, and labor unions are always paragons of virtue, elucidator?
You and I both know the world is far more complex than that.
Great and good things are possible from the corporate world, as well as bad. And I’m pretty clearheaded about labor unions, coming from a steelworking family. If the union leadership needs to screw over some small fry to get their way, they’ll sometimes do so, without regret.
Translation: I asked for a cite proving your point. You gave it to me. Being thus disarmed, but congenitally unable to concede error, I have tossed some sarcasm and some flowery language back. I know the SDMB readership will not be fooled, but I’ve got no other arrows in the quiver.
lol, I was pretty much thinking the same thing. But I do so love when 'luci waxes eloquent. If you can’t dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bullshit.
I see, because unions sometimes do bad stuff, we can in no way make a judgement about whether the head of a Wall Street firm is acting inappropriately? Thanks for clearing that up.
Having said that, I also don’t think this is much of a story. Is O’Neal coercing other executives at Merrill Lynch? Probably. Should they have the cajones to not be coerced? Probably. Can they clear their conscience by writing another check for Kerry in the same amount? Probably. Should they conspire to screw O’Neal the first chance they get? Absolutely.
Now, the tricky area is if someone’s job is at stake if they don’t give to their employer’s preferred cause. Should be illegal, though especially in “at-will” states damn hard to prove. But that doesn’t seem to be the debate here. (Though, given Mr. O’Neal’s admitted ruthlessness, it could well be.)
Of course, with or without Merrill’s employees, the GOP will do well from its industry. Individuals employed by the securities and investment sector have donated $9,027,033 to the R’s this cycle as opposed to $5,873,017 for the D’s (source: Opensecrets) Biggest donors by sector to Republicans: retirees at $18,251,965, against a little over $6 million by retirees to the Dems. Hmmm…
I’m sure such Dopers as find my vocabulary daunting would be grateful for your kindly assistance in translation. No doubt, they are both gratified by your concern. Regretably, your skills in translation are not on a par with the generosity of your intentions. Perhaps next time, if you find my meaing obtuse, you will simply advise. I am only too happy to rephrase for the benefit of clarity. (And are you quite sure “congenitally” is the word you wanted?)
Upon reflection, the “cite call” was ill-advised (I have ill advisers.) It would be silly to base any argument in favor of labor unions on the premise that all such are paragons of civic virtue. The Teamsters broke my grandfather’s heart, and I put on my grave-dancing shoes when the thugs snuffed Jimmy Hoffa.
But they weren’t really the subject at hand, were they? Usually, Republican apologists are less than candid when it comes to thier craven devotion to the rich. At least Mr. Moto was honest enough to try to change the subject, rather than debate the point.
So I can cheerfully concede the point, seeing as it is irrelevant. It is not unheard of for labor unions to employ the same brutal methods as thier enemies. However common this is, it is still regretable. As well, in a democracy, there is no good reason why the rich and powerful cannot have thier own political party to cater to thier needs. They have all the rights the rest of us have, and a few perks as well.
It doesn’t really bother me that “money talks”. It bothers me that it votes.
A 501(c) organization is a very different beast from a political campaign…which is why contributions to political campaigns are not tax deductible. Besides which, even amongst 501(c) organizations, the United Way tends to stick with the most apolitical one. I.e., you can’t contribute to Amnesty International, Union of Concerned Scientists, or even a local 501(c) organization like Metro Justice through the United Way here in Rochester. (You can contribute to the local chapter of Planned Parenthood but only be specifically requesting your money go to them … The United Way doesn’t give them any money to them out of its general funds.)
So, encouraging people to give to the United Way is very different than encouraging them to give to a specific candidate or political party.
jshore: Very true–but, the principle is the same. If the employee is free to give or not give, it’s not illegal, and shouldn’t be. The problems arise when employers are coercive, or make giving to an organization or cause a requirement of employment. That didn’t seem to be the explicit case here, though it could have been implicit.
Also, though the organizations that United Way funds are, as you say, less political, they’re not completely apolitical. Though, again, that’s for another thread.
As a someone who works in fundraising myself, I would prefer that employers didn’t solicit “official” donations from their employees, whether for political parties, for fundraising consortia, or for charities. But that’s my opinion only–I wouldn’t want it to be illegal.
