The US elections in November, 2010.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think that the folks who think this is some horrible thing are those that think management and business have no right to participate in the political process.

Nonsense. They have every right to free speech and participation in the political process. They have no right, however, to tell their employees how to vote under a thinly veiled threat of termination.

What words constituted the threat? If the letter at issue is a threat, then there is no way they could say it without it being a threat. It can't get any milder. There can't be more of an assurance that employees have the right to vote as they please. What would you have them do?

And, they didn't "tell" their employees how to vote. They suggested which candidates would be better for McDonald's business.

[Trolldor]

There is no veiled threat, but there are implications.
The only reason they've included that bullshit is because they have to in order to cover their legal asses. If the law allowed it they would have told the employees "vote our way or lose your job".

[Coito ergo sum]

There is no veiled threat, but there are implications.
The only reason they've included that bullshit is because they have to in order to cover their legal asses. If the law allowed it they would have told the employees "vote our way or lose your job".

How would they know how employees voted?

Whatever they would have done in different circumstances, the issue is what they did, in fact, do. How can management express its opinion without the implications to which you refer?

[Trolldor]

By not expressing it to their employees at all.
And no, the issue is not 'what they did do'.
It is what they are trying to do, it is the motivations for it and it is the implications.

McD's has a well documented history of punishing employees who went against the Company's political interests as much as they could. They could easily find out who an employee voted for because people tend to talk about that stuff, it was how they did it before.

QUite frankly it can fuck off. It has no right to campaign to its employees. A corporation is not an individual, a corporation has no right to free speech.

[Coito ergo sum]

By not expressing it to their employees at all.

? So, they can express their opinion to their employees by not expressing their opinions to their employees. LOL

If employers were prohibited from expressing opinions to their employees, then it would be difficult to manage their business.

And no, the issue is not 'what they did do'.
It is what they are trying to do, it is the motivations for it and it is the implications.

They are trying to get their employees to vote for candidates they prefer. Can't get more American than that.

McD's has a well documented history of punishing employees who went against the Company's political interests as much as they could. They could easily find out who an employee voted for because people tend to talk about that stuff, it was how they did it before.

Examples?

QUite frankly it can fuck off. It has no right to campaign to its employees.

It doesn't? Why not?

A corporation is not an individual, a corporation has no right to free speech.

Yes, it does. And, that's coming from liberal and conservative members of the Supreme Court.

If a corporation has no right of free speech, then PETA, the American Atheists, Inc., and the American Cancer Society, Inc., and the New York Times, Inc. have no right of free speech. A corporation is a group of people - if individuals have free speech, then so do groups of individuals. Constitutional rights apply to corporations as well as individuals. For example, just because a business is incorporated doesn't mean that there is no right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, or that warrants can issue as to corporations with less than probable cause. Corporations are not subject to having their security guards stripped of their guns without due process of law. Corporations can't be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, in a criminal prosecution. Corporations are entitled to due process of law.

In 1976, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protected commercial speech by corporations. The Court ruled in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy that a Virginia regulation banning advertising of pharmaceutical prices was unconstitutional. In 1978, the Court held that corporations had political speech rights as well. In First National Bank, the court upheld the right of Massachusetts corporations to make campaign contributions to defeat a political referendum that would have enacted a progressive income tax. The Supreme Court extended this line of cases in 1986, when it ruled that corporations have "negative" speech rights not to be associated with the speech of others or to be forced to speak.

It has never been part of American constitutional law that only individuals have first amendment rights.

[Robert_S]

I'm gonna vote for Rich Whitey!!!!

Illinois Candidate's Name Misspelled As 'Rich Whitey' On Electronic-Voting Machines

There are typos and then there are complete and utter catastrophes.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the name of Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney is misspelled "Rich Whitey" on electronic-voting machines in 23 wards -- "about half in predominantly African-American areas." The error only occurs on screens voters would see when they are reviewing their choices (Whitney's name appears correctly on the initial screens), but officials say the error cannot be corrected before election day.

[eXcommunicate]

heh, the Greens can't ever get a break, can they?

[Coito ergo sum]

"One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them: It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job. Another problem with governing people is people." - Douglas Adams

I voted, but it amounts to nothing.

Regardless of who wins, the crops of candidates seem to be particularly bad (on both sides of the aisle). I think that people who have no understanding of the American system of government, who are not very well read, and who amount to basically just good PR folks, are the ones primarily choosing to run for office. The whole process has become an industry, and the system is manipulated so candidates come away richer than they were going in, even if they lose.

Why the FUCK would someone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a campaign? Or, millions? There is one answer: because they expect to make it back, with interest.

[Coito ergo sum]

She has a point...

[Coito ergo sum]

Likely voters view Ms. Pelosi unfavorably by a two-to-one margin. Among independents, just 8 percent view the Speaker positively, compared to 61 percent who view her negatively.

Holy crap. That's fucked up. http://www.cnbc.com/id/39943286

[maiforpeace]

Why the FUCK would someone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a campaign? Or, millions? There is one answer: because they expect to make it back, with interest.

Fuck it if Meg becomes our new governor, though Brown is no gem either.

[Clinton Huxley]

I love it when immovable "American exceptionalism" meets irresistible "Lefty Bias"

Ok, I am just being snarky. Carry on.

EDIT: I've managed to put this in the wrong thread! My mind, it seems, is finally going. Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do...

[eXcommunicate]

Why the FUCK would someone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a campaign? Or, millions? There is one answer: because they expect to make it back, with interest.

Fuck it if Meg becomes our new governor, though Brown is no gem either.

The way I see it, Brown is 10x more preferable to Meg.

[Coito ergo sum]

I love it when immovable "American exceptionalism" meets irresistible "Lefty Bias"

Ok, I am just being snarky. Carry on.

EDIT: I've managed to put this in the wrong thread! My mind, it seems, is finally going. Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do...

That's o.k.

Huzzah!

Cheerio and chip chip! Tut tut!

And, all that rot....

[Coito ergo sum]

Why the FUCK would someone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a campaign? Or, millions? There is one answer: because they expect to make it back, with interest.

Fuck it if Meg becomes our new governor, though Brown is no gem either.

The way I see it, Brown is 10x more preferable to Meg.

I had resisted giving in to what I had previously thought was easy cynicism.....but, I think maybe South Park was right...we really are only left with a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.....