Guess The State!

[theweaselking]

McDonald's sends out voting instructions with paychecks: "Vote Republican or there will be no raises and no bonuses."

(The Republican party of this state, like the Republican party of all states, holds as a platform plank that people working at McDonald's are chumps and have it too easy and need a pay cut. This makes them unpopular with McDonald's employees, if said employees aren't threatened.)

[Poll #1638858]

Comments

[stormfeather.livejournal.com]

Damnit, my first instinct was Ohio, then I figured "well, Florida voting is fucked up anyhow, just ask Chad and his dangling."

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Isn't that outright-illegal, even in the Wild and Wooly States?

-- Steve'd probably vote against a McCandidate on general principles.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[tempter.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect, especially in light of Citizens United. What's your basis for thinking it's illegal?

[publius1.livejournal.com]

God, that decision was loathsome.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

CU removed limits on campaign spending by corporations. It did not affect the pre-existing laws that prohibit an employer from saying "vote this way or lose money".

Via HuffPo[1]

Ohio election law specifically states (http://law.onecle.com/ohio/elections/3599.05.html) that no corporation "shall print or authorize to be print...or post or exhibit in the establishment or anywhere in or about the establishment...handbills containing any threat, notice, or information that if any particular candidate is elected or defeated, work in the establishment will cease in whiole or in part, or other threats expressed or implied, intended to influence the political opinions or votes of...its employees."

[1]: Who are crazy people, but who showed up on top of Google.

[tempter.livejournal.com]

The broader reading of Citizens United, though, is that the First Amendment protects corporate political speech. Under Citizens United, it looks a whole lot like the Ohio law is unconstitutional -- it's a clear-cut case of censoring a political message based on the content of the message. That's a big no-no under First Amendment jurisprudence, even if it's otherwise entirely reasonable regulation.

Don't get me wrong: the Citizens United ruling was odious, but I don't think the Supreme Court is going to back away from it. The Court right now is more conservative than it has been at any other time in history. If the Ohio law were challenged in court, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't survive.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Threats are not protected speech for a person, so CU didn't make them protected speech for a corporation.

An employer may not use it's position of authority to coerce the votes of it's employees, whether that employer is a corporation or a single person.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Businesses directing their employees how to vote, and businesses checking the voting records to see how their employees did vote and then firing them if the voted wrong, were two of the main reasons for the labor strikes in the early 1900s.

[tempter.livejournal.com]

Am I the only person who doesn't see a problem with this? There's no coercion going on here, just a declaration of endorsement of certain candidates. The company goes out of its way to disclaim any intent to coerce.

[ipslore.livejournal.com]

They say it's not coercion, yeah, but they're lying / mistaken.

[chaos-israel.livejournal.com]

Posting a flyer on the employee bulletin board is maybe OK. Maybe. Putting it in the same envelope as your paycheck: fuck no.

Also, this sounds like it comes from a franchise owner, not the McDonald's corporation itself. Once *they* get wind of it, I suspect this joker won't be doing business as a McDonald's anymore.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

If there isn't anything wrong with it, then our ethical code is hopelessly broken.

[swwoodsy.livejournal.com]

Yep, you are the only one. And just because the guy who signs your paycheck is saying "I want you to vote like this or no more raises, bonuses, etc., no pressure," does not mean that there is no pressure.

It would have been very different if the employer had just encouraged his workers to get registered to vote and then go vote. What he did is illegal, unconscionable, coercive, and enraging. And his non-apology apology is even more annoying. Though I do believe McDonald's corporate and the candidate had no idea that the franchise owner did that.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Not "borderline". Just "Illegal". Telling employees how to vote and threatening them for voting "wrong" is illegal. It's simply BONUS that the owner of the location is threatening them with "vote for your own pay cut, or get a pay cut anyway"

[anivair.livejournal.com]

My hate here cannot be contained.

[gygaxis.livejournal.com]

Nthing this sentiment.


FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK THAT FUCKER GARHDM

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I boggle, I truly do - how is this even remotely acceptable?