|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:19 pm Post subject: Why Donate Corporate Money? Just Threaten Your Employees |
 |
|
Article here.
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON -- There may be something rotten at McDonald's -- and it's not a year-old Happy Meal.
The owner of a franchise in Canton, Ohio enclosed a handbill in employees' paychecks that threatened lower wages and benefits if Republicans don't win on Tuesday.
"As the election season is here we wanted you to know which candidates will help our business grow in the future," reads the letter. "As you know, the better our business does it enables us to invest in our people and our restaurants. If the right people are elected we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels. If others are elected, we will not. As always, who you vote for is completely your personal decision and many factors go into your decision."
The note ends with a list of candidates McDonald's believes "will help our business move forward." It names Republicans John Kasich for governor, Rob Portman for Senate, and Jim Renacci for Congress. With the letter was a biography of Renacci.
"The handbill endorses candidates who have in essence pledged to roll back the minimum wage and eviscerate the safety net that protects the most vulnerable members of our workforce," said Attorney Allen Schulman of Canton law firm Schulman Zimmerman & Associates, which received the documents from an employer who stepped forward. "But it's more than that. When a corporation like McDonald's intimidates its employees into voting a specific way, it violates both state and federal election law. It's no surprise to anyone that Ohio is a battleground state in this election, and for a multinational corporation like McDonald's to threaten employees like this is morally and legally wrong. This despicable corporate conduct is the logical extension of the Citizens United decision, which has unleashed corporate arrogance and abuse."
Schulman turned over the documents to local prosecutors, asking them to "investigate this matter for a criminal violation." Ohio election law specifically states 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."
On Friday, franchise owner Paul Siegfried apologized in a written statement, saying the communication was "an error of judgment on my part." "Please know it was never my intention to offend anyone," he added. "For those that I have offended, I sincerely apologize." |
Of course in reality, the error in judgment he's apologizing for isn't actually doing doing what he did, it's getting caught. It wouldn't surprise me that much if in the coming years, the laws broken here were overturned based on some weird logic tangentially derived from corporate personhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey, if unions can do it, why not corporations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| Hey, if unions can do it, why not corporations? |
Do you have some examples of unions saying, "If person X doesn't win this election, you won't get a raise this year?" If so, I'll happily agree it's equally unreasonable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "As the election season is here we wanted you to know which candidates will help our business grow in the future," reads the letter. "As you know, the better our business does it enables us to invest in our people and our restaurants. If the right people are elected we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels. If others are elected, we will not. As always, who you vote for is completely your personal decision and many factors go into your decision." |
If a business has to pack up and move out because the the other guy wins and they can no longer afford the higher cost of doing business they're going to do it.
I don't know if any union can make that threat, Fox, so you got me there, old boy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| Hey, if unions can do it, why not corporations? |
Do you have some examples of unions saying, "If person X doesn't win this election, you won't get a raise this year?" If so, I'll happily agree it's equally unreasonable. |
How about "We're going to require you to pay $X to keep your union job security, then we're going to donate $Y of that to the candidate we like." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| Hey, if unions can do it, why not corporations? |
Do you have some examples of unions saying, "If person X doesn't win this election, you won't get a raise this year?" If so, I'll happily agree it's equally unreasonable. |
How about "We're going to require you to pay $X to keep your union job security, then we're going to donate $Y of that to the candidate we like." |
I consider that to be similar to the, "We're going to make you pay $X extra for products you want, and then donate that to the candidate we like," that corporations can now engage in. Namely, an entirely separate phenomenon from what happened here, but also wrong. Corporations and Unions should both be non-political organizations. In fact, anyone and anything that isn't either an individual citizen or a purely political organization should be entirely non-political. Organizations making political endorsements or contributions is not good for our system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This despicable corporate conduct is the logical extension of the Citizens United decision |
Not really. It might be tangentially derived from corporate personhood, because there's something awkward about giving an entity due process rights when it has property interests but can be neither deprived of liberty or life. And despicable corporate conduct can usually be traced back to bad people somewhere in the chain.
But Citizens United had little to do with corporate misconduct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
