Vote for the 'right candidates' or lose your job

[Ed W]

There's a great deal of difference between an employer making voting recommendations and a union doing the same.  The employer is in a position to punish or sack those employees who differ with his political opinions.  A union doesn't have that authority. 

I've read voter guides from the Oklahoma AFL-CIO on the state questions, as well as similar material from the League of Women Voters.  I was surprised to find that the League took some positions on several questions, but they're congruent with long-standing policies on good government issues.  Those of us who belong to unions, however, should come to realize that while we often have common cause with the organization, at times we are going to differ.  My own union advocates for Democratic causes and candidates, but the membership reflects Oklahoma, so they mostly vote Republican. 

[Conan71]

I find it ironic a labor union would advocate drug use. SEIU in California tells it's members in their voter guide to vote for legalization of marijuana. Since drug use is frowned on in the work place and by insurers, this seems like a contrary position for a labor union. Will this law make it illegal to dismiss a worker or deny employment for a hot piss test?

Real shocker: vote for Boxer, Pelosi, Waxman, Brown, etc. Nowhere on the guide did it list the party affilliation of those candidates.

I'll post the link to the Cali SEIU after I go do my civic duty this morning.

[dbacks fan]

I find it ironic a labor union would advocate drug use. SEIU in California tells it's members in their voter guide to vote for legalization of marijuana. Since drug use is frowned on in the work place and by insurers, this seems like a contrary position for a labor union. Will this law make it illegal to dismiss a worker or deny employment for a hot piss test?

Real shocker: vote for Boxer, Pelosi, Waxman, Brown, etc. Nowhere on the guide did it list the party affilliation of those candidates.

I'll post the link to the Cali SEIU after I go do my civic duty this morning.

The reason they support Prop 19, is they support immigration reform and who better than a labor union in California to support two things that would bring a ton of money to the Colorado River basin in SoCal, legalize pot, and bring the migrant workers in to tend the fields.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14marijuana.html?_r=3

http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/2010/08/19/longshore-workers-endorse-prop-19-while-prison-guards-union-stays-neutral/

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/22/local/la-me-0922-pot-union-20100922

[dbacks fan]

Will this law make it illegal to dismiss a worker or deny employment for a hot piss test?

Union member + Failed drug test = Trip to rehab to preserve job.

[nathanm]

I find it ironic a labor union would advocate drug use. SEIU in California tells it's members in their voter guide to vote for legalization of marijuana. Since drug use is frowned on in the work place and by insurers,

Alcohol use in the workplace is equally frowned upon, yet you don't see a bunch of folks trying to ban alcohol. And somehow they still manage to fire your donkey (or at least force you into treatment if you want to keep your job) if you show up to work drunk.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Alcohol use in the workplace is equally frowned upon, yet you don't see a bunch of folks trying to ban alcohol. And somehow they still manage to fire your donkey (or at least force you into treatment if you want to keep your job) if you show up to work drunk.

Is this conversation a reference to John Sullivan or something else?

[Red Arrow]

Is this conversation a reference to John Sullivan or something else?

Yes

[Conan71]

So, curious how this will be spun as being different than the Ohio incident:

"Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) – According to an article by Channel 13 Political Analyst Elizabeth Crum, editor of the Nevada News Bureau, executives from Harrah's Entertainment in Las Vegas have been encouraging employees to vote for Harry Reid in the 2010 election.

A Reid staffer allegedly sent emails to Harrah's executives throughout the company in an effort to push employees to vote.

A spreadsheet showing employees' names, at which property they worked, and why they had not voted was also disseminated.

Click here to read the email chain.

http://www.ktnv.com/global/link.asp?l=463922

Neither Harrah's Entertainment nor the Federal Election Commission has commented.

http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13431320

National review online:

http://www.ktnv.com/global/link.asp?l=463921

"The Reid campaign staffer, whose name was removed in the email Batjer sent to Harrah's executives, said "ANYTHING" would be done to help with the company's get out the vote effort. The staffer cited the fact that 1,100 MGM employees had already voted and indicated dissatisfaction with the turnout from Harrah's.

The staffer told Jones, senior vice president of communications and government relations, that the Reid campaign had "connected with Culinary" and that the problem was with mid-level supervisors. "They simply are not cooperating with and listening to upper management," wrote the staffer.

The Reid staffer then indicated that the culinary union had money available for more busses to take Harrah's employees to the polls. The Reid staffer suggests that Harrah's execs "put a headlock on your supervisors to get them to follow through."

The staffer also offered Senator Reid's personal involvement, writing, "PLEASE... PLEASE tell me how I can help. Would it help to have the Senator call Gary and help give you the backing you need?"

In her email to management, Harrah's Batjer requested of her colleagues to "PLEASE do whatever we need" to communicate to company supervisors that there is "NOTHING more important than to get employees out to vote."

She even issued an express endorsement. "Waking up to the defeat of Harry Reid Nov. 3 will be devastating for our industry's future," Batjer wrote.

On Friday, Western Regional President Tom Jenkin sent out a follow-up email showing a total vote count for Harrah's properties along with the percentages of employees who had voted at each property. Attached to the email was a spreadsheet showing employee names and at which property they worked. Supervisors were asked to fill in codes explaining why their employees had not yet voted."

The union and employer are involved here, actually altering schedules and paying for shuttles to get employees to the polls.  Anyone care to tell me how this is any different than the Ohio case?  If anything this represents something far more egregious.

Would it bother you if your employer had a record of whether or not you had voted and was requesting to know why you had not voted yet?

[Ed W]

So, curious how this will be spun as being different than the Ohio incident:

"Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) – According to an article by Channel 13 Political Analyst Elizabeth Crum, editor of the Nevada News Bureau, executives from Harrah's Entertainment in Las Vegas have been encouraging employees to vote for Harry Reid in the 2010 election.

A Reid staffer allegedly sent emails to Harrah's executives throughout the company in an effort to push employees to vote.

A spreadsheet showing employees' names, at which property they worked, and why they had not voted was also disseminated.

...Would it bother you if your employer had a record of whether or not you had voted and was requesting to know why you had not voted yet?

The first question to ask is whether this is illegal in Nevada and whether it runs afoul of federal election laws too.  Regardless, it stinks on several levels.  It's always problematic when an employer tries to pressure his employees to vote one way or another, and while it's annoying to realize the campaigns and the employer can collect voting information, I think all of that is a public record.  If I'm wrong, someone will correct me, I'm certain.  I don't think there's any indication of how you voted.  It's just a record of your appearances at the polls.

[Conan71]

The first question to ask is whether this is illegal in Nevada and whether it runs afoul of federal election laws too.  Regardless, it stinks on several levels.  It's always problematic when an employer tries to pressure his employees to vote one way or another, and while it's annoying to realize the campaigns and the employer can collect voting information, I think all of that is a public record.  If I'm wrong, someone will correct me, I'm certain.  I don't think there's any indication of how you voted.  It's just a record of your appearances at the polls.

What creeps me out is supervisors actually asking an employee why they have not voted yet.

Sounds like Harrah's and the employee union (SEIU, yes?) are making a heavy-handed approach to coercing their employees to make the 'right' choice.  Up to, and including, making sure they use their break time to vote and providing transportation to the poll.

Did you read the email chain yet?  I'm anxious to hear if this ran afoul of Federal election laws. 

[nathanm]

I don't have any problem with employers making it easy to vote. (too many make little, if any, accommodation for those who desire to do so) If, however, that employer attempts to influence how their employees vote, that's a serious problem in my book.

Now, if a labor union wants to put out voting guides for their members, whatever, let 'em. That's no different than the League of Women Voters in my mind.

[Conan71]

I don't have any problem with employers making it easy to vote. (too many make little, if any, accommodation for those who desire to do so) If, however, that employer attempts to influence how their employees vote, that's a serious problem in my book.

Now, if a labor union wants to put out voting guides for their members, whatever, let 'em. That's no different than the League of Women Voters in my mind.

I don't see how that's the same.  The League of Women Voters isn't organized labor and is characterized as non-partisan since they refuse to endorse candidates, though they will take a position on issues.

It's hard to characterize labor unions as non-partisan since they support left-leaning candidates.  Unions benefit from laws and lawmakers which/who favor organized labor and help steer government contracts.

[Ed W]

Did you read the email chain yet?  I'm anxious to hear if this ran afoul of Federal election laws. 

No, I haven't read the email, Conan.  I've been making dinner.  And I can't speak to the legality of any of this.  I'm not an attorney, just a professional electronics geek with a heavy typing habit.

As an aside, tonight's menu:  Baked pasta with pepperoni and cheese, fresh salad, and Italian bread that was still warm from the oven when I brought it home.  I'll try not to eat my way into a coma.  No promises.

[nathanm]

I don't see how that's the same.  The League of Women Voters isn't organized labor and is characterized as non-partisan since they refuse to endorse candidates, though they will take a position on issues.

It's hard to characterize labor unions as non-partisan since they support left-leaning candidates.  Unions benefit from laws and lawmakers which/who favor organized labor and help steer government contracts.

It's not the same in that they aren't the source of your income, unless you're an employee of the union. Thankfully, in many states, you can tell them to love right off. Conversely, in most states your employer can fire your butt for no reason at all.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Somehow a union pressing an agenda is so much worse than a corporation doing the same.  As if, I as a stockholder has any say about where corporate money goes....

At least with a union, there would be an advocate for me, the worker, whereas with a corporation, the advocacy is for the CEO and the board.