Skip to main content

View Diary: Workers told to write Romney checks by coal CEO who made miners serve as Romney backdrop (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It happened here in Washington (10+ / 0-)

    Costco, a very Democratic organization, forced its employees to collect signatures for a citizen initiative that allowed them to sell liquor in their stores.  

    Essentially, they invested a couple thousand dollars into earning a buncha millions.  

    It wasn't illegal.

    Incarceration Nation has a Jail Jones to feed its Imprisonment Addiction

    by otto on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 01:35:23 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  There's quite a difference (11+ / 0-)

      I can see that most CostCo workers would have agreed with their employer.. or at least weren't bothered one way or another.

      With a forced payroll deduction, that's a 100% different.  Here the employee is told to effectively tithe to the foul Romney folks - and they will see no benefit and are out the 1% of their pay.

      One is unethical but doesn't screw over the workers - the other is theft from their employees.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

      by sacrelicious on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 01:54:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, but anyone forcing their employees to (8+ / 0-)

        take action outside their job responsibilities is just as wrong.  Maybe "mos.t" had no problem with it.  But maybe some did.  Maybe they were religiously opposed to alchohol.  Or maybe they just didn't like the idea.  "Volunteering" time by force is no better than volunteering money by force.  Both are theft.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 02:24:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What hasn't been answered was if it was on or off (0+ / 0-)

          the clock that they had to gather signatures.  I wish that info had been included in the comment.

        •  Hmm (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sethtriggs, Thestral
          Sorry, but anyone forcing their employees to take action outside their job responsibilities is just as wrong.
          That's an interesting point of view. I'm not sure I find it ultimately persuasive, though. I have very rarely been in a position, employment-wise, that didn't involve some mission creep. Would you be as offended for me, for example, if I told you that while I was working as an IT professional, I was asked to help marketing clean up a few graphic files, and to do some copyediting as well? Not to mention handle a few customer support calls?

          Or are you saying that Costco was requiring their employees to put in unpaid time doing signature gathering? From a cursory glance at the articles about the referendum you're talking about, it seems that they were all paid for their time (all the articles call them 'paid signature gatherers', at least), so I think that's probably a red herring in any case.

          •  If you weren't getting paid for it and didn't have (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sethtriggs

            the option of saying no - you bet.  Certainly there's been nothing I've read here that indicated the employees were getting paid.  If they were on the clock, theirtime wasn't stolen.  But since the diary was about people being required to "volunteer" and the first comment in this thread was about Costco requiring their employees to volunteer for signature gathering and the post I responded to said that was just fine because it was something supposedly innocuous they were being required to do, I think it was pretty clear there was an assumption they weren't being paid.

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 05:23:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's the legal way (0+ / 0-)

        They told me that they were on the clock, and they don't me in a smiling way that they didn't have a choice.  

        I don't know that it matters whether or not the people would agree.  It's the idea that a massive corporation can use the power of its existing workforce to get political action taken that will earn it millions of dollars.  

        It's a bad way to start off.

        Incarceration Nation has a Jail Jones to feed its Imprisonment Addiction

        by otto on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:40:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Did they have them gather signatures on their own (9+ / 0-)

      time or on company time?  I like Costco, but if employees were forced (and that's the operative word) to collect signatures on their own time, that's wrong.  If they did it on company time, I don't love it but I'm okay with it.  

      •  It looks like Costco paid their employees for it. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        otto, sethtriggs, Cassandra Waites

        I googled it, and there are a bunch of stories about how much Costco paid to get the measure on the ballot.  Most of them mention Costco's "in-kind donations" listed in campaign finance reports, and spell out that it was the cost of employees gathering signatures.  If that's accurate, I don't have a problem with it (though I hope they'd exempt employees who have religious or other reasons not to promote alcohol).

    •  False equivalence (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rbird, emidesu, Cassandra Waites

      Costco, per your story, wasn't doing harm to their own employees (the lives lost from coal mining accidents referenced by HBIII) and it was trying to get a new source of revenue through sales, not by subverting laws so it can squeeze more profit out of the business it was already engaged in.

      •  So taking political action (0+ / 0-)

        It seems wrong to me to force an employee to do your political action for you.  

        We do have to consider that any time an employee chooses to refuse a direction from management, they have a real possibility of punishment.  

        So to ignore the directive to do their political work for them could lead to termination.  

        Seems wrong to me, but it's legal.

        Incarceration Nation has a Jail Jones to feed its Imprisonment Addiction

        by otto on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:43:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  how'bout this: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      otto

      "I have a religious objection to drinking alcohol, and I refuse to participate in this, and if you fire me I'm going to sue for religious discrimination."

      "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

      by G2geek on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 02:45:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "I have a religious objection to (pick one or more (0+ / 0-)

        1) artificial birth control and refuse to allow condoms through my checkout line."

        2) artificial medication and refuse to allow aspirin through my check out line. (Christian Scientist; I know, I know, christian scientist is an oxymoron...)

        3) (as a reader and follower of the Prose Edda. the Rainbow is a natural reflection of the Rainbow Bridge to Aasgaard. As such, my religion cannot condone selling a "rainbow" flag, and I will sue.

        4) The sale of toothbrushes (teeth-breesh?) Listerine is okay, but as a follower of the Holy Britney Spears...

        I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves. -John Wayne (-9.00,-8.86)

        by Jonathan Hoag on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 03:04:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  which is exactly how we should deal with.... (5+ / 0-)

          .... the "religious objection" laws.  Reductio-ad-absurdum to the point where it starts to look like a general strike.  

          However, employer-compelled participation in political speech is always objectionable and should be forbidden by law.  People need to stand up against that shit, it is just downright disgusting.  

          "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

          by G2geek on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 04:01:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The crack about Christian Science ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... is objectionable.

          •  Fine. Zoroastrianism is not compatible with (0+ / 0-)

            the scientific method. But you can believe in Zombie Jesus and still be a "scientist."

            I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves. -John Wayne (-9.00,-8.86)

            by Jonathan Hoag on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 03:07:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Fine, sue us and prove it. (0+ / 0-)

        I guess that's what they'd say.  

        They may be nicer than other employers, but still, they are a massive corporation and things have to remain static.

        Incarceration Nation has a Jail Jones to feed its Imprisonment Addiction

        by otto on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:44:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site