Ohio miners forced to attend Romney rally without pay...

[FireIceTalon]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28...36674.html

"Our managers communicated to our workforce that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend"

Last I checked, the word mandatory meant that one has no choice in a matter, and is thus forced to do something.

Basically what that quote translates to is "not attending this rally could very well result in unemployment or homelessness, but not being beat over the head with a nightstick or pepper sprayed (yet)". So now people are being forced to attend political rallies, by their job, with no pay? Jesus fucking christ.....I smell Fascism.

[DeeBye]

"Our managers communicated to our workforce that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend"

That quote is wrong.

"There were no workers that were forced to attend the event. We had managers that communicated to our workforce that the attendance to the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend the event."

He goes on to say that workers had to voluntarily register to attend the event.

Later on he says:

"We had people that did not show up that day, and there were no consequences or repercussions taken against any employee that did not attend the Romney event."

[FireIceTalon]

Nope, he said it, fact. "Mandatory" means forced. The other comments are probably copouts to try and cover their ass but too late. I almost consider it an insult to my intelligence. And regardless, they were forced at the very least to take an unpaid day off for a mandatory political event whether they attended or not - be it in line with their politics or not. This in itself is bad enough. And this wasn't a complaint from one or two workers, but from many, which suggests this company has done this sort of thing in the past. If I worked for a company that told me attending some political rally was mandatory and I wasn't getting paid for it, I'd be pissed off too - I think almost any reasonable person would be.

Sorry, but I'm believing the workers over the profit grubbing CFO and CEO

But this whole thing shouldn't surprise me, corporations by their very nature are highly authoritarian and anti-democratic anyways, plus the fact this company and Romney have ties makes it all the more suspect that this whole thing was conducted in a shady way. Hopefully these workers are smart enough to realize that Romney does not have their best interests in mind (not that Obama really does either), and they don't vote for him.

[DeeBye]

Nope, he said it, fact.

No he did not.

You didn't even listen to the audio. I did, and transcribed what he actually said. I didn't copy/paste it from a right-wing website. I listened to the audio and typed it out. Context is important ("You didn't build that.")

[FireIceTalon]

Nope, he said it, fact.

No he did not.

You didn't even listen to the audio. I did, and transcribed what he actually said. I didn't copy/paste it from a right-wing website. I listened to the audio and typed it out. Context is important ("You didn't build that.")

I listened to the audio before you did. You just have selective hearing, cause he most definitely DID say it, right about the 6:05 mark.

[DeeBye]

I listened to the audio before you did. You just have selective hearing, cause he most definitely DID say it, right about the 6:05 mark.

You posted that he said:
"Our managers communicated to our workforce that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend."

What he actually said within context is:
"There were no workers that were forced to attend the event. We had managers that communicated to our workforce that the attendance to the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend the event."

Then you get all smug about your huffpo link and say "Nope, he said it, fact."

[FireIceTalon]

Ok, I have no idea if you are just trolling at this point, or trying to insult my intelligence, but either way....you need to quit.

[DeeBye]

my intelligence

404

[FireIceTalon]

FireIceTalon loses an argument, resorts to personal attacks.

[NuurAbSaal]

So DeeBye, think we'll see a NHL lockout this season?

take care
Tarabulus

[eppie]

What he actually said within context is:
"There were no workers that were forced to attend the event. We had managers that communicated to our workforce that the attendance to the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend the event."

In a last try to make this thread go somewhere reasonable;

Please can someone explain to a non-native English speaker what this means.

They way I read it managers told their workers they had to attend......but no one was FORCED.....meaning what? They could say no but they would be fired?

To me this sounds like a pretty heavy thing. In Holland these managers would be fired and probably prosecuted as well. (as would be the case in most other developed country is my guess).

So probably I just understood it wrong.

ps FIT is it so difficult to keep things a bit decent here?

[shoju]

Ohio is the ass crack of the united states. Trust me. I live there. This place sucks, most of the people suck, and people have a terrible grasp of the english language here.

They very well could have said "You HAVE to be there" and then not done anything to the people who didn't show. It's an empty threat, and FiT is pouncing on it.

Go ahead and show me the people who get fired for not being there, and then I might care.

[Mavfin]

Huffington Post. 'nuff said.

As biased as Fox News, just the other way. Move along, nothing to see here. Just FIT having keyboard diarrhea over things he doesn't understand.

[FireIceTalon]

LMAO at Bolty saying my post is a personal attack, but Deebye's post above me isnt' a personal attack. Bullshit.

---

Ohio is the ass crack of the united states. Trust me. I live there. This place sucks, most of the people suck, and people have a terrible grasp of the english language here.

They very well could have said "You HAVE to be there" and then not done anything to the people who didn't show. It's an empty threat, and FiT is pouncing on it.

Go ahead and show me the people who get fired for not being there, and then I might care.

This is a weak argument. Empty threat or not, it's STILL a threat, and the corporation is in the wrong, the workers are NOT. Just because you don't like the people there, or like the place itself, doesn't mean they don't have rights in the work place. Your post, in fact, is an illustration of a growing and very frightening philosophy in this country: Randism. There is no "terrible grasp" of English here, I think the quote and its context is clear as day. And if any place is the ass crack of the US, I'd say it's probably Florida - they can't even vote right over there. Nevertheless, Florida workers have just as many rights as any other workers do.

---

Huffington Post. 'nuff said.

As biased as Fox News, just the other way. Move along, nothing to see here. Just FIT having keyboard diarrhea over things he doesn't understand.

This is completely irrelevant. Indeed, if you have nothing of merit to add, move along, and let the people who actually know something about it, like myself, discuss it. Thank you.

---

What he actually said within context is:
"There were no workers that were forced to attend the event. We had managers that communicated to our workforce that the attendance to the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend the event."

In a last try to make this thread go somewhere reasonable;

Please can someone explain to a non-native English speaker what this means.

They way I read it managers told their workers they had to attend......but no one was FORCED.....meaning what? They could say no but they would be fired?

To me this sounds like a pretty heavy thing. In Holland these managers would be fired and probably prosecuted as well. (as would be the case in most other developed country is my guess).

So probably I just understood it wrong.

ps FIT is it so difficult to keep things a bit decent here?

Hey, he attacked me personally first, just like Ashock and Och did in that other thread recently - people here seem to hold a grudge when I prove them wrong about something. But apparently, it is ok for members to ad hominem me, but the minute I do it back, post edited. What a fucking joke - clearly we have a double standard here, and I suspect it's because of my political views. Well, I ain't changin' em, and fuck anyone who has a problem with that.

But on the topic, yea, your analysis is pretty straight forward. "Mandatory" means someone has to do something, so the company basically put its foot in its mouth. Regardless of how Deebye interprets what what was said, it was IN FACT, said. But even just the fact these workers were told they had to attend, and do so without pay, is a problem - regardless whether or not there were consequences for not attending. Really, I hope these workers file a class-action lawsuit or something, yet many of them are probably in no position to do so financially since capital exploits labor, and they have no choice in the matter cause their survival depends on it. Just a very small step above something called S-L-A-V-E-R-Y. But hey, thats Crapitalism for ya - a system of collective psychosis where corporations and a oligarchical ruling elite that protects said corporations interests, owns everyone else, including their dignity and their livelihood.

[Jester]

They very well could have said "You HAVE to be there" and then not done anything to the people who didn't show. It's an empty threat, and FiT is pouncing on it.

Go ahead and show me the people who get fired for not being there, and then I might care.

That's not such an empty threat. In an environment where jobs are fragile and scarce, and bosses are looking to get rid of employees anyway, this kind of intimidation can be quite serious. And it seems clear from what's been said by both sides that, at minimum, workers were told this is what they were doing today, without pay. The mine was closed specifically to get workers out to the rally. I know what I'd think if my boss told me attendance was mandatory; I'd assume I have to go, or risk being fired.

What happened to the workers who didn't show up (or what would have happened if this had not become national news), we don't know. Maybe nothing, although being labelled as troublesome can be a big problem for a worker. But if your boss tells you that it's mandatory to spend your free time going to a political rally, I'm not sure it makes it a lot better that it's an empty threat. It's still way over the line.

-Jester

[LochnarITB]

The main issue, as I see it, isn't even being argued here. They took away a day's pay for a political event. Loss of a single day's pay can be enough to be the last straw in breaking a family's budget these days. They laid it off as being a safety issue but it was one they created, it does not compare to one caused by power outages or equipment failures or even collapses, all valid issues in a very dangerous industry.

Assuming it was all legal, the company did wrong by their employees. They should have paid them for the day and then this probably would not have made anyone's radar. The company endangered their employees' financial situations in the name of a political candidate that the company decided the employees should listen to (repercussions or not), for their own good. Not a decision belonging to the company. I would have been pissed too and I would have cried foul as well.

As someone that hates politics with a passion, I can't wait for the next two months to be over. The back and forth in this campaign is the worst crap (from all parties) I ever remember seeing, and it isn't even cranked up to 10 yet. Decisions aren't going to come down to who can I support but, rather, who will do the least harm.

[FireIceTalon]

The main issue, as I see it, isn't even being argued here. They took away a day's pay for a political event. Loss of a single day's pay can be enough to be the last straw in breaking a family's budget these days. They laid it off as being a safety issue but it was one they created, it does not compare to one caused by power outages or equipment failures or even collapses, all valid issues in a very dangerous industry.

Assuming it was all legal, the company did wrong by their employees. They should have paid them for the day and then this probably would not have made anyone's radar. The company endangered their employees' financial situations in the name of a political candidate that the company decided the employees should listen to (repercussions or not), for their own good. Not a decision belonging to the company. I would have been pissed too and I would have cried foul as well.

As someone that hates politics with a passion, I can't wait for the next two months to be over. The back and forth in this campaign is the worst crap (from all parties) I ever remember seeing, and it isn't even cranked up to 10 yet. Decisions aren't going to come down to who can I support but, rather, who will do the least harm.

Preach on brother Loch. Glad someone else here sees the wrong in this whole thing. I don't think any person should be compelled to attend a political event and be told it is mandatory by ANYONE, especially their job, or not be paid for it to boot - regardless if their political views are the same or not. Corporations already have far too much power over peoples lives as it is, be it through Commodity Fetishism or their authoritarian structure of how things are ran in the workplace, but this is downright bordering on Fascism. Call it whatever you like I suppose, but it certainly isn't right - and any rational person, regardless of their politics should see this.

[eppie]

Hey, he attacked me personally first, just like Ashock and Och did in that other thread recently. But apparently, it is ok for members to ad hominem me, but the minute I do it back, posted edited. What a fucking joke - clearly we have a double standard here, and I suspect it's because of my political views. Well, I ain't changin' em, and fuck anyone who has a problem with that.

No I don't think that is it. I agree with you most of the time (when looking at the contents, not the way you write it). And I don't get into discussion with Ashock and Occhi for the same reason I wrote my comment to you.

But just take a look at Jesters post for an example. With his short post he probably makes more people think than with your 6 posts.....without being offensive......do with it what you want.

[LochnarITB]

Preach on brother Loch. Glad someone else here sees the wrong in this whole thing. I don't think any person should be compelled to attend a political event and be told it is mandatory by ANYONE, especially their job, or not be paid for it to boot - regardless if their political views are the same or not.

I probably did not make myself clear. It is not, in my opinion, made clear whether there were or weren't any repercussions (dirty looks, lists, salt in their sugar bowls, firing, whatever) for those that didn't attend. What nobody is denying is that the non-salaried employees weren't paid for an entire day because of the political event. Had they been paid, the rest becomes he said she said.

[FireIceTalon]

Preach on brother Loch. Glad someone else here sees the wrong in this whole thing. I don't think any person should be compelled to attend a political event and be told it is mandatory by ANYONE, especially their job, or not be paid for it to boot - regardless if their political views are the same or not.

I probably did not make myself clear. It is not, in my opinion, made clear whether there were or weren't any repercussions (dirty looks, lists, salt in their sugar bowls, firing, whatever) for those that didn't attend. What nobody is denying is that the non-salaried employees weren't paid for an entire day because of the political event. Had they been paid, the rest becomes he said she said.

Right. But even if there were no repercussions, there was a threat, empty or not, made to them, yes (in addition to them not being paid for the day)? Just these two things alone should be reasonable enough to conclude if they are guilty of these things, what else do they do that we don't know about? It may be he said/she said, but given the circumstances, I am going to say the workers word has more credibility here. Not to mention we live in a time when most corporations can hardly be called socially and ethically responsible - the only that matters for the vast majority of them is their bottom-line, which they will try to increase by any means they can, to the point where it's almost like collective sociopathy. If they had to use a coercive tactic like telling workers that attendance to the rally was mandatory, AND that they wouldn't be paid for the day, just to get them to attend because the company and Romney have ties, it seems reasonable to assume they are suspect, does it not (even if the workers weren't punished)? Certainly they have no concept of ethics or the livelihood of their workers, that much IS for sure. The fact is, the workers were worried for their job security if they didn't attend, consequences or not. That in itself is a problem, and raises a bunch of red flags (pun most definitely intended).