Businesses signaling that they support an authoritarian political leader and suppressing their workers' disagreements doesn't exactly have a stellar history.
In a vacuum it makes sense, in historical context...
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Plant workers told to attend Trump rally or not get overtime pay.
- Thread starter Puroresu_kid
- Start date
In a vacuum it makes sense, in historical context...
The asset class should not have the right to deny the workers their ability to earn their wages because they choose not to support the bosses' personal political hobby horse.
So what? Are we going to repress people's rights to rally because it's for an orange asshat instead of someone we like?Businesses signaling that they support an authoritarian political leader and suppressing their workers' disagreements doesn't exactly have a stellar history.
In a vacuum it makes sense, in historical context...
And why shouldn't they? I don't like it, but to act like one day of no work is some huge rights issue seems frankly too much to me. The people in charge should absolutely have the right to throw/host/participate in a function, give their employees the opportunity to attend that function while being paid for it, while also having the GOOD SENSE to not jeapordize the production of their business or their employees safety by leaving however many choose not to go to have a normal day.
Because the point of the worker/boss relationship is not to drum up support for the bosses political leanings by threatening the worker with loss of pay. And believe it or not, yes, the loss of even a single days worth of pay can in fact potentially be disastrous for working class individuals. Employers are absolutely not entitled to the "right" to deny workers their pay in order to threaten their employees to attend a political rally. If they could afford to call off an entire day of production, and pay overtime to those who attend the rally, then they could afford to pay the employees who wish not to attend at least their standard wage. This is simply blackmail, and a backhanded way of punishing those employees who do not fall in line with the bosses politics.
Effectively, you're arguing that a business has more right to "rally" their workers than the workers have the right to rally themselves (if they want to remain employed/paid).
I want you to really think this through and tell me if any of it sounds wrong/unjust.
Is there something I'm missing here? Every article I read about this says these employees' standard work week is 56 hours. They are now being told that they are denied one day's pay unless they attend a rally for orange fascist lunatic and show support for him. In what sane world is this not a problem?
What? God no. If this was for Obama it would be equally as reprehensible. Of course, it never would be, because people would turn up to see him of their own volition, without being threatened by their boss that they cannot have a days wages if they don't bend and follow the political stance of the boss (whether they agree with it not).
This is explicitly not about people's right to go to a rally or take part in a demonstration, but that they're being coerced in to attendance.
Is it political in nature? Absolutely. Is it still the opportunity for a workforce to attend a speech from the president of the USA on company time and dime. I would absolutely refuse it personally, but it's hard some great injustice.
And there might be people that simply can not cope without a days wage, or don't have the savings necessary to get by without it. And that sucks. But at the same time nobody should ever expect any company of any nature to protect them and guarantee them work consistent with what they expect. Cool if you trust your companies to do that, but the base of most of the workforce in USA it's a tenuous relationship of work.
And also, while I'm sure this is only specific to some subset of workers, the article mentions some people losing up to $700... For a single days wages that is far above typical working class conditions. In fact it's vastly more than what I could make in overtime conditions, and I'm a single father who could absolutely risk losing one day.
From my perspective this is an opportunity for those who wish to attend, and those who don't to have an extra day off. These jobs also typically makes their overtime mandatory, and with a brother who's been in the same field for 10 years I can guarantee you many enjoy the free day off. It's simply practical to close up shop for the safety of those not attending, and just frankly a stupid point to expect a company to pay people for NOT attending. It makes me wonder how many of you are as close to these working class conditions as I am, because I would never expect my company to have my back like that? Or anywhere I've worked.
Don't need to think about it, that's not my argument. The employees acolyte have the right to rally, but it's understandable with the conditions this was arranged by that those in charge would ask for a United front. If I had a business I wouldn't want half my employees jeering and booing either. I don't know what this has to do with the employees having every right to rally or protest or organize any other matter. In fact I would have loved to see a coalition of employees that felt wronged by this to protest on their personal time in an organized manner with a media presence to counteract this!
Shit happens. It's not unusual for millions of Americans expected hours to suddenly disappear. I think it's a problem, but the country obviously doesn't because I guarantee you it happens to people you know all the time.
They're being compensated by going, not coerced into doing it. Coercion would be behavior that is threatening to their job.
The actual article described it as coercive and typically, not doing a thing your boss is telling you to do doesn't play well for your job stability. They don't have to literally threaten you to coerce you.
We can argue about whether this is or is not coercion but many of us definitely feel it is coercive.
When your boss says "Your attendence is not mandatory", they don't actually mean "feel free to skip". They mean "we can't legally force you to come, but it's not going to look good on your review if you don't". Coercion doesn't have to be explicit, it can be implicit, and this reads like implicit coercion.
We can argue about whether this is or is not coercion but many of us definitely feel it is coercive.
When your boss says "Your attendence is not mandatory", they don't actually mean "feel free to skip". They mean "we can't legally force you to come, but it's not going to look good on your review if you don't". Coercion doesn't have to be explicit, it can be implicit, and this reads like implicit coercion.
This is definitely coercion. "Either you attend this political event to support the person I, your boss, support, or you do not get paid for this day of work. You cannot just go about your regular duties on this day" is absolutely coercive.
I always though the introduction of politics made something like this illegal? I mean it's a shitty practice that companies do for voluntary stuff all the time, and while I think it's wrong they can technically get away with it, but I thought their were laws against if it was stuff like politics or religion, guess not and if so that's fucked.
And as someone else said, and no I am not a both sider and anyone who knows my posts know that but I would find it equally disgusting no matter the politician or cause, even ones I support. It's gross and if it's not against the law it sure as hell should be and needs to be something any official with ethics should be trying to get on the books.
Yuck.
And as someone else said, and no I am not a both sider and anyone who knows my posts know that but I would find it equally disgusting no matter the politician or cause, even ones I support. It's gross and if it's not against the law it sure as hell should be and needs to be something any official with ethics should be trying to get on the books.
Yuck.
"Either attend this rally for Dear Leader and get paid OT pay rate for this normal Tuesday workday, or miss out on any wages this Tuesday" is pretty fucked. Not sure how so many of you are justifying this, especially for a country that swears it's like a shining example of Democracy and "freedom"
The most interesting part about this whole thing is that it was agreed to by union leaders, which should be having the workers rights in mind.
I'd clock in and not go. Just show up to clock out when the bus comes back. 😂
If you're going to pay a bunch of douchebags to support Trump then you can pay me to not support him.
🤷
If you're going to pay a bunch of douchebags to support Trump then you can pay me to not support him.
🤷
Since they are implicitly forcing their employees to go, while at the same time mandating that they don't protest or show signs of resistance, can't an argument be made that they are infringing on the employees' First Amendment rights? As they are quite literally forbidding their workers from speaking out if they disagree with the President and any statements he made during the speech.
The First Ad. really only prevents the government from censoring you, it offers no protection outside it.
Ah, true enough. But if it could be proven that the mandate came from the Trump campaign that would count, right?
Again, you personally feeling that this is "hardly some great injustice" is not a compelling argument. The issue is that this is actively punishing employees for not attending. This is wrong no matter how many times and how many ways you say you're indifferent to it. The amount of money these employees make is not the issue. Your personal finances are also not the issue. "We'll I'D be okay," is not a reasonable defense of the practice of an employer economically blackmailing employees into attending a political rally. You would be all right. Fantastic for you. Others may not. And even if someone would be financially okay missing a day of pay, the fact still remains that they are entitled to that pay since operations have been shut down for purely personal decisions on the part of the employer.
And people should absolutely expect consistent pay within certain conditions. Attending a political rally should not be tolerated as a reason for the boss to shutter operations while denying those who wish not to attend compensation.
And you keep falling back on personal anecdote to defend this. Unless your brother is representative of all employees everywhere his personal preferences don't matter. And expecting those not attending to be compensated is hardly a "stupid" point. In many union protected workplaces, if operations are shutdown due to non-extenuating circumstances, the employees are still compensated for their lost day. The boss in this this case was willing to pay employees overtime to essentially do nothing, so you can hardly make the case that it would have been outside their economic ability to do so. And please don't try to suggest that I or anyone else here are not working class. Believing that the boss has a right to exploit you like they have in this situation does not make you any more working class than anyone else.
Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1
NBC News confirms: Thousands of union workers at a western Pennsylvania petrochemical plant were given a choice last week — show up for Trump's speech or stay home and lose some of their weekly pay. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/shell-workers-would-have-lost-pay-if-they-missed-trump-n1043756 …
5:35 PM - Aug 18, 2019
NBC News confirms: Thousands of union workers at a western Pennsylvania petrochemical plant were given a choice last week — show up for Trump's speech or stay home and lose some of their weekly pay. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/shell-workers-would-have-lost-pay-if-they-missed-trump-n1043756 …
5:35 PM - Aug 18, 2019
Several workers said a lot of people didn't show up because they don't like Trump, particularly the strong union supporters. One worker said he didn't really want to come, but thought it would look bad to miss a day of work and wanted to get his full pay.
The event went past 3 p.m., when many of the workers' regular shift ended — causing workers to worry they wouldn't get paid for the extra time they spent holding in the warehouse.
Dozens of workers tried to leave early, before Trump had even finished as 3 p.m. approached, but they were told Secret Service wouldn't let them out of the warehouse until Trump had left the property. After his speech ended, Trump took a tour of the construction site.
Once Trump had finished speaking the workers were still being held and were letting out boos and angry shouts because they weren't being let out. At 3:30 p.m., a plant employee tried to calm the crowd and let them know they would be getting paid for the time they were still there.
Even more disgusting than I thought. Really hope this story blows up.
It really should, but the republican propaganda machine will already try to short the story. What a shit cycle
"You will be standing through your normal lunch period. Lunch will not be provided"
It really surprises me how people just eat up capitalism with almost very little complaint. I'm walking off the job for that alone, and then to add in the fact that your standing for a Trump visit. Lol, yeah I'll gladly walk out.
It really surprises me how people just eat up capitalism with almost very little complaint. I'm walking off the job for that alone, and then to add in the fact that your standing for a Trump visit. Lol, yeah I'll gladly walk out.
OP
OP
Correct, they were being paid to go not forced. However those that did not want to go were not given the option to work and be paid. They had to lose a days pay, or forced to use their PTO/vacation time to get paid for the day. That is a great injustice IMO. If they were given the option to work and get paid for the day then fine. But they were essentially coersed to go to get paid.
No, in America, you're "free" to just give up your job.
Illegal: Someone holding a gun to your head and saying "Stay here"
Legal, in certain jurisdictions: Someone firing you/withholding pay if you don't do a thing they want, and this maybe putting you out on the streets
And when you are fired illegally, aka "wrongful termination", it is up to you to prove that the termination was wrongful. This means putting together a case and hiring a lawyer. What if you can't afford a lawyer? Tough tits. The justice system doesn't care if you're too poor to fight for your own justice.
Has his ability to fill places fallen so hard that he now has to have jobs threaten to take away overtime pay unless they attend his rally?
Sure, I'll go ahead and defend my platform here. For some reason my phone froze while writing a lengthy reply last night and I don't want to have to retread the same thoughts I wanted to express then, so I'll try to be succinct.
For one - this is the same story. If I "defended" it before, why would the same narrative from a different writer change anything? This story didn't change anything already known.
For two, I never defended the practice. I don't see it as problematic to the system we have. I don't see it as coercion, I don't see it as blackmail, I don't see it as threatening, I don't see it as unjust. This does not mean I think it's a good practice, something that everyone decided to jump on me for because, of course, it's all gotta be black and white, right? It just means I don't see it as a problem to focus on, nor one to chastise those who made those decisions for. It's a business practicing their rights. It's fantastic people here live in a fantasy world where businesses do not represent their own political ideologies in numerous ways. Man I wish I could live there! I don't, though, I live in the USA. What was called indifference by be is in fact just awareness.
What is the genuine reaction to how they defend themselves? That's really what I was wondering, before they even said it themselves in the article you referenced.
Literally the only difference here is that that guest speaker was the President, and in fact BECAUSE of the controversial nature of the president and the political landscape, employees were given the option to not attend! If they needed their pay I'm sure they would have been given the opportunity to use their own personal time off. A company bears NO RESPONSIBILITY to ensure pay to those who object and abstain from attending any work function. In fact, as Pennsylvania is an at-will state for employment, those employers had the absolute right to make attendance mandatory and failure to comply an offense worth termination, yet they didn't (because it would be fucking stupid to, of course). That would have absolutely had me holding a pitchforks with others. This... This was a non-issue blip of nothing that is just a byproduct symptom of a shitty system.
I was not referring to that. refering to teh fact they were not allowed to leave when they wanted to. I understand the owner/labor dynamics full well.
That little difference you mention of that piece of shit being the "trainer" is a huge difference. That they justify it by calling it a work training session doesn't make it the truth. They are being forced to attend a Trump rally or lose a day's pay, end of story. Your position is youre fine with an employer forcing you to politically support a candidate. Cool.
