Sad Summerlin wrote on August 17, 2008 10:50 PM: John -

Thanks for the education... interesting how the laws and rules of our country have been crafted so cleverly...

So do you think this is only related to candidates or ballot initiatives as well?

A recent calling on the Mormon Church to have their members vote for the gay marriage ban in California comes to mind...

Can Obama's old church even endorse him as a candidate and still maintain their charitable status?

So Unions which are implied or required for some jobs may contribute to campaigns (since they pay taxes), but churches and charities cannot because they carry a tax exempt status....

Very intriguing...

John F wrote on August 17, 2008 10:31 PM: Sad Summerlin,

Never an apology necessary from you. The so-called seminar at Wal Mart was for management, yes, but Wal Mart managers are hourly employees. Therefore Wal Mart's conduct was illegal.

The following is from a letter from the IRS to all Presidential candidates regarding religious/charitable organizations and campaigning:

"...organizations may encourage people to participate in the electoral process by sponsoring debates or forums
to educate voters, distributing voter guides, or conducting voter registration or get-out-the-vote drives. If the debate or forum, voter guide, or voter registration or get-out-the-vote drive shows a preference for or against a certain candidate or party, however, it becomes a prohibited
activity.

"Thus, under federal law tax-exempt charitable organizations are prohibited from endorsing any candidates, making donations to their campaigns, engaging in fund-raising, distributing statements, or becoming involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to
any candidate. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition of section 501(c)(3).

"The federal courts have upheld this prohibition on political campaign activity, most recently in
Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2000)."

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/2008_paci_party_letter.pdf

Sad Summerlin wrote on August 17, 2008 09:48 PM: John -

If the employees are hourly and are paid for the optional seminar, then it is a violation... I fully agree with you on the coercion point which is why I stated that it was wrong for these seminars to be mandatory.

I apologize for insinuating that you raised the Wynn issue... not my intent... your argument and the Wynn argument were two different thoughts I addressed in the same message.

As to churches losing their tax exempt status for publishing lists of approved candidates --- I have a hard time agreeing with this...

If a group of atheist candidates were running on a platform for removing Churches tax exempt status, then how could Churches defend against these candidates without informing their "flock" of what the candidates stand for... by not allowing churches, clubs or organizations the right to endorse slates of candidates to their own members, you harm them in favor of other organizations (namely unions) that do the same...

Again... if we take the Wal-Mart example where it has not been proven that employees were "told how to vote" but rather the issues discussed with management and then shared with the employees on the implication of their votes... that should be allowed.

John F wrote on August 17, 2008 08:56 PM: Sad Summerlin,

Unions don't require that their membership show up for meetings for the purpose of telling them for whom they should vote. What Wal Mart did is forbidden by law. The reason is that the employer/emloyee relationship is coercive; employers can terminate employees that don't toe the line, especially in the absence of a union. Even a so-called optional seminar would smack of coercion and is illegal under the Federal Election Campaign Act (if the employees involved are hourly).

I didn't raise the Steve Wynn issue, so I won't respond to that.

If churches are publishing lists of approved candidates they should lose their tax exempt status.

Just my humble opinion wrote on August 17, 2008 06:52 PM: OMG, unions are adopting tactics the Jehovah Witness organization passed on years ago. Next they'll be imposing on prospective members by dropping by their homes, unannounced. Nice.

Just because I'm in a public workplace, it doesn't give a union salesman the right to pitch me, particularly when I'm on break.

Unions are desperate for members, because their day as representing the American worker is over. Unions are perceived as power grasping at any cost, including illegal aliens as members, taking jobs from American citizens, just so the union has political clout. Union betrayal of the workers, in their quest for political power, is wearing thin on the members and prospective members.

Unions have lost their relevancy for the worker/member in 2008.

Sad Summerlin wrote on August 17, 2008 06:35 PM: John F -

So you think it is okay for a Union to identify a slate of candidates that support their initiatives and distribute that slate to their members, but not a corporation?

And back to the Wynn issue... you all just want to confuse the situation. Wynn spoke to his employees about issues and measures that would impact the operation of his casino properties and in turn impact the workers. He was educating his staff on what their choices meant to their industry and their jobs and their future rather than let them be swayed by the propaganda machines behind the initiatives.

Furthermore, shall we ban churches from picking a slate and then sharing that slate with their parishioners?

It truly is NOT a level playing field.

I am with you on one key point though... neither unions nor corporations should intimidate employees for election day choices. Seminars should not be mandatory, but rather optional... and that is where the involvement should end.

John F wrote on August 17, 2008 04:15 PM: Jon H.,

I agree. That's why, in the last sentence of my first post I wrote that union elections should be held in such a manner that neither the union nor the employer could intimidate voters. I'm with Wal Mart on this issue; I think union certification votes shoud be by private ballot. But what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. If unions shouldn't be allowed to intimidate employees, neither should employers.

Jon H. wrote on August 17, 2008 03:31 PM: I do believe it is necessary to discuss some of the historical reasons federal labor laws were written, such that the Union was given extraordinary rights over the employer. Consider the following thoughts. I encourage others to suggest corrections or additions where necessary.

Some might point out the labor strikes that Henry Ford had put down rather with some very heavy handed tactics, using hired thugs, to protect his “perceived” right to run his business his own way. He didn’t like to be told by his worker how to run his plants . . . go figure! The gall of the man.

I assume that many such examples can be cited . . .

Recall that the Progressive movement was moving the country towards Socialism and Communism in our country, and the empowerment of Labor Unions one way to accelerate the creation of a worker state.

That labor laws protect Union Membership from prosecution when violence is used against those who oppose them in labor disputes.

That labor unions apparently can picket non union places of business, even when they don’t represent the employers employees . . . I am thinking about the Wal-Mart picketing.

So, apparently from John F.’s post the Union wants a new Federal law that will allow them to openly intimidate, and perhaps use violence to force an employee into joining the Union. At the same time the company cannot hold meetings to state its position with regards to a union to its own employees. John is most likely right with regards to the existing labor law, but is this fair? Is this where we want to go as a country? I say no.

John F wrote on August 17, 2008 03:30 PM: Salaried people don't earn hourly wages, but we get the point.

But while we're imagining that employee, let's think about what his life was like before the union. He was making $8 an hour and probably had no medical insurance. Now he's making $16, has insurance, can provide for his family, and is a positive attribute in our local economy and society.

Certainly if things get to the point where the cost of labor gets too high the overall business will be affected in a negative way, but there is a point where the business can make money, the employee can have a decent standard of living, and the end consumer doesn't get fleeced. It may be that unions take businesses beyond that point, but without unions they'll never reach it.

In many instances unions have demanded so much that they've shot themselves in the foot by hamstringing their employers. No doubt about it. But do you like your eight hour day? How about a five-day work week? What about medical benefits, paid vacations, the family and medical leave act? Do you like your pension fund? Then thank unions.

Jim wrote on August 17, 2008 02:25 PM: Let's take a salaried casino employee in a union. Perhaps they started at $8 an hour, now say they are more than double that, not unreal, this is actuality. Now their salary has doubled over the years, but the slots are the same price. You can't increase the price of gambling, but you can curtail or control the winnings and then what happens, people quit or slow down on gambling. Then people get laid off because revenue decreases. You can only increase the cost of food and rooms so much before people stop coming to Vegas or go elsewhere. It is a catch 22 situation. Unions eventually price people out if a job. TRUST ME...........

Read All Comments