Is Holding a Caucus in a Work Environment Really Best Practice?

Let's move away from the campaign for a second and look at it through a neutral eye.

Is it really a best practice procedure to have employees go to caucus at their place of employment, in front of their co-workers and supervisors, where the union they all belong has endorsed a candidate?

Will there be any intimidation to hold the union line, or even create an atmosphere where some people would be uncomfortable supporting another candidate?

This would not be a problem if there was a secret ballot election, but this is one of the reasons that the whole idea of a caucus seems very foreign and uncomfortable to me.

Until it's over with, and we're deciding the next caucus - the conversation is a moot point.

And have a broader discussion of whether this is really a good idea.

While first, I think it's odd having these in casinos to begin with is strange. I consider that they do have the adequate space, and of course a HUGE amount of employees (and local residents).

I do think some rules should be established in gathering areas. Different rooms set up, where different tiers of employees report. I can see where an employee would be intimidated IF their boss had been speaking out, and pressuring - OR, if they had a bad working relationship with their supervisor. Maybe something like this area reserved for all employees of this grade or title - and this supervisor layer of employees in this room, etc, etc.

my limited understanding of what transpires during a caucus.

especially if I belonged to a union that endorsed a candidate that I didn't choose to vote for. The idea of meeting and discussing candidates is a good one, but voting should be individual and private.

and we have brothels ...you know, places where beds can earn you money?

This is Nevada.

Bring back our primary election!

I wouldnt want any of my co workers knowing who I vote for, would you?

Especially if you worked in a place where your job depended on your boss and your boss made it very clear he supported a particular person.

It does have to be a threat, even the implication is enough.

Would you want your boss or union writing down and logging who you voted for?

Your boss could use that information to decide promotions, redundancies etc.

they decided months ago on such a strange set of rules for said caucus.

I was thinking about this today and cannot imagine doing this in front of the people I work with. And I work with nurses, LOL.. not union people :hide:

I wonder if any of these sites will be televised. Might make for an interesting reality series ! Good point/post.

;-)

.

The Secret Ballot is what makes Democracy work.

a compromise with the drawbacks that you describe. I want to know if people who choose to support Hillary face repercussions later?

I bet a lot of people dont get allowed to go caucus. Those casino bosses are hard sons of bitches.

You can never be guaranteed how long the process will take. If theres delays or problems then people will have to go back to work.

It was worked out by the unions and the party with the casino owners.

the invention of myspace, livejournal, facebook, e-mails, and countless blogging sites... who is anonymous anymore? Most people park with the sticker on their window and walk in with the t-shirt on and vote.. I think it helps more people become involved in the process. If it looks like there is some kind of crazy push by "boss" to influence "employee" there will be clear fall out.

First hint of intimidation, and the msm will be on it like flies round shit and i bet it happens.

Who have all found themselves all over the country on websites such as this.

Not so sure much has changed for the average voter.

:thumbsdown:

This is obviously not going to be stopped, but in the future we may want to look at this and see if it is really the most fair process for delegate selection.

It was the Clinton/Reid hack machine that came up with this plan back when they thought the culinary worker's endorsement was a slam-dunk.

I know what's good for the goose, what goes around, etc., etc.,

But, if the Clintons DID get the culinary workers endorsement, wouldn't Obamanation be crying about it rather than "using it"?

Perhaps the Clintons *are* getting what they deserve. Yes, I would agree. Their "brand" of politics would have been to do exactly as you say, and it's FITTING that it comes back to BITE THEM IN THE ASS...

But don'cha think that THIS kind of thing is what's WRONG with politics?

I mean, I'm reminded of the questionable practices with electronic voting - just because you win doesn't make it RIGHT...

to hear the way they go on about the "intimidation" and "reprisals"....

Honestly, they are not that big a deal. They are just another way of taking care of party business-- NOT just endorsing a presidential candidate.

They're no worse than a town hall meeting.

I've never been to a caucus, but I've been fascinated reading what DUers who do caucus have to say about them in 2004 and now.

Unions don't intimidate their fellow workers.... Unions are the backbone of America.... Unions are the voice of the people...
No?

The things I have encountered in my life may be more of an "old school" variety.

I can't imagine a city such as Las Vegas to be much better.

that Unions do not care about the Constitutional rights of their fellow workers? That they would use force and intimidation to suppress the voting rights of the people? That they are capable of intimidation and voter fraud?

Maybe you should remove your rose colored glasses?

engage in voter intimidation and the suppression of the voting rights of their fellow workers, you should think about changing parties (or at least stop listening to talk radio).

Unions have always championed voter rights!

Unions are the worst for it. You break union lines they make you pay for it.

I sincerely hope all Edwards and Hillary supporters tomorrow stand up make a point of, "i'll vote for who the fuck i want and screw you".

Bosses, supervisors, foremen, leadpersons on the one hand and the Union management, Chief Steward, shop stewards, and narcs all over the place on the other.

People breaking the line will be noted and possible future retaliation could be a real issue for many.

the strongest and most important element f the Democratic Party coalition is in reality a bunch of strong-arm hooligans that have no respect for the Constitutional rights of their fellow workers?

Is Holding a Caucus Really Best Practice?

I'm going to caucus in NV tomorrow and most of the people I've been calling to get to participate are PISSED that we have this caucus and not a primary -- with a secret ballot.

Some folks here are going to be really surprised when they get to these caucus sites and realize they can't vote and leave like they've done in the past -- and like the Republicans are doing (they caucus tomorrow, too, but all they are doing is writing their candidate's name on a ballot and dropping it into a box).

Because a caucus is basically the same thing as a political convention. The only difference is that ANYBODY can show up, not just elected delegates. The procedures and practices are nearly identical.

Quite frankly, everybody is making a mountain out of a molehill re: the caucuses-- and most of these people have never even ATTENDED a caucus before.

Ask somebody from a traditional caucus state (like Iowa) and they'll tell you it's really no big deal.

I'm helping set up my caucus site here and from the calls I've made, a lot of people are concerned and confused. I'm trying to assuage their fears and encourage participation. Many people are not coming because 1) the length of time it will take to participate and 2) the fact that their "vote" or "preference" is made public. 3) They have no clue what a caucus is.

By choosing a caucus format, our party is throwing people from precincts (in my particular location, who have a 65% voter turnout in the General in '06 and considerably less in the Primary) into an unknown, unfamiliar situation. This is a disincentive to come out and participate, when just getting them to vote is hard enough.

I'm just telling it like it is here. It may be no big deal to Iowa -- they've been doing it for a long while now.

Judging from the responses I get, they'd probably say, "Huh?" or "No thanks." They just want to vote - and some don't even want to take the time to do that. They don't want to discuss their politics with their neighbors. Like I said before, there's quite a bit of political apathy in some of these precincts, despite the fact that people are wanting to get rid of Bush. It reminds me of that old story about the Little Red Hen baking bread. Everyone wants some but no one wants to participate in the process.

The process is undemocratic and violates equal vote power for each citizen, and a few other things which Bill Clinton was talking about.

I have been posting for weeks that non-secret voting is violative of individual voting rights based on obvious pressure to publicly vote for the "right person" - the person supported by union leaders and supervisors.

So much more involved in all this. We'll see how the conversation develops.

... There seem to be some pretty anti-union sentiments floating around... suggesting that the union people would attempt to intimidate their fellow union members into casting their vote a particular way.


I think either you BELIEVE in the union or you don't. If you honest believe that the union leaders would attempt to intimidate the union members into towing the line on a vote, then you believe the union is corrupt and if the union is corrupt, it probably shouldn't exist.

It is a reality in many big cities.

It is not anti-worker to describe what is reality for many people.

Claiming Unions engage in voter intimidation of their fellow employees is not "anti-worker"?????

Might union reps be there?

Oh yeah.

But we all know the educated elite are above reproach.

I am SO SICK of the way low income people are belittled on this site.

One man one vote and a secret ballot just seems to make more sense to me.

and stop assuming minorities and low income people are too incompetent to exercise their vote.

At least, I hope they're not (if their union is doing its job, they shouldn't be)

for one, that teachers had to work at the caucuses and wouldn't be able to vote at them.

Regardless, schools are teachers' place of employment and nobody ever asks where their union stewards are going to be during these caucuses.

Elitism. Nobody ever thinks to question the elite.

at every caucus I've been at, the chair has been able to participate. Same goes with anybody working as a teller (vote counter).

How could they make the teachers work at the caucus, when the caucus is a Democratic party event and not a school function? Something smells fishy...

I never understood that aspect of the law suit. But it was a two part complaint. The first part was based on teachers having to work that Saturday, at schools holding caucuses. The second part was the weighting.

I just get annoyed that the kinds of innuendo about cheating is never directed at any of the professional unions and I know they're just as likely to have ambitious and corrupt individuals as any working persons union. Look who ends up in as elected officials after all, and who gets caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.

and I'd guess we have as much shady stuff going on as anywhere else (if not more). At least the working people's unions actuall DO something for them. My union is highly inept and seems to only be good at negotiating away our wages and benefits. I've only been in it for four years, and in both contracts they've successfully negotiated a cut in pay and benefits. But I doubt they care as long as the dues keep coming in.

And the one thing you learn quick in a small town is not to throw too much dirt because it's only a matter of time where the tables are turned and there's dirt to throw back at you. Life just works that way. And the scandals?? holy moley. A dentist was printing money on his ink jet in one town I lived in. Teachers growing pot. Small town contract kick backs. Affairs. Sheesh, don't come talking to me about questioning the honesty of the service and labor worker. lol.

at caucus sites other than their own, and would "not be allowed to participate." "Required to assist?" Do unions require their members to volunteer, and, if so, would they require that they volunteer at a precinct not their own? That makes no sense at all.

Teachers, like all other volunteers, can volunteer at their own precinct -- The Dem Party in NV set up an organized hierarchy of grassroots volunteer system that goes all the way down to the precinct level. Any teacher wanting to volunteer at a caucus can do so at their own precinct in their own neighborhood -- they certainly shouldn't be required to volunteer at a precinct where they are not registered to vote.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/12/133648/896

As far as the original OP, I have heard from some friends who are union members that folks in their unions are leaning on them pretty heavily to go with the union's endorsed candidate -- won't say what union(s) I've heard about -- but pressuring members is going on as we speak. I just hope all union members are able to participate freely in the caucus system when it happens tomorrow.