problem between an employee and a supervisor (Arturo in one instance), had nothing to do with the Obama campaign or Obama. Its a clear difference when one says that two individuals complained about this coming from their union, that is not the Obama campaign and news articles available clearly make that distinction. here is an interesting tidbit I didn't know though:"The lawsuit was filed by the firm Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario. Senior partners Michael Bonner and Christian Kaempfer have donated money to Clinton in the past, and Clinton ally and former Rep. James H. Bilbray, D-Nev., is an attorney at that firm."http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2008/01/clinton-employing-voter-suppression.html
Union organizers puhing hard for Obama are not themselves Obama campaign members nor were they asked to do this. Jobs weren't threatened, though feeling intimidation by a union organizer is unacceptable just like Bill Clinton's pushiness has offended senior members of the democratic party so much so that Senator Kennedy told him to stop it in a phone conversation as reported in one news story today. I think Newsweek has it.
Culinary union pushes hard
18 January 2008
by Michael Mishak
By Our Partners at the Las Vegas Sun
LAS VEGAS, Nevada -- As the Culinary Union worked feverishly this week to persuade its members to support Barack Obama, a prickly question arose: What is the difference between tough political tactics and unethical, or illegal, intimidation?
Some Culinary members say they have felt intimidated by the pushy approach of some organizers.
But labor experts say a vigorous back-and-forth is the norm as unions work to spread the word of an endorsement -- and the tactics don't cross the legal line of voter intimidation unless workers are threatened.
None of the Culinary members interviewed by the Sun claimed to have been threatened by union activists gathering pledge cards for Obama. Some, however, were told they would have to caucus for Obama, period.
If so, it raises the question of where a union draws the line between hard-nosed politicking and intimidation.
"One person's intimidation is another person's persuasion," said Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Labor experts said that although member-on-member intimidation prevailed a half-century ago, it's exceedingly rare today, especially in the context of a caucus, in which voters must show up at a particular place and time and publicly declare their support for a candidate. In other words, caucusgoers need to be highly motivated to turn out. Intimidating the voter pool would be counterproductive.
"That would be stupid," said Peter Francia, a political scientist at Eastern Carolina University who has studied labor unions. "It would alienate the people you need to mobilize your political muscle."
Organizers cross the legal line, experts said, when they threaten a worker's union status or job security.
http://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/article.cfm?contentID=170743The case you cite is going to trial, posting a link in this way makes you look like your attempting to smear an opponent with out an ounce of proof he did anything. In the case of Bill and Hillary many people are very knowledgeable about the things they have done.