Ohio miners turn on Obama.

So be sure and tell the Olympic athletes and pro athletes that those mandatory drug tests are "voluntary" and have no repercussions for skipping them. I am sure they will appreciate it.

This will be great for the undocumented workers getting jobs at U.S. companies where U.S. citizenship is mandatory. Who knew it was voluntary?

Gee, are we talking about the same miners?

Miners: We Had To Give Up Pay To Attend 'Mandatory' Romney Rally

Murray Energy Miners Allege They Had To Give Up Pay To Attend 'Mandatory' Romney Rally (AUDIO)

Earlier this month, Mitt Romney was welcomed for a campaign event at the Century Mine in Beallsville, Ohio, by hundreds of coal workers and their families. Now many of the mine's workers are saying they were forced to give up a day-worth of pay to attend the event, and they feared they might be fired if they didn’t, according to local news radio WWVA.

"Our managers communicated to our workforce that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend," he told local news radio WWVA, which has received several emails from workers claiming that the company records names of workers that don't attend those types of events.

The company's interest in having its employees show support for Romney may be a result of its CEO's close ties with the presumptive Republican nominee. In May, Romney teamed up with Murray's CEO Bob Murray for a fundraising event in West Virginia. And Murray's made no secret of his support for the Republican party, previously backing Rick Perry.

In addition, his company has donated more than $900,000 to Republican candidates in the last two years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Murray, who is also a climate-change denier, has been an outspoken critic of President Obama’s stance on coal. That view may be why Moore told WWVA that having employees attend the Romney event “was in the best interest of anyone that's related to the coal industry in this area or the entire country."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... 36674.html

Gee, imagine my surprise... Workers forced to give up a day's pay to attend a mandatory rally for someone they don't give a crap about because their company threatened them with loss of job if they didn't...

Jus' keep doin' what yer doin'....

Something the Dog Said wrote: So be sure and tell the Olympic athletes and pro athletes that those mandatory drug tests are "voluntary" and have no repercussions for skipping them. I am sure they will appreciate it.

That's it Dog - keep your jaws locked down. You really don't expect us to believe that you are not intelligent enough that you fail to understand that such a rigid interpretation in all instances is a flawed premise from which to begin, do you? And you know what starting with a flawed premise does to everything which follows it, don't you?

Or perhaps you feel that it is the miners who lack the intelligence to make the distinction and that this is why they are miners?

Any company has the right to stop work for a day- for whatever reason it wants.

My company stopped work for a day while we moved to a new location- no pay.

Any coal miner better realize that their entire career is in serious jeopardy with Obama and the demoncrats in charge- one day is nothing.

That is so stupid on its face that I'm so glad you posted it...

And I guess any union worker should be so glad to be covered that if his union spends funds supporting progressive candidates, they should be grateful too. "Any [union worker] better realize that their entire career is in serious jeopardy with [Mitt-the-Twit and the TeaHadists]."

I'm so glad you opened that door... rofllol

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So be sure and tell the Olympic athletes and pro athletes that those mandatory drug tests are "voluntary" and have no repercussions for skipping them. I am sure they will appreciate it.

That's it Dog - keep your jaws locked down. You really don't expect us to believe that you are not intelligent enough that you fail to understand that such a rigid interpretation in all instances is a flawed premise from which to begin, do you? And you know what starting with a flawed premise does to everything which follows it, don't you?

Or perhaps you feel that it is the miners who lack the intelligence to make the distinction and that this is why they are miners?

I do know that the miners reported that they believed their jobs were at risk if they did not go to the mandatory political rally.
I also know the definition of mandatory: Required or commanded by authority; obligatory: Attendance at the meeting is mandatory.
. obligatory; compulsory

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.


Of course you can continue to attack the posters who do not fall in line with your demagoguery and innuendo and actually follow the facts.

"Rob Moore made it abundantly clear that no employees were forced to attend the Romney event. All participation was, and always has been, completely voluntary."

Now, you can choose to believe anything that you wish to believe, but management is not responsible for what a miner feels after telling them that participation is purely voluntary.

You can choose to believe that the company is only saying that as a PR move, but you have nothing to sustain that belief.

The same could be said of the miners themselves. The argument could be made that Big Union made an issue of it with the union that the miners belonged to and some of the miners decided after the fact to say that they felt pressured to attend or lose their jobs in order to save face with the union community.

Either after the fact scenario is purely speculative in nature. What speculation one chooses to believe says more about their own bias than it accomplishes in portraying what happened. The company says that it was stressed to the miners that even though the company was saying that attendance was mandatory that participation was completely voluntary. Intellectually honest individuals will recognize that this isn't unheard of in the corporate world and happens on a regular basis.

Companies may have a policy that you are required to read the employee handbook and sign/return a sheet of paper testifying that you have done so. They actually don't care whether or not you read the handbook, there are no penalties associated with not doing so, and you are, in fact, free to simply sign and return the sheet without ever cracking open the booklet. What the company is looking to do is demonstrate that they have made an effort to inform you of their policies and the benefit package that you receive as an employee so that they have some protection in our litigation-happy society, nothing more. The company feels that it is in your best interest to familiarize yourself with the handbook, which is why they say it is mandatory that you read it and they keep a record that you have done it. You may feel it unnecessary to read and choose to sign and return the sheet. The company isn't going to fire you for not reading the employee handbook or give you a multiple choice test to make certain that you have done so - actually reading it is a voluntary action on your part.

I have now given two examples of "mandatory" requirements that are actually voluntary in nature in a company setting. Attending "mandatory" meetings describing benefits offered and "mandatory" familiarization of the employee handbook. Logic and reason are your friend - use them on a regular basis and you can avoid looking like a bigot and/or a fool.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So be sure and tell the Olympic athletes and pro athletes that those mandatory drug tests are "voluntary" and have no repercussions for skipping them. I am sure they will appreciate it.

That's it Dog - keep your jaws locked down. You really don't expect us to believe that you are not intelligent enough that you fail to understand that such a rigid interpretation in all instances is a flawed premise from which to begin, do you? And you know what starting with a flawed premise does to everything which follows it, don't you?

Or perhaps you feel that it is the miners who lack the intelligence to make the distinction and that this is why they are miners?

I do know that the miners reported that they believed their jobs were at risk if they did not go to the mandatory political rally.

What you do know is that some of the miners reported feeling that way after it was reported that unionized miners attended the event. What of the miners who didn't feel that way Dog? Just because some one feels[/u] a particular way about something doesn't mean that their feelings[/u] establish it as fact.

PrintSmith wrote:

"Rob Moore made it abundantly clear that no employees were forced to attend the Romney event. All participation was, and always has been, completely voluntary."

Now, you can choose to believe anything that you wish to believe, but management is not responsible for what a miner feels after telling them that participation is purely voluntary.

You can choose to believe that the company is only saying that as a PR move, but you have nothing to sustain that belief.

The same could be said of the miners themselves. The argument could be made that Big Union made an issue of it with the union that the miners belonged to and some of the miners decided after the fact to say that they felt pressured to attend or lose their jobs in order to save face with the union community.

Either after the fact scenario is purely speculative in nature. What speculation one chooses to believe says more about their own bias than it accomplishes in portraying what happened. The company says that it was stressed to the miners that even though the company was saying that attendance was mandatory that participation was completely voluntary. Intellectually honest individuals will recognize that this isn't unheard of in the corporate world and happens on a regular basis.

Companies may have a policy that you are required to read the employee handbook and sign/return a sheet of paper testifying that you have done so. They actually don't care whether or not you read the handbook, there are no penalties associated with not doing so, and you are, in fact, free to simply sign and return the sheet without ever cracking open the booklet. What the company is looking to do is demonstrate that they have made an effort to inform you of their policies and the benefit package that you receive as an employee so that they have some protection in our litigation-happy society, nothing more. The company feels that it is in your best interest to familiarize yourself with the handbook, which is why they say it is mandatory that you read it and they keep a record that you have done it. You may feel it unnecessary to read and choose to sign and return the sheet. The company isn't going to fire you for not reading the employee handbook or give you a multiple choice test to make certain that you have done so - actually reading it is a voluntary action on your part.

I have now given two examples of "mandatory" requirements that are actually voluntary in nature in a company setting. Attending "mandatory" meetings describing benefits offered and "mandatory" familiarization of the employee handbook. Logic and reason are your friend - use them on a regular basis and you can avoid looking like a bigot and/or a fool.

First, the company statement was made after the event, not to the miners themselves. Second, what is the penalty for not signing the sheet re the company handbook? Is it not mandatory for the employee to sign the sheet that they had read the handbook? If the employee does not sign the sheet saying that they had read the handbook, would they keep their employment. Hell, no, HR would see that the company was protected and the employee would be shown the door. Otherwise if the employer did not feel it necessary, then the sheet would not be necessary. Why would the company require the employee to sign the sheet? If it was not necessary for the company to have cover if the employee violated company policy found in the book, then it would not be necessary for the company to have the employee sign the sheet. Further, if a company has mandatory drug testing, what happens to the employee who refuses to comply with the mandatory requirement? Hmm? According to your "logic", the testing is strictly voluntary and the employee would suffer no repercussions. Guess what, that employee is discharged in the real life.

If Pike did not mean to require employees to attend the political rally, then they could have encouraged the employee to voluntarily attend. Instead, they made it mandatory. Every definition of mandatory is that it is compulsory, required by authority. Twist all that you would like, just as no means no, mandatory means mandatory, that is required, compulsory.