Timeline for Does your boss have to let you vote?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:20 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 15, 2016 at 0:08 | comment | added | user5155 | @JDoe That's covered in the 2nd paragraph under 'In regards to travel' | |
| Mar 14, 2016 at 20:09 | comment | added | J Doe | You might want to add that some states such as Oregon, where there is no law regarding time off for voting, conduct all their elections by mail. Voters can vote from the comfort of their own homes and have usually about three weeks to do so, so it is unnecessary for elections to be accommodated by employers in any way, and there is no way for employers to affect voting. | |
| Mar 14, 2016 at 10:29 | history | edited | user5155 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 73 characters in body
|
| May 5, 2015 at 6:28 | vote | accept | Simd | ||
| May 4, 2015 at 13:38 | comment | added | Jay | @lembik RE other job prospects: Of course that depends on where you live and what sort of job you have. If your present job is undesirable enough for whatever reason, you almost always have alternatives. Yes, it may require moving or other inconveniences. Whether it's worth it depends on how undesirable the job is. If you are really trapped in your present job with a boss who manipulates and abuses you, and you have no practical alternatives, getting time off to vote is likely very low on your list of concerns. :-) | |
| May 4, 2015 at 4:25 | history | edited | user5155 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 511 characters in body
|
| May 4, 2015 at 3:58 | history | edited | user5155 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 511 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2015 at 2:56 | comment | added | Jay | ... ordinance, but in that kind of case the employees have the same interests as the owner -- they both have a vested interest in seeing this company do well. If you're talking about general national policy, taxes or regulations or some such, it is very unlikely that the employees of one company could change the outcome. I suppose all the employers could get together in a vast conspiracy to stop their employees from voting against a candidate who would give a new tax break to big corporations or something, but that would take a huge and well-planned conspiracy to succeed. | |
| May 3, 2015 at 2:53 | comment | added | Jay | Yeah. If there was some local election where one candidate had policies that the owner of a big factory favored, while the other candidate had policies that the employees tended to favor, conceivably the boss could pull some trick to make it hard for the employees to vote so that his preferred candidate can win. I don't know what that would be in a local election. The only thing I can think of would be labor relations laws, and those are national, not local. A factory owner might have a big interest in a zoning change or local pollution ... | |
| May 2, 2015 at 6:48 | comment | added | reirab | @Lembik Not to mention the issue of it being extremely expensive to the employer for very, very little chance of affecting anything aside from perhaps who's on the local school board. | |
| May 2, 2015 at 6:48 | comment | added | reirab | @Lembik But a general pattern of such behavior would be pretty easy to identify (surely the employees would complain loudly) and it a law would be passed ASAP in addition to being a huge hit on the public image of the employer(s). It should probably also be noted that the sort of employees that are commonly sent on last-minute business trips are generally not the sort that have a strong tendency to vote contrary to how many business owners would vote. Certainly, sending a bunch of blue-collar factory workers on a 'business trip' on election day would raise lots of red flags. | |
| May 2, 2015 at 6:32 | comment | added | Simd | @reirab I think you are right about the law although I am not sure about the rest of your argument. The employer can claim it was an accident of timing of course and if most employers voted differently to their employees (which seems plausible) then a general pattern of behaviour of this sort could make quite a difference. | |
| May 2, 2015 at 6:28 | comment | added | Simd | @Jay I take your point although often there is no other comparable job prospect that doesn't involve moving house. | |
| May 2, 2015 at 5:36 | comment | added | reirab | This answer is good, but it might also be good to mention early voting, which is also available in the vast majority of states and can greatly increase the ability of workers to get to polls. Wikipedia claims that 30.6% of votes in the 2008 Presidential election were from early voters. | |
| May 2, 2015 at 5:29 | comment | added | reirab | @Lembik Laws are usually made in reaction to significant threats. Since the situation you describe doesn't seem to have been a problem so far, it hasn't been specifically addressed. Also, in addition to perhaps being sued for a civil rights violation, it would be extremely bad PR for the business in question and would almost certainly result in a law being made to prevent it in the future. Additionally, it's very unlikely to affect any election at a state or federal level, though it could possibly make a difference in a local election, especially in less populous areas. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 22:38 | comment | added | Jay | If your boss pulled some such trick to prevent employees from voting once -- whether because he's afraid they'll vote for the wrong person or he just doesn't want to lose the work hours -- everyone would then know and the next year you get an absentee ballot. It's a trick that could really only be pulled once or twice. And besides, if your boss is such a jerk that he schemes to lock you in the office so you can't vote, he's probably a jerk in other ways too, and you should be looking for another job. | |
| Apr 26, 2015 at 14:25 | comment | added | Bobson | @Lembik - I don't disagree, and I would love to see better laws to encourage voting in place, but I also don't think it's nearly as big an issue as other aspects of the voting process (such as gerrymandering). When most House races are forgone conclusions, one vote here and there really doesn't tilt the scales much. | |
| Apr 26, 2015 at 13:45 | comment | added | Simd | @Bobson I am talking about voting and suffering no detriment at work for doing so. I believe this should be a fundamental right. | |
| Apr 26, 2015 at 13:44 | comment | added | Bobson | @Lembik - Possibly a discrimination suit, or a civil rights violation. I'm not a lawyer, but there have certainly been successful suits for less important things. Also, like I said, you can't be prevented from voting if you care enough. If you'd rather vote than keep your job, you can do that. It's not like election day comes as a surprise every year - if your boss wants to send you out of town unexpectedly, you say no. | |
| Apr 26, 2015 at 8:16 | comment | added | Simd | @Bobson Which lawsuit would they leave themselves open to? I mean what could you sue for? I really don't buy your point about one vote not mattering. If individuals can legally prevent other individuals from voting that has to be bad. | |
| Apr 26, 2015 at 3:38 | comment | added | Bobson | @Lembik - I'm not sure that "odd" is the word I'd use for it, but it is true (in most states, anyway). However, if they're blatant enough about it, they may open themselves up to a lawsuit. Additionally, you can always quit, or go vote and then dare them to fire you for it. And there's always people who would want to vote and can't, because they get hit by a bus and are in a coma that day (or otherwise incapacitated). And this may be very cynical of me, but there are so few state & national elections where one vote matters that I really can't see any employer even caring that much. | |
| Apr 25, 2015 at 11:51 | comment | added | Simd | @Bobson It is very odd that there is no law to prevent employers deliberately sabotaging their employees chancing of being able to vote but sending them to travel at the last moment or just keeping them late at work. You can easily imagine the boss might like one party while the lowly paid staff like another. | |
| Apr 24, 2015 at 13:11 | comment | added | Bobson | @Anixx - That's when you get an absentee ballot. Those are unlikely to come up out of nowhere the day before election day. | |
| Apr 24, 2015 at 13:10 | comment | added | Bobson | I wish the rest of the country took Puerto Rico's approach. | |
| Apr 23, 2015 at 22:13 | comment | added | Anixx | What about employees that cannot leave work without damage to it? For instance those under medical experiments or testing Mars/orbital conditions in a spacecraft simulator etc? | |
| Apr 23, 2015 at 22:07 | comment | added | Simd | Thank you for this. As a matter of practicality I assume you have to apply for an absentee ballot some time in advance so that doesn't work unless you have plenty of warning of the travel. | |
| Apr 23, 2015 at 20:38 | history | edited | user5155 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2015 at 20:33 | history | answered | user5155 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |