Bay Area demonstrators may be paid to protest, by employers - Polidicks

[quote]It’s a common accusation lobbed at liberal protesters gathered at town hall meetings, statehouses and in the streets: They’re being paid to protest. Thanks to a rising trend among tech companies and some Bay Area firms, some, in fact, may be. Since the beginning of the year, an increasing number of companies have unveiled policies that allow employees to take paid time off work for political or civic activities, such as protesting, canvassing, voting, volunteering or even running for office. Big corporations like Comcast and outdoor-apparel maker Patagonia have been offering social-justice benefits to their employees for years. But several executives said the election of President Trump, and the backlash that followed, turned them on to the idea of giving their employees time off to express themselves politically. “Democracy is a participatory institution; it’s not just something that takes place every four years when you have a candidate in a race,” said Adam Kleinberg, CEO of San Francisco marketing firm Traction, which is allowing employees two paid “Days of Action” for civic engagement per year. The company’s policy includes a list of approved activities and requires employees to state their plans in advance. Most companies with similar policies are relatively small and nimble, with largely liberal workforces. Traction has about 50 employees. Two other San Francisco companies that offer paid leave for political action, Fauna and Buoyant, have 14 and 10 employees, respectively. But big corporations like Facebook, with thousands of employees of varied backgrounds and political views, may be entertaining a similar change: It told employees they could use paid leave time to attend pro-immigrant May Day demonstrations. Several executives said the election underscored what they see as a need for greater civic engagement. About 60 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot in 2016, according to the U.S. Elections Project at the University of Florida. California law mandates up to two hours of paid time off to vote for those who can’t otherwise get to the polls. Though more than three-quarters of companies do little to encourage employees to vote, according to a 2016 survey from the Society for Human Resource Management, 86 percent of organizations allow their employees time off to cast a ballot — more than half of them are required to by state law. By allowing employees to volunteer at polls, go to a protest, register others to vote or canvass for a candidate of their choice, executives said, companies may be able to help nudge the country into being more politically engaged. Companies offering paid leave for political action have incurred an intense backlash — particularly among those who believe that most protesters at hostile town hall meetings and protests that pack city streets are being paid to be there by wealthy liberal elites. (Fact check: They’re not.) “People were wishing that I was dropped off in an (Islamic State) territory, calling me an idiotic libtard, candy-ass, saying they hope we’ll go out of business. Really nasty stuff,” Kleinberg said. “We’re in marketing, so we talk all the time about making an emotional connection with people. And once we announced (the policy change) it became clear that we struck a powder keg.”[/quote] [url]http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Bay-Area-demonstrators-may-be-paid-to-protest-by-11125584.php[/url] I'm not surprised considering how much funding already goes into ringleader groups/workshops that prep protesters currently. Not illegal ofcourse, but something to be mindful of.

Employers pejorative to give people a paid day off. Seems like a good thing if it lets people be politically active. Sounds like it might be bias - so youre only given paid leave for a protest the employer agrees with and that the employers who are likely to do this are the ones who care about """""liberal""""" causes - I'm not so fussed though, if a conservative type wants to give his employees paid leave he is welcome to, he probably won't thought. The only real downside is that addled alt righters will [bark] about paid protesters, george soros and liebrul metropolitan elites who don't understand the hard working common man and feel vindicated for it. [editline]10th May 2017[/editline] Conservatives claimed that protesters were paid to be there - like protesters for hire, merecenary protesters who don't care about the cause they're just there for the money. Now they're trying to equate that with people having paid leave to protest something. It would be disingenuous for them to claim its the same thing.

What's wrong with paid leaves?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52209253]Employers pejorative to give people a paid day off. Seems like a good thing if it lets people be politically active. Sounds like it might be bias - so youre only given paid leave for a protest the employer agrees with and that the employers who are likely to do this are the ones who care about """""liberal""""" causes - I'm not so fussed though, if a conservative type wants to give his employees paid leave he is welcome to, he probably won't thought. The only real downside is that addled alt righters will [bark] about paid protesters, george soros and liebrul metropolitan elites who don't understand the hard working common man and feel vindicated for it. [editline]10th May 2017[/editline] Conservatives claimed that protesters were paid to be there - like protesters for hire, merecenary protesters who don't care about the cause they're just there for the money. Now they're trying to equate that with people having paid leave to protest something. It would be disingenuous for them to claim its the same thing.[/QUOTE] Perfect. This post says everything that needs to be said.

So using the same logic behind this are companies that give paid maternity leave literally paying women to go out and have children? Oh, or does the fact that the place I work for gave a paid day off on Good Friday mean they're paying their employees to be Christian?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52209253]Employers pejorative to give people a paid day off. Seems like a good thing if it lets people be politically active. Sounds like it might be bias - so youre only given paid leave for a protest the employer agrees with and that the employers who are likely to do this are the ones who care about """""liberal""""" causes - I'm not so fussed though, if a conservative type wants to give his employees paid leave he is welcome to, he probably won't thought. The only real downside is that addled alt righters will [bark] about paid protesters, george soros and liebrul metropolitan elites who don't understand the hard working common man and feel vindicated for it. [editline]10th May 2017[/editline] Conservatives claimed that protesters were paid to be there - like protesters for hire, merecenary protesters who don't care about the cause they're just there for the money. Now they're trying to equate that with people having paid leave to protest something. It would be disingenuous for them to claim its the same thing.[/QUOTE] And on top of that it turned out that Republicans actually did pay for protesters (cba finding the article but it was posted here on FP)

Hold on, so you can't just take a day off work with holiday time and do whatever you like already? Or is this extra time on top of annual leave?

This is the way it should be, albeit should be unbiased so anyone can take off to protest.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52209211]Not illegal ofcourse, but something to be mindful of.[/QUOTE] Why should we be mindful of this?

The hell? There is some serious clash between what the titles implies and what is written by the article. Anectodal play on words maybe. [editline]10th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;52209211][url]http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Bay-Area-demonstrators-may-be-paid-to-protest-by-11125584.php[/url] I'm not surprised considering how much funding already goes into ringleader groups/workshops that prep protesters currently. Not illegal ofcourse, but something to be mindful of.[/QUOTE] Mindful of what? That companies are finally beginning to understand that their workers are not mindless drones whose sole purpose in life isn't just their work and that they have other interests, some quite important for their future, they'd like to attend? Ah yes, very concerning indeed. Somehow I'm starting doubt you got even past the headline.

So from what I understand, if your employer agrees with what you are protesting you can get paid leave, but otherwise you'd be seen as absent? That seems pretty silly. Not gonna lie, this also reeks of an anti-union type deal. If a law was built around this it could be fairly problematic as it could be used to skirt union laws, all the while giving slackers a really shitty excuse for extra leave. I might be overthinking it, but if I were an employer, I wouldn't give people this type of thing. Just use your damn vacation days if you intend on going to a protest. Don't just decide to hamper production at a workplace because you want to go wave a sign and shout slogans for two hours and then spend the rest of the day at home picking your asshairs.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52209813]That seems pretty silly. Not gonna lie, this also reeks of an anti-union type deal. If this law were to be passed, employers who disagree with unions, can effectively stop paying you when you are participating in a union strike, and could pay other employees to do an anti-union strike on the same day.[/QUOTE] What? There's nothing here about removing previously established paid leave justifications. What does this have to do with unions?

Seems perfectly legal and a-OK! Thanks for informing us Tudd!

[QUOTE=_Axel;52209833]What? There's nothing here about removing previously established paid leave justifications. What does this have to do with unions?[/QUOTE] Let me try to give an example: The way this is setup is to act as paid leave for getting politically active, right? The problem I'm seeing with this, is who makes the decision of what is and isn't politically active, and what determines who gets paid leave or is seen as slacking/absent from work. With stuff like vacation days, you only get a certain amount every year. Now imagine if someone were to use their days of political activity on something which they feel connected with, for example changing marijuana legalization laws or something akin. One month or so down the road, that person is called up by their local union and they intend on a walkout/protest regarding pay or treatment in the workplace. Well, you already used up your political activity days w/ pay, and the company can tell you, "No. All your political days w/ pay are up. You will be seen as absent, and will be warned(or fired) for leaving without a good reason." this type of system could be used in a sense of legal jargon to prevent people from doing union strikes/protests. Unions would of course catch onto this, and would tell their unionized folk to not use their political days w/ pay for anything but union protests with the possibility of being kicked from the union. I'm probably overthinking this, but it's something which I could see being done. Not to mention that if you subscribe to Conservative views, would you be given these days as well, or would they be restricted because your political beliefs do not line up with those of the company's board or CEOs.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52209851]Let me try to give an example: The way this is setup is to act as paid leave for getting politically active, right? The problem I'm seeing with this, is who makes the decision of what is and isn't politically active, and what determines who gets paid leave or is seen as slacking/absent from work. With stuff like vacation days, you only get a certain amount every year. Now imagine if someone were to use their days of political activity on something which they feel connected with, for example changing marijuana legalization laws or something akin. One month or so down the road, that person is called up by their local union and they intend on a walkout/protest regarding pay or treatment in the workplace. Well, you already used up your political activity days w/ pay, and the company can tell you, "No. All your political days w/ pay are up. You will be seen as absent, and will be warned(or fired) for leaving without a good reason." this type of system could be used in a sense of legal jargon to prevent people from doing union strikes/protests. Unions would of course catch onto this, and would tell their unionized folk to not use their political days w/ pay for anything but union protests with the possibility of being kicked from the union. I'm probably overthinking this, but it's something which I could see being done. Not to mention that if you subscribe to Conservative views, would you be given these days as well, or would they be restricted because your political beliefs do not line up with those of the company's board or CEOs.[/QUOTE] I don't know how unions work in the US, but you have a limited number of allowable strike days? I thought workers simply didn't get paid and the union's solidarity fund was used to compensate that loss. As for your hypothesis, why would those leaves be counted as "political activism" when that's a category which apparently doesn't exist at present?

What exactly are "social justice benefits?"