Personally, I would never caucus in front of my union bosses...

out of fear of retaliation at a later date. What happens if you do not tow the union line? just asking?

They belong to a union too, remember? They're also caucusing at their place of employment.

Why wouldn't they caucus in their neighborhood precinct?

caucus in their own school? Will their union reps be watching to see if they tow the line for Clinton? My point is not about the endorsements, but about union reps and bosses watching their employees. This is not about either candidate. It is about people who hold power over your job watching to see if you are towing the union line. It is intimidation at it's finest.

anyone else. The casinos were set up special by the DNC for the workers there only. The claim is they didn't agree to the way they are counting the votes. It will give them more power. The teachers union doesn't endorse for a primary. They said they only endorse for the general election. They did not endorse Clinton or anyone else for the primary.

So many of them will be caucusing at schools in front of union leaders that everybody knows support Clinton.

You should never have to stand in front of people who hold power over your job. Bad all around imho. Caucus on a slow evening is what they should be doing.

Explain what you mean by that.

They should have a private ballot with first and second choice, I agree.

a much better way to do it.

Especially in January when people come in from all over for a little bit nicer weather. I don't think the day would make much difference when you are an employer with 4,000+ people.

Ballot primaries and automatic audits. Two things we need to get passed regadless of any other election reform.

they aren't voting. And the teachers union doesn't endorse for the primary. Only for the general election.

that's where they're caucusing. And some of their leadership endorsed, so it's clear who the union is for.

Do you deny that? Because the basis of their law suit was that some of them would have to work at schools during the caucus.

are not allowed to vote. That was their complaint, and the janitors, and all the others who complained.

that's where they will be caucusing. And many many precincts across the state will be in schools. Why isn't anybody concerned about their union reps? Oh yeah, educated white people are above reproach and would never intimidate each other into voting against their wishes.

Black/Brown and that also some of the union reps are Black/Brown. What was the point of bringing in race?

schools and other types of buildings. Teachers might at least be able to find a way to stay out of sight of their union reps and bosses. Strip workers are tied right there in full view of their mighty powerful union.

I really don't understand why anybody is arguing against such a simple statement.

IF IF IF they caucus in schools, and many of them do, IF IF IF.

This is not like Iowa where precincts have been set up for years and traditions have been formed. This is a new caucus so more precincts will be in schools and libraries and places like that. Almost all, if not all, public workers belong to a union. Any public worker may be caucusing in a public building with a union leader standing around. Nobody worried about any of these unions pressuring people.

possibly reporting back to the powers that be. I would not take that chance with my job, promotion,etc.

when you read that many of them would be caucusing at schools? Because I don't recall seeing anybody concerned about teachers having to stand up in front of their union reps and caucus.

And I'd like to know the answer to the question. I too think caucusing in front of your boss is wrong.

You know, Rory Reid, Harry Reid's son and Harry Clinton state chairman in Nevada.

I would expect they will be in charge.

Rory Reid or Harry Reid get them fired or make them lose out on a promotion? I don't get your point.

heart or my mind. So bug off!

is that the union clearly wanted obama to win, no way would i do it. well, ME, yes. :D. but in theory, no.

...a republican democracy.

Until you don't know if it's day or night or Tuesday?

Even the Christmas parties were mandated. You didn't dare not show up

I won't even begin to describe what sexist pigs and deviants they were:scared:

the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama, did you?

They could have arranged time off and caucused in their home precinct if they wanted to. Anybody within a 2.5 mile radius can caucus at one of the nine strip locations, not just the casino workers.

no choice but to caucus there, because they can't get the time off. Don't they all belong to the very same union? Can't you see how intimidating that is? I don't care which candidate the union endorsed it would still be a form of intimidation because of where they are holding the strip caucuses. Right there in union land.

Who have their precincts in their schools and have to caucus right there in union land, the school!!!

Good god. These are thousands of people who will not get to caucus otherwise. It's the simple.

If your problem is your loyalty to the Clintons, maybe you want to look there instead of at the big bad unions.

schools on a saturday night. It is my understanding that there are several different places for them to caucus. Can you show me where it says that on a saturday evening they can only caucus in their own school district? Besides there are far less teachers than there are strip workers. I resent that you accuse me of loyalty to the Clinton's on this issue. I would feel the same exact way if this was being done by Clinton/Edwards endorsements. It is wrong no matter how you look at it. Those strip workers are forced to caucus under the eye of the union. It is wrong.

You caucus in the precint where you live - unless you are working within the 2.5 mile radious of a casino site and then you can go there if you want to. OR you can go home and caucus at home. Nobody is forced to caucus at the casino.

If the school is your precinct location, then please tell me where you're going to have to caucus.

they will not give you time off to go to your home precinct to caucus. You either caucus there, on the strip, or not at all. Teachers don't necessarily live in the same precinct as the school they work at.

If it's a school, won't there be other teachers there? After all, there's teachers being disenfranchised because they have to work at the caucus. Won't they be spying on all the teachers? Won't they report on who caucused for Obama, going against the teacher's union? How come you aren't concerned about all these other possibilities?

Why can't you just admit you didn't think about it because nobody put the thoughts into your head.

primaries. They are not caucusing alone like the casino workers are. They have not been told to vote for anyone. They will be in their own precinct districts. And it will be very intimidating for the casino workers to go against the union. For some reason a few posters can't recognize any of these details.

Despite it being splashed all over the news. For some reason, a few posters can't recognizethe fucking obvious.

If it is intimidating for casino workers, then it's intimidating for those teachers whose home precinct is a school and will be standing in front of their union rep.

caucus' anywhere. Knock knock..hollow sound.

Please tell me you really don't believe what you're writing. Everybody knows the leadership of the teacher's union is for the Clintons. If you're concerned about anything relating to the union, then they are the people you are going to be worried about. Are you saying union reps aren't going to caucus anywhere?

Always been that way. We all live in a fairy tale land if we believe that we have a real democracy.

Its a bad idea, especially if they make it clear who they want you to support. If the casino workers have to caucus with their bosses at their job location then the union should not be allowed to make an endorsement till the general election. Anything else and its not democracy in action at all, but more like the Russian version or something.

or is it a top-down kind of thing?


I only ever belonged to AFSCME and I don't remember any pressure. But they were a pretty mellow union.

Because it is only the 'shift workers' that will be at work and cannot attend the caucus at their home precinct site that will be allowed to caucus at the 'at-large' sites.

So, how many of the 'bosses' will be clocking in and working a weekend shift job? That's how many will be caucusing with the shift workers.

NSDP staff members NOT the Union Bosses. Where did you get the idea that the Unions where holding the caucuses?

http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/images/draftdelselupdated_oct2007l.pdf

<snip>
Staff at the At-Large Precinct Caucus
• At-Large Precinct Caucuses will be conducted ONLY by trained NSDP staff.
NSDP staff will be assigned to each location by the Caucus Director to serve as
the At-Large Precinct Caucus Chair but will not be permitted to participate in the
caucus.
• NSDP staff will manage the following At-Large Precinct Caucus activities:
1. Registration
2. Reporting the number of eligible caucus participants to the Nevada State
Democratic Party
3. Administration of the caucus meeting
4. Apportionment and reporting of the delegates to the Nevada State
Democratic Party
<snip>

show their ID card and sign an affidavit that they are scheduled to work at the time the caucuses occur. Otherwise they will have to caucus at their home precinct.

who will report on how union members voted. And no doubt many of the union bosses will be working that day.

I've been to caucuses on controversial votes before and have no doubt there's a lot of pressure being applied on rank and file union members.

Is the union seriously going to pull support from the candidate in one area just to ensure support in another? Is the union going to keep some members from caucusing just to ensure that other members caucus? What kind of sense does that make?

Who is going to remove support for Barack Obama just to 'put pressure' on people to support Barack Obama?

Really?

It's one of the weaknesses of the caucus system. But it seems like the set up that the culinary workers have exacerbates the possibility of being pressured to stand for a candidate other than who you really support. You have to work with the others and some you may work for.

On the other hand these workers would not be able to caucus in their home precinct, so between the two choices risking intimidation or no vote at all...?

my job, promotion,etc. Even being a no show would probably put me in a fish bowl, sad to say.

Which union are you in?

its Obama's Nevada version of busing in students. He must be getting a lot of good strategies from his corporate donors, they know the dirty tricks.

Why any union would endorse Obama is beyond me. Like the chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

I am not saying it is a good system, just that it is the one they went with. The Culinary Workers Union endorsement gives Obama an advantage in the caucus room.

There will be pressure on the union members to caucus for the union's candidate. Plus the caucus is being held right on the Strip where they work.

Caucuses are pretty F#@*ed up IMO but it is what it is.

The FIRST caucus,circa 1960.

Are you regularly intimidated by your Union Boss? If so, you should lodge a formal complaint.

If not, then this seems to be nothing more than mere speculation with little (at best) basis of evidence.

Are there valid, contemporary reports of the Culinary Workers getting intimidated or pressured into who they should vote for?