
Disney CEO asks employees to chip in to pay copyright lobbyists - rmason
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/disney-ceo-asks-employees-to-chip-in-to-pay-copyright-lobbyists/
======
gherkin0
> "For your convenience, DisneyPAC has implemented a payroll deduction system,
> through which your contributions to the PAC will be deducted from your
> weekly paycheck"

The idea of suggesting employees donate to your PAC is tacky, but payroll
deductions are just over the top.

While they're at it, they should ask their employees to donate to a fund to
help the company purchase office supplies.

~~~
kageneko
When I worked at AT&T, we (annually) had presentations by a PAC and if you
wanted to have a payroll deduction done, you would stay behind after. They
took attendance for these presentations (and for other things like United
Way).

------
tssva
This is very common. I have been solicited to contribute to PACs at multiple
employers. At each employer everyone has understood the career consequences of
not contributing. No threat was needed. The law should really require some
sort of firewall where corporate management can not know who has or hasn't
contributed.

~~~
snowwrestler
I have worked at some very politically charged places, where I was solicited
for PAC donations, and declined. It had no effect on my career.

And it makes no sense that employers would even want to retaliate. All PACs
want from employees is money, and individual donors are limited to
$5,000/year. Anyone who can afford to donate $5,000, would probably cost more
than $5,000 to replace, in recruiting, training, and lost productivity.

~~~
harry8
I'm genuinely pleased /you/ haven't been burned by it.

You know sometimes people think those who disagree with them must be stupid?
You know how not everyone being paid the same wage is actually worth the same
to the business? You know how managers want to lose the "dead wood." You know
how we see firing as a part of corporate culture and it comes up here often.
"If you aren't willing to fight to keep them you should fire them." Optimal
staff turnover ratios that managers are judged on etc.

That.

"I just don't think you're really committed to the goals and ideals of Disney
corporation and would be better suited working elsewhere."

~~~
snowwrestler
Disney has 185,000 employees. Their PAC received contributions over $200 from
144 people in the 2014. If they're going to use PAC contributions to pick
employees to keep, they're going to have a hard time.

[https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2014&cmt...](https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2014&cmte=C00197749)

------
brianwawok
So working in finance I got a letter like this. It included helpful donation
levels like:

* Normal salary employee: $100 a year

* Mid level pointy hair boss: $1000 a year

* Double level pointy hair boss: $10,000 a year

I can't remember exact numbers but was that ballpark.. what they asked for the
normal guy making 100k was small, what they wanted form the double pointy boss
making 300k was a lot more.

Either way, SuperPACs are out of control and we need some mad finance reform.
When have lobbyists ever helped the consumer?

~~~
7952
I am not sure you can blame the SuperPACs exactly. It is the morons who allow
their workforce to be politicised and exploited that need be be reformed.

~~~
brianwawok
> It is the morons who allow their workforce to be politicised and exploited
> that need be be reformed.

Can you explain more?

From a business standpoint, the leadership wants the stock price to go up.
Their stock is worth more, and they make more money.

Historically, money going to lobbying has a very good return. Say $1 spent
lobbying can give your business a $100 return or more if the right laws pass
or don't pass. So I hardly thing the executives are "idiots" for telling their
workforce to contribute. Do I have moral issues with it? Yes. But I think they
are smart and working within the law. The only solution is to fix the law.

------
martin-adams
Wow, the concept of a PAC is something I never even knew existed. I don't
think I get it. Isn't an employer supposed to be a source of money for the
employee, not the the other way around. Hypothetically, if Disney have 180K
employees, and each did contribute $1000 a year, that comes to $180 million a
year.

Now, if the company made around $5bn profit a year, $180m is a mere 3.6% of
their profits - why is such a move funded out of the pockets of employees, and
not the company profits (i.e. the shareholders). I know why, but if it's
really that important, shouldn't it be a company investment and not an
employee investment?

Of course my figures are extremely exaggerated, as the actual money raised is
in the low millions.

~~~
cbhl
It looks bad if a politician accepts a $1000 donation from Disney, but less
bad if the politician accepts 1000 $1 donations from 1000 of Disney's
employees. I believe this is the premise under which PACs operate.

What I find odd is that PACs only seem to accept contributions from a
company's employees. Like, why can't just anyone contribute to the Apple PAC,
or the Google PAC, the way that they can contribute to the Wikimedia
Foundation or to the EFF to make political change?

~~~
snowwrestler
There are different types of PACs. I forget the exact names, but some are
directly attached to organizations, and can only solicit from org people like
employees, directors, board members, etc., and some PACs are not affiliated
with an org and can solicit from anybody. Emily's List is a famous pro-choice
PAC that is not affiliated with any other organization.

As for why PACs exist--they exist for the reason any other organization
exists. People can have a greater social impact if they pool their resources,
than if they act individually. This is the fundamental basis for nonprofits,
corporations, partnerhips, newspapers, churchs, clubs, etc... basically any
collection of people brought together by a mission.

The specific thing that ONLY a PAC can do is give money directly to
candidates. No other type of organization can give money to political
candidates.

------
DrScump
What makes this even more outrageous is Disney's history of outsourcing IT
jobs.

Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10969721](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10969721)

------
stygiansonic
I would think that if they wanted to redact the amount, they should be careful
of the entire letter being "personalized", to be used as a canary trap, as
Elon Musk apparently did:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap#Known_canary_trap_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap#Known_canary_trap_cases)

------
gat-bitty
I work at a bank and we are asked to voluntarily sign a payroll deduction for
our industry pac as well. They don't outright say it but it's generally
understood that they keep track of who pays and who does not.

------
draw_down
Impressively shameless.

