Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Fighteer
That's not what's said though. The mail doesn't outright say "I'll quit". It's more like, "If Obama does not get reelected, the corporate workers' rights will be in decline", meaning that there may be less incentive to be employed in a corporation. This can be construed by the employer as "I will have to quit from working in this company". Grizzly is saying that this possible implication is not enough.
Is there a difference between active coercion and a possible implication like this? You're saying no and Grizzly is saying yes.
edited 18th Oct '12 11:41:03 AM by Trivialis
That would be unacceptable. But were you to say "please vote for Obama because if Romney is elected I won't be able to afford health insurance on what this job pays and will have to look elsewhere", that would be completely fine.
<><
That is certainly a valid argument, but it's between me and my boss and is not coercive. Stating, "I could be unable to work if I can't get health insurance," is factual. Now, how about a company that threatens to cut its employee health benefits if Obama gets reelected?
@ch00beh: If you are replying to a specific post, please indicate that; otherwise we think you're making a general statement.
edited 18th Oct '12 11:44:00 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"As far as I can tell, no one is being threatened with the loss of their job based on their voting choice. There has been absolutely no indication that should these layoffs actually take place they will be targeted at supporters of Obama. If there was, and I missed it, then please point me to it, and I will agree with you that it is an example of extortion.
<><@Grizzly: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/17/1037881/leaked-audio-romney-employers/
Romney actively encouraging businesses to issue exactly such threats. And it's not that they will be targeted at Obama supporters. Who you vote for is none of your employer's business. That's not necessary for the claim of extortion, though. The implication that "if candidate X wins, you could be laid off" is all that's required. It creates a climate of intimidation in which an employee might feel pressured to vote a certain way.
You, of all people, should be in favor of voting rights free of coercion.
edited 18th Oct '12 11:46:37 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It was semi-general, too, since I usually get a mild anti-corporation vibe from this thread at any given time.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter@Fighteer 33455: The equivalent statement to this situation would be "if Obama is elected we will probably have to cut benefits because Obama's policies will make them prohibitively expensive", or as was actually stated "we will have to cut staff because the market will continue to be bad", both of which are no different from the health insurance example I gave.
edited 18th Oct '12 11:46:51 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><![]()
You do not send that out as a general email to all of your employees. That's the difference. You put it in your company reports and forecasts. You may even issue press releases. You do not get all your employees together (physically or virtually) and confront them with, "if X wins, you may get fired".
I would think that was obvious, but again, general employee communications should not be used for political advocacy, period. I don't care which side it's on. That is, of course, unless you work for an organization that is explicitly political — obviously you'd expect people working at Romney's campaign office to vote for him.
edited 18th Oct '12 11:50:30 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If you're a highly paid, highly skilled employee in an indispensable position, and your employer can't replace you, then I'd be a bit more skeptical of such a line. Of course, a highly paid employee saying that he wouldn't be able to afford health insurance would draw skepticism, just like an extremely wealthy business owner building his own personal Palais de Versailles in Florida should draw skepticism when he claims he'd have to lay people off if Obama gets reelected.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.@Fighteer 33457: Um, no, that article states nothing whatsoever of the kind. Maybe you misread my post:
As far as I have seen, no one is being threatened with the loss of their job as punishment for voting for Obama. They are being warned that, in the company's assessment, a win for Obama will put the jobs of all the employees at risk, democrat and republican, because the company believes that a win for Obama will harm their company and force layoffs.
<><
x3
So would you see the reformulated version I posted here
as coercion?
edited 18th Oct '12 11:54:53 AM by Trivialis
Grizzly, here are two articles previously linked (before anyone learned about Romney encouraging this) which is what started this particular issue in the first place.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/09/978211/david-siegel-fire-employees/
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/14/1009651/ceo-fire-employees-obama/
Basically, both are threatening their employees to not vote for Obama. When their employees even collectively (there being a lot more voters not working for those companies than are, and they have no control over how other people vote) with losing their jobs if Obama wins. This is what we're pissed about. We're not just seeing corporations in a bad light just because, we're seeing them in a bad light because someone is behaving like a manipulative jackass.
There is an implication through the letter. The reason the letter was circulated was because it was a legend to begin with, back in 2008, which basically was already established as "Boss man is throwing weight around."
Let me put it this way. Grizzly, how exactly would you determine whether or not this was extortion? Surely you see that it could be extortion, but what would it take to convince you that it IS extortion?
@Grizzly: It depends on which company we're looking at. Murray Coal is also threatening layoffs, and while they're not threatening specifically for those who vote Obama, they do send out regular memos with lists of employees who have not yet attended a GOP fundraiser.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianEspecially if they don't have collective bargaining rights.
Oh, that's just wrong. That's like if my prof were to dink our grades because we weren't attending the Obama rally tomorrow or something.
edited 18th Oct '12 11:57:38 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
"they do send out regular memos with lists of employees who have not yet attended a GOP fundraiser."
Again, what? Corporations of any sort should not be engaging in political advocacy. God damn Citizens United.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"As far as I have seen, no one is threatened with assault or vandalism for not giving money to the Corleones. They are being warned that, in the Family's assessment, a failure to raise sufficient funds for protection efforts will put all the residents of the neighbourhood at risk, related by blood or not, because the Family believes thugs† will come in and start roughing things up.
†Worth noting that were these thugs come from is unspecified. A good vague threat doesn't give details about the mechanism by which the bad consequences come about. Was it ever mentioned why Obama would be bad for the economy again?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.In point of fact, I can't think of any examples of strikes where the condition for returning to work was "the corporation's management voting for a candidate". That's kind of absurd. Most strikes are for much more prosaic things like pay, benefits, and working conditions.
![]()
"You know, that Obama guy. If he gets into office, terrible things might happen. You know, economic collapse. Famine. Dying kids. A thousand years of darkness. And yeah, we'll have to have some layoffs. Sucks, but what can you do?"
(Imagine this said in a stereotypical Italian accent.)
edited 18th Oct '12 12:00:57 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Tomu: Testimony from employees who were contacted on a individual level and told "promise to vote for candidate X, we will be recording your response". As long as the employer does not know who their employees vote for, they cannot be threatening their employees with punishment for voting a particular way.
That is something I disapprove of, though I'm not certain it should be illegal.
<><

Grizzly, there is a marked difference between believing something will harm your business and then issuing a statement that basically threatens a person with losing their job if they vote a certain way. The first is understandable, and excusable so long as you don't try to manipulated people with it. The second is not, and should be held accountable.
We're not seeing this in a bad light because we hate businesses (which if you were paying attention you would realize we don't), or are inclined to see CE Os a certain way. We're seeing this in a bad light because it is genuine bullying and an attempt to manipulate people's votes. You're bending over backward to excuse a violation of people's rights. (To employment and to vote in any way an individual sees fit.) You're bending over backwards to excuse the violation of rights I'm fairly certain you hold very dear to yourself. And it is mind boggling that you would do so.
We don't hate big businesses, or CE Os. We hate the actions of those who are trying to curtail people's rights in order to maintain their power and unfair advantage. And we hate that they can do it with near impunity, or at least seem to operate under the assumption that they can.