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
scratching at .8, just hopin'
@Grizzly: I also know that Georgia Pacific (owned by the Koch brothers) has a history of refusing promotions to people they deem as "too political", and can fire you for running for public office without company approval.
With this stuff in mind, I don't think it's outrageous to worry that this is a form of voter intimidation.
If they didn't have a history of this stuff, I'd agree more with you.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianThe obvious difference being that, in the event of an actual economic downturn, employers would be expected to lay off employees and that would be a perfectly acceptable thing for them to do. The only reason it seems equivalent to you is that A) you are sure the economy will not decline B) you are sure that contrary to their statements these employers must surely agree with your obviously correct economic predictions, and C) you therefore have no way of resolving the situation besides imagining the employers as part of some big evil conspiracy to control the "common people".
Does it not seem more reasonable that perhaps your understanding of the facts is not the only one in existence and the employers honestly believe that an Obama win will hurt the economy?
Burdens of proof should be high, especially in matters of free speech.
edited 18th Oct '12 12:06:55 PM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><@Radical Taoist: Whether the employer knows how its employees vote or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it's establishing a causal link between "Candidate X gets elected", and "you lose your job". Courts recognize extortion even if the action demanded of the victim is implied rather than explicitly stated.
@Edwards Grizzly: Funny, then, how there weren't lots of emails going around to workers in 2004 urging them not to vote for Bush lest his policies send the economy into a major downturn. Which they did, I might remind you.
For the last time, this is irrelevant. Employers have no business turning their subjective opinion about generalized economic outcomes into threats to their employees.
edited 18th Oct '12 12:09:33 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"(Imagine this said in a stereotypical Italian accent.)
Fighteer: No one here is saying "If you vote for X I fire you". But Grizzly is questioning "If X is elected (your vote preference not mentioned here), then our company might be in worse shape." The employee is the one that made the connection to being fired. Does that still count?
I'm still waiting for a response to this
. Do you think that this still counts as coercion, even though the direct threat is replaced with a remark that requires the listener to connect the dots? If not, your reasoning is inconsistent.
edited 18th Oct '12 12:13:49 PM by Trivialis
I'm not saying that there's no cost to firing one's employee. There is a cost, of course, but it's much lower than for one to find a new job. Not to mention that, without that employee, you're probably gonna be okay unless that employee happened to occupy a key role in the company, and there are few such roles. But without your job, you have an immediate and huge problem on your hands, about how to pay your bills and feed yourself and even survive.
They're not even saying they're going to fire people if there's an economic downturn, Grizzly. They're saying they're going to fire people simply because of an Obama win. Nothing has to actually happen except Obama winning the election; they're not even going to wait to see what happens afterwards and make adjustments to a changing situation. Which is coercive, manipulative, bullying, and a basically shit thing to do. You can believe Obama's bad for the economy all you want, but outright telling your employees they will be fired if he wins, in a letter that is basically threatening and telling them to vote for Romney, should be illegal if it already isn't. (And I'm pretty sure it is.)
It's not just about the words, it's about the tone and general context. You really are bending over backwards to excuse contemptable behavior. Behavior that could, in the end, be directly harmful to you.
The reason these coercive messages and Mafiosi threats seem equivalent to me is because they are effectively the same thing.
edited 18th Oct '12 12:17:44 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.@Trivialis: Yes, "If X is elected (your vote preference not mentioned here), then our company might be in worse shape" is coercive. It draws a direct line between the vote of the employee and the outcome to his company. Companies have no business telling their employees this.
As noted, the employer is the one with the power. When you have the power in a relationship, it is your ethical duty not to use that power for coercion. This isn't a free speech issue. Employers have vastly restricted speech rights when it comes to their employees.
edited 18th Oct '12 12:18:16 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Ace of Spades: That's actually completely false, according to the TP articles you linked to. I quote:
Both letters quite explicitly tie the possible layoffs to concrete harmful effects they believe Obama will inflict on their companies.
<><You're not answering me. What about my reconstruction
of the flip case
you posted, employees saying "If Obama isn't elected then corporate workers will have less benefits" (and less incentive to work in corps)?
You said the flip case by the employees is just as bad; however, you formulated it as a direct threat and not as a possibly implied comment, which I provided. By your reasoning, what I stated also has to count as coercion.
edited 18th Oct '12 12:20:17 PM by Trivialis
@Grizzly: And those statements are blatantly false. So much so, in fact, that they would be suspect even if they weren't coercive.
@Trivialis: If a single employee or a group of employees takes a collective action in protest of their employer's stance on some political issue, that is absolutely within their right.
edited 18th Oct '12 12:22:15 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Since when does the truth or falsehood of a threat have anything to do with its coercive power?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Lying and being threatening is at least as bad as being threatening.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.@Fighteer
You earlier said that an employer politically threatening a boss is coercion:
And in the same post, bosses should play by the same ethical rules as the employees:
But if you're saying that a general "if X is elected, this is bad" (without explicit "I quit" threat in it) is not coercion, then you mean that a direct threat and a remark that's open to interpretation are different, which is what Grizzly is saying.
But back here
you're saying that they're the same. That's not consistent. Does a mere opinion, that the listener can possibly interpret as a coercion, count as one?
edited 18th Oct '12 12:28:39 PM by Trivialis
![]()
Oh, right, that. Threatening direct harm to your employer's business (like sabotaging their computer systems) would be blackmail and prosecutable as such. Going on strike, however, is a generally recognized action that is protected as an expression of free speech. Again, though, it's a case of balancing an inherently uneven power structure.
edited 18th Oct '12 12:30:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Moving on from this unproductive topic, Krugman dissects Romneyomics
. He draws the conclusion that Romney is counting, quite literally, on the Confidence Fairy. His economic plans offer no specifics and his "12 million jobs" claim is in line with what the economy would naturally be doing at full employment anyway. Thus, what he's offering is quite literally that his presence would be so purely awesome that it would inspire an economic boom all by itself.
edited 18th Oct '12 12:35:48 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Blackmailing is a threat that applies to people in general, whereas coercion is part of business ethics that relieves political pressure.
By your reasoning, I don't see why it's acceptable for employers to just send mail across, saying "If you don't vote for Obama then it's bad for the business workers", and thus pressuring the business owners. Who employers vote for should be left to themselves and not forced upon by other workers.
So again, are threats and opinions same or not?
