On the topic: I do not consider what the Koch Brothers did to be even remotely unethical. I would consider, if they said nothing, to be borderline unethical. The Sarbanes-Oxley act, if we generously apply an elastic clause, would make it illegal if executives (or those with a controlling interest in the company) did not disclose that an action or inaction would be detrimental to the company. They feel that Obama's direction is hurting both their short term and long term strategic goals. That can be at least partially substantiated. So in not telling their employees, the greater "unethical" behavior lies. [/B]
WOW...just WOW. The implied threat that many would lose their jobs if Obama were re elected is highly unethical and if it isn't illegal it certainly should be. Employers should NEVER get involved in their employees politics beyond encouraging them to vote, and leave it at that.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
I must have missed the apparently obvious threat. There's no [legal] way for the Koch brothers to determine who voted for which candidate, so there's no real way for them to enforce whatever people think is being implied here.
Saying there will be layoffs if Obama is elected and Romney isn't is an implied threat. It doesn't matter of they know how their employees voted or not, saying some of them will have to go if Obama wins IS a threat.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
I must have missed the apparently obvious threat. There's no [legal] way for the Koch brothers to determine who voted for which candidate, so there's no real way for them to enforce whatever people think is being implied here.
Lacking follow-through is irrelevant.
They could have said "Vote for Romney or we'll have your father raped"; that's still an obvious threat regardless if the employee secretly still votes for Obama but tells them he went Romney to save the structural integrity of his/her father's anus.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
WOW...just WOW. The implied threat that many would lose their jobs if Obama were re elected
Again, as it has been pointed out...how in the world would they be able to enforce that "threat" you claim that they are making?
On top of that, how would they be able to get away with that when it is illegal to do so?
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Employers should NEVER get involved in their employees politics beyond encouraging them to vote, and leave it at that.
That's your personal belief and I will respect that but that is not really a legal or judicial statement.
Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]Again, as it has been pointed out...how in the world would they be able to enforce that "threat" you claim that they are making?On top of that, how would they be able to get away with that when it is illegal to do so?
B]
They could cut some staff even if it meant hiring new ones even if it had to be done randomly. It would send a clear message though it could open them up for a class action lawsuit, though such cases are usually very hard for the plaintiffs to prove.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
They could cut some staff even if it meant hiring new ones even if it had to be done randomly. It would send a clear message though it could open them up for a class action lawsuit, though such cases are usually very hard for the plaintiffs to prove.
lol
Well...I guess that would work but it is a very poor way to go about doing it. That's an extremely expensive way to "send a message". Do you think they are dumb enough to do that?
And, no, that would not be hard to prove: in a court case, the plaintiff can get a subpoena to get that information (assuming the information sits somewhere, digitally or physically, anywhere).
Originally posted by dadudemon
lolWell...I guess that would work but it is a very poor way to go about doing it. That's an extremely expensive way to "send a message". Do you think they are dumb enough to do that?
And, no, that would not be hard to prove: in a court case, the plaintiff can get a subpoena to get that information (assuming the information sits somewhere, digitally or physically, anywhere).
Funny, Nevada casinos do it all the time with their non union employees
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
It doesn't matter of they know how their employees voted or not, saying some of them will have to go if Obama wins IS a threat.
But that's NOT a threat if they believe Obama's policies will actually cause them to lose revenue.
A lot of people seem to labor under the delusion that everyone secretly believes everything they believe but it arbitrarily evil.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Unfortunately, yes
Well...then it is legal to term for no reason at all. I don't like RtW laws...for the most part.
Good news: right to work states show, when most other measures are controlled, increase pay and and increase jobs.
So right to work may not be that bad.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...then it is legal to term for no reason at all. I don't like RtW laws...for the most part.Good news: right to work states show, when most other measures are controlled, increase pay and and increase jobs.
So right to work may not be that bad.
What other measurs might those be? Based on the data I've seen, pay rates are generally lower in RTW states.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But that's NOT a threat if they believe Obama's policies will actually cause them to lose revenue..
Wrong. It doesn't matter WHY the company is doing it. If that is the case why aren't companies all over the country doing it.
Telling people they may lose their job if a certain person is elected and thus coercing them to vote a certain way is indeed a threat, even if only implied.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Saying there will be layoffs if Obama is elected and Romney isn't is an implied threat. It doesn't matter of they know how their employees voted or not, saying some of them will have to go if Obama wins IS a threat.
Originally posted by Robtard
Lacking follow-through is irrelevant.They could have said "Vote for Romney or we'll have your father raped"; that's still an obvious threat regardless if the employee secretly still votes for Obama but tells them he went Romney to save the structural integrity of his/her father's anus.
"While we are typically told before each Presidential election that it is important and historic, I believe the upcoming election will determine what kind of America future generations will inherit," Robertson's letter--first published by InTheseTimes.com--begins. "If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects, and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills. This is true regardless of what your political affiliation might be."
This is not a threat. This is a potential reality- a consequence of tax burdens that Robertson believes may be imposed if one candidate is elected over another.
First, and most important, we believe any decision about which candidates to support is -- as always -- yours and yours alone, based on the factors that are most important to you.
This is not a threat, either.
It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.
Again, no threat in sight. This is not a declaration of vengeance or a punitive measure against anyone who doesn't vote Republican in November, this is a CEO saying that taxes levied against him will lead him to make financial decisions to accommodate that loss. Is it shitty that an inordinately wealthy CEO may cut jobs in order to maintain his exorbitant lifestyle down to the decimal point? Definitely, but it's not a threat.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
The part about taxes and shrinking the company thus implying on how they should vote is indeed a threat, I don't see how you can say it isn't.And like it or not, companies usually grow or shrink based on the level of demand for their products and services. Taxes play far less of a role.
The part about fiscal consequences resulting from a particular candidate's policies is a very real possibility; this is simply reminding a group of voters of potential consequences. You're confusing a warning for a threat and there is a clear difference.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Wrong. It doesn't matter WHY the company is doing it.
Yes it does.
There is a very large difference between "If you vote for Obama we will fire you." and "If Obama wins we will be forced to make cutbacks."
Do you really think that the Koch's secretly believe Obama will resurrect this country's economy and wish to oppose him in order to watch it fall apart? They don't, they think he's bad for the country and big business in particular.
They have the right to express their political views.
They did not send out a threat.
I'd agree that the letter is ethically gray but given that it is unarguably free speech I'd say stopping it is worse than allowing it.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
If that is the case why aren't companies all over the country doing it.
The Koch brothers are highly political on the conservative/libertarian economic front. It's a thing they do. This shouldn't be news.