[POLL] Should CEO's have the ability to tell employees how to vote?

In Conference Call, Romney Urged Businesses To Tell Their Employees How to Vote

Romney was addressing a group of self-described "small-business owners." Twenty-six minutes into the call, after making a lengthy case that President Obama's first term has been bad for business, Romney said:

I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope — I hope you pass those along to your employees. Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision. - Mitt Romney, 6 June 2012.​

[video=youtube;F4J3qyMO_RY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4J3qyMO_RY[/video]​

The call raises the question of whether the Romney campaign is complicit in the corporate attempts to influence employees' votes that have been recently making headlines. On Sunday, In These Times broke the news that Koch Industries mailed at least 45,000 employees a voter information packet that included a flyer endorsing Romney and a letter warning, “Many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences [of a bad election result], including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills.” Last week, Gawker obtained an email in which the CEO of Westgate Resorts, Florida billionaire David Siegel, informed his 7,000 employees that an Obama victory would likely lead to layoffs at his company. This week, MSNBC’s Up with Chris Hayes unveiled an email by ASG Software Solutions CEO Arthur Allen in which he, too, warned employees that an Obama second term would spell layoffs.

In the June call, Romney went on to reassure his audience that it is perfectly legal for them to talk to their employees about how to vote:

Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well. ​

He's right, folks. There's absolutely nothing illegal about this:

He's correct that such speech is now legal for the first time ever, thanks to the Citizen United ruling, which overturned previous Federal Election Commission laws that prohibited employers from political campaigning among employees.

In the post-Citizens United era, “there is not much political protection for at-will employees in the private sector workplace,” explains University of Marquette Law Professor Paul Secunda, a pro-union labor lawyer. "It is conceivable, under the current legal regime, that an employer like Koch could actually get away with forcing his employees, on pains of termination, to campaign for a given candidate or political party." More on that call, here​

My question to you: Should Business owners have the ability to challenge their employee votes in a way similar to the actions demonstrated by the Koch Bros., David Siegel and Arthur Allen?

 

No...they shouldn't. People's person politics should stay out of the workplace...

 

It's extortion. I'm against extortion.

 

Not just NO! But HELL NO!

 

I voted no. But these businesses are not doing anything illegal unless they intentionally lay off workers they suspect voted contrary to their advice. I think the panic felt by small or medium sized business owners is real, our grindingly slow recovery has left them struggling. Maybe most of this is due to apocalyptic rhetoric from the right.

Do unions have the right to support a certain candidate?

I would not really worry much about this issue, people will vote how they vote, I doubt they will listen to an employer who is not currently treating them fairly or with respect.

 

If they do that then unions ( and a lot more workers should have a union) should be there to say don't listen to the boss he does not have your interests at heart.

 

The results look good so far. I think it's a huge abuse of power and a CEO clearly overstepping his or her function.

 

This looks suspiciously like the political-forum equivalent of a push poll...

 

I agree with the above.

Good and fair opinion, thanks TB.

 

I can't see the poll for some reason, but no, they absolutely should not. It sounds dangerously similar to "convert or die." "Help my guy get elected or you might lose your job."

 

If by tell you mean tell, then of course they should have such ability, free speech and all that. If by tell you mean fire them if they vote otherwise, then it gets complicated. On one hand, votes are anonymous, so an employer can hardly enforce that anyway. On the other hand, if an employer somehow suspects/knows you voted for the wrong guy, then he can fire you no matter what, he will find a reason that sounds good on paper.

 

Should unions be allowed to tell their members how to vote?

 

I have not received one piece of mail from my company supporting one candidate over another, or had a boss tell me who he thinks would be best for me to vote for. By I have received 2 mailings from my union talking about how great Obama is, how my vote could destroy everything the union has gained over the last 100 years, and how I should think before I pull the lever. Both sides play the game. I guess it depends if you are a brainless simp, or someone who does real research about the candidates.

 

They already do. Every election cycle I get a brochure from my union with their "recommendations". Ninety percent of the time their recommendations are the opposite of how I vote but, hey, that's my union dues at work I guess.

Employers HAVE EVERY RIGHT to let their employees know what could happen to their business depending on their vote.

But if the employer IS treating them fairly and with respect, I'm sure employees would like to know how their vote will affect the business climate. And that's why the Dems are whining about it.

 

Nope.

.

 

Can a union threaten termination?

Of course they shouldn't be allowed to, but don't try to create a parallel if only one side (employers) has the available avenue to coerce.

 

Coercion is a duress crime, which (I believe) is the law that should be cited to strike down this sort of behavior... a behavior that's only been legal for 2 years.

 

They should be allowed to say what they want. They should not be allowed to penalize people for what they do. I can tell my employee that he needs to be a Hendrix fan. Whether or not he will is a different story. Can I or should I be allowed to fire him if he's not? Well, that would make me a huge (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) if I did/could.

 

There is an old saying that the two things you shouldn't talk about in polite company are religion and politics. Certainly such conversations should be avoided in the workplace and any self respecting employer would encourage their employees to not discuss them and would refrain from it themselves.

Top 6 Topics to Avoid Discussing at Work
By Dawn Rosenberg McKay, About.com Guide
There are some conversations that don't belong in the workplace. Topics to avoid include those that could become fodder for the office grapevine and personal information that might negatively influence the perceptions others have about your ability to do your job effectively. You should also avoid lengthy discussions about controversial subjects. Staying away from discussing the following topics will make your work life a lot easier.
1. Religion
You shouldn't discuss your religious beliefs or your thoughts about other religious beliefs at work. Religion is a very personal issue and people are very sensitive about it. They don't want to hear that you disagree with their religious beliefs or that you believe your religion is the one in which everyone should believe.
2. Politics
This is another sensitive issue, particularly around election time. While you may feel very strongly about your political party or candidate, or have negative views about the opposition, you should not try to win your co-workers over to your point of view.
3. Your Sex Life
Why shouldn't you talk about your sex life? Simply because it's no one's business other than yours and your partner's. Other than that, it makes people uncomfortable. Taken to the extreme, it may even border on sexual harassment.
4. Problems With Your Spouse, Your Children, or Your Parents
When you discuss problems you are having with others, your co-workers and your boss may wonder if those problems are distracting you from doing your job. Talking about your problems with your family will reveal your weaknesses. You don't want to do this, especially if you are in a position of authority.
5. Your Career Aspirations
Talking about how you want to move on to something bigger and better will certainly, for good reason, make your boss and co-workers question your loyalty to your current job. If you are interested in moving up within your current organization, your actions will speak louder than words. Do your job exceptionally well, and of course, let your boss know you want to move up, but don't make it the topic of workplace conversations with anyone who will listen.
6. Your Health Problems
Don't dwell on your health problems at work. If you do, you will give your co-workers and boss reason to wonder if an illness will keep you from doing your job. Of course, serious health issues that will cause you to take time off, must be discussed with your employer. No one, however, needs specific details about your health.

 

Um... BS.

It's BS, because employers have no intention of researching who voted for who. The sole purpose (demonstrated by the CEO's I've used as examples) is to coerce, which is a duress crime. Pay attention to what they said, as knowing who voted for who is beside the point. The point, as they so eloquently put, is that "if he's not elected, don't complain about the employment that very well may be negative". That isn't saying "If we discover you voted for Obama, you're done"... it's "If Obama gets another term, you're all on the chopping block". That sort of pressure prompts employee to employee confrontations if political positions are known, which is more pressure. It's wrong no matter which side tries it, and it challenges the liberties were supposed to enjoy.

 

Yes, it is a challenge to liberty and courage.

I agree that it puts pressure on the workers, but unless you're in the military you're not forced to work somewhere. I don't believe that free speech should be abridged. It should have free market consequences, however.

If my boss told me to vote for Mitt Romney or said that I should...I would look for another firm to work for.

Recognizing that the next retort will be: poor people don't have that luxury, my argument is that they have the option of not discussing their views or even lying. Sales people do it every day. My cousin worked at a bakery where her boss hit on her. Until she found a new job she found other ways of dealing with this behavior that I shall not say here.

I don't like the argument that people's speech is restricted by government regulation for any reason. I'm just not one of those. Yes, it will make people uncomfortable, yes, they may no longer want to work there, yes, if they say otherwise they might get fired, but...there are ways to regulate that using social media by letting the world know that your boss fired you for your political views.

 

Yep.

10 char

 

If you're going to paint a rosy picture of current employment opportunity and the ability to whimsically do as you please, then I suppose you're right. For now, let's be realistic and acknowledge that not everyone can work for a firm, and/or find work *snap* just like that.

 

I don't think that I did. Please point out where I said it was easy or rosy. I believe that I acknowledged that some people would have to wait and the difficulties of freedom and liberty. Choices are never easy. For example, I would lose money and benefits by leaving my firm. I having been saving for just such an occasion because I wish to move to a small town. I will lose 3/4 of what I make now but the sacrifice of money would be made up for in the freedoms of another state and the personal growth in helping more than just a certain type of person.

Nothing good in life comes without sacrifice along the way.

When I was growing up I lived in a ghetto. I learned not to run my mouth. There were many times that I wanted to tell people on my street to **** or that they were (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s, but I didn't for the fear of being beaten or killed. Could I have said those things? Yes, but there is always a cost and I chose to stuff that cost and just think about it loudly in my head.

Yes, some people will be inconvenienced--maybe--they may hate where they work, they might hate their coworkers, they might not want to talk about their politics at work, but I don't think those are compelling enough reasons to shut down the First Amendment.

People who want to stifle free speech do so from the comfort of a time where those rights are not required. The more loss to speech now will be the chains upon the future.

 

Take a chill pill and read what she said, man.