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

Yeah like when my local union head said he had his and did not care about us. The unions are machines and survival of the union is more important than the members.

 

You weren't asked "do they?". You were asked "Should they?".

 

Corporations, CEO's etc., do not "tell", as in "command" employees how to vote. Label it any way you want, it is no more than advice, or an opinion. It is freedom of speech.

This is just faux outrage.

 

Coerce seems like a pretty fair classification for the sort of behavior expressed by the CEO's I mentioned in the OP, specifically. "You may suffer the consequences of a bad election result" is not (what you would apparently call) advice. That is an ultimatum. Saying that "An Obama victory would likely lead to layoffs" is not (what you would apparently label) an opinion. That is a threat.

Easy stuff... as "outrage" isn't a necessary prerequisite for common sense.

 

Yeah and Black community leaders, unions and the black panthers do the intimidating not the CEOs.

 

I haven't a single issue with taking similar positions with past instances. Pressure and coercion is wrong, no matter the method. Yet, some of you continue to struggle with the reality that makes it perfectly clear what these CEO's have distributed... which are attempts to intimidate and threaten their employees into supporting a certain candidate. Once more... easy stuff.

 

The thing is a CEO has nothing to do with the worker.

 

Which didn't stop them from addressing their employees, correct? Is this really where you'd like to go with your argument? lol

 

Where I would go is that even the media need be removed from this. Too much giving people their opinions.

 

Can media threaten to terminate you from your place of employment if a specific candidate is elected?

 

It is not about action it is about perception. If the media can convince people that their job is threatened if X wins. Also they have no way of knowing how you vote but some people will try and make you take pictures of your ballot.

 

Individual choice.

Saying they 'should' means I would expect all of them to.

Saying they 'can' means it's their choice.

 

Yep, if. Is there a pundit that's out there right now claiming "Bet on being fired if Candidate A wins"?

Who are "some people"?

 

That's a bad dodge. The question again, from the OP:

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?

Fair question.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/pennsylvania-judge-says-anyone-can-vote

http://nation.foxnews.com/black-panthers/2012/09/17/black-panther-we-may-go-polling-stations-again

Go vote and get your ass kicked!

Keeping whites away with intimidation tactics.

 

Bro, you're jumping all over the place. You brought up the BPP before, and I said it's wrong no matter the method. I asked you about media, and you're back on the black panthers? What is this?

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/pennsylvania-judge-says-anyone-can-vote

http://nation.foxnews.com/black-panthers/2012/09/17/black-panther-we-may-go-polling-stations-again

Go vote and get your ass kicked!

Keeping whites away with intimidation tactics.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/feder...ther-prosecution/article/2503500#.UIWeNSqF9HU

Which is better?

 

The media is indirect. They still can make or break an election. I am saying changes across the board need be made.

 

I'll ask again, I guess. Is there a pundit out there, right now, that's saying "Bet on being fired if candidate X wins"? You just alluded to that here:

Who's doing it?

Also, you claiming "changes need to happen across the board" is just fancy for "I don't want to say what these CEOs are doing is wrong, so I'll disperse responsibility across numerous outlets and point out other moral failures". In my opinion, of course.

 

No dodge.
Siegle and Allen sent out letters explaining to their employees what would happen if a particular candidate remained in office. They asked them to think twice about who they voted for, and the impact it would have on the business.

I see no 'challenge' in what they did. Just a request to think about what it would do to his, and other, businesses.

 

That is not a vaild argument. In order to be "coerced", one has to have a measured action involved. That would require an employee to somehow be identified with a specific casting of a vote. That does not happen.

Secondly, to say that the election of a certain entity may be bad for business, cause layoffs, or perhaps result in the business owner just wanting to shut down, is also completely valid, and legal.

You are propping up strawman after strawman here, then slaying it with false assertions.

Weak.

 

That is no different than the threats you hear about "republicans will destroy healthcare, medicare out social security"and probably much more accurate.

What the company sent wasn't a threat, it was a warning.

 

Ultimatum's aren't requests.

The "measured action" is Obama remaining in office. That's it. The CEO's didn't threaten Obama voters. They put everyone on the chopping block if the "measured action" occurs, which means "all of you had better get on board, or else". I'd even go on to suggest that it provokes employee to employee unwarranted conflicts if political leanings are known.

Yes... legal 2 years running. I'm not arguing the legality, as my OP outlines the legislation that makes it so. I'm challenging the principle of ultimatums and threats in the workplace. The action says that employees should vote for ambiguous/vague policy because an employer suggests it, as if the promoted action won't lead to a similar outcome (which is possible).

It makes more sense if you read.

 

This next post was hilarious, and here's why:

Then says:

Usually takes 2 posts to point out contradictions. Gotta be some kind of record.

 

It's not an ultimatum.
It explains what they believe will happen if a particular candidate wins the election, and advises them, a forewarning if you will, of the outcome.

They won't know who their employees voted for. Their entire company could vote a certain way, and still the candidate of choice fails to gain office. And the company closes. The entire company could vote the other way, and the employers prefered candidate comes in office, and they stay open.

It's not absolutes.