User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 81

Thread: Companies Pressure Employees to Vote for Romney

  1. #51
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,983, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496539
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,675
    Points
    858,983
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,212
    Thanked 147,549x in 94,400 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    This is one of more compelling stories of the year, IMO. It discusses the power that companies now have over their workers in this increasingly union-less era we live in: the power to effectively bully many of them into voting for their favored political candidates with threats of layoffs and downsizing as the alternative. The money trail makes it abundantly clear who is the favorite of corporate America is in this presidential election: Mitt Romney of the Republican Party. You should hear some of these lines in the linked video. Here are a couple of my personal favorites:



    Explaining his blatant threats to his employees in an interview with Bloomberg Business Week, he followed up by putting it this way:



    Aside from the sheer weirdness of his analogy (and the fact that the vast majority of American Jews will be voting for President Obama if opinion polling is to be believed) and how demeaning it is to know that your employer thinks of you like a child rather than as a mature, intelligent adult, think about the latter half of that statement for a minute. He says that his company is doing better than ever! So why then would he "have no choice but to reduce the size of [his] company" if Obama should win re-election and the approximate status quo continue? What you see there is that this zillionaire capitalist is NOT making an economic argument. He is indeed issuing a threat. (Trust me, a 4% difference in the tax rate is NOT going to break Mr. Siegel.) Both within the framework of this election and beyond, we need to think deeply about whether this kind of thing -- threatening subordinates to get your way at the polls -- is compatible with the whole idea of society being democratic. We need to think deeply about what kind of society we want to live in.
    I would have preferred this to not be in the form of letters to employees, but rather as Op-ed piece in the newspapers. And I don't think that Siegel is as worried about a 4% increase in his personal income tax rate as he is concerned with the increases in taxes / regulatory costs associated with Obamacare and other government regulations coming down the chute.
    Last edited by Peter1469; 10-18-2012 at 04:24 PM.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Deadwood (10-18-2012),IMPress Polly (10-19-2012)

  3. #52
    Points: 8,274, Level: 21
    Level completed: 75%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Hateyourtone's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    17
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Points
    8,274
    Level
    21
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 7x in 6 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good, I'm going to tell my customers to vote for Romney, too.

  4. #53
    Points: 24,530, Level: 38
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 1,120
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first GroupCreated Album picturesTagger First ClassRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Deadwood's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    6490
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, BC - dual citizen
    Posts
    3,471
    Points
    24,530
    Level
    38
    Thanks Given
    2,585
    Thanked 1,752x in 1,198 Posts
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    I'm here to dialogue with people, but it rarely seems to matter how hard I try. I can write ten paragraphs and get nothing but one-sentence dismissals. It's frustrating, you know?

    I'm no longer talking about this particular thread, but just in general. It's demoralizing to always be dismissed no matter what. It might be more productive to take my thoughts elsewhere.
    OK, so dialogue.

    I asked a series of questions and challenged your data. YOu have not responded but, rather have decided to go lugubrious and sophomoric insisting your "evidence" is proof.

    If so, if you have this evidence that this is widespread and an outright threat, then explain it and we will dialogue...

    But, to divert on "what's the use?" is a childish cop out and you know it.


    You, I suspect, have been outed here, otherwise you would answer the questions posed.


    I am sorry to have to say this, but I had higher expectations of you than going 'Cigar'.......


  5. #54
    Points: 73,823, Level: 66
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 1,627
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first GroupCreated Album picturesTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    KC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    20936
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    8,879
    Points
    73,823
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    4,291
    Thanked 4,042x in 2,810 Posts
    Mentioned
    276 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The attitude of the employer to his employees is a little demeaning, imo. He should speak his mind all he wants but I think that there was a little hint of "I know better than you" in his remarks, and just because he is wealthier or more successful that does not mean he knows better about politics than his lowest paid employee.

  6. #55
    Points: 60,627, Level: 60
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 1,723
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranSocial50000 Experience Points
    gamewell45's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12304
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    upstate New York
    Posts
    18,421
    Points
    60,627
    Level
    60
    Thanks Given
    5,809
    Thanked 6,568x in 4,623 Posts
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    You say it sounds like a veiled threat but then you acknowledge that it could not possibly be a veiled threat. Good work.
    Well I guess both you and I will have to agree to disagree on this particular thread.
    God Bless America, God Bless our Military and God Bless the Police who defended the country against the insurgents on January 6, 2021

    Think 3rd party for 2024 folks. Clean up America.

    Once I tell you that we agree to disagree there will be no more discussion between us in the thread so please don't waste your time continuing to argue your points because I will not respond.

  7. #56
    Points: 100,746, Level: 77
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,804
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    156220
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    8,575
    Points
    100,746
    Level
    77
    Thanks Given
    10,232
    Thanked 7,643x in 4,358 Posts
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To follow up my case, here is another video on the same subject. (Different show.) I like this one because it not only makes the point that I have in response to criticisms here -- that this may be legal, but it does boil down to intimidation of subordinates -- but also reveals the practical impact of the Citizens United verdict upon what employers can MAKE their workers do to promote their favored candidate. For example, as a direct result of the 2010 Citizens United verdict, employers can force, and are forcing, employees to attend pro-Romney rallies, giving TV viewers the impression that all those workers support Romney whether or not it's the case.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to IMPress Polly For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (10-19-2012)

  9. #57
    Points: 665,240, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433309
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,544
    Points
    665,240
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,981
    Thanked 80,898x in 54,716 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    To follow up my case, here is another video on the same subject. (Different show.) I like this one because it not only makes the point that I have in response to criticisms here -- that this may be legal, but it does boil down to intimidation of subordinates -- but also reveals the practical impact of the Citizens United verdict upon what employers can MAKE their workers do to promote their favored candidate. For example, as a direct result of the 2010 Citizens United verdict, employers can force, and are forcing, employees to attend pro-Romney rallies, giving TV viewers the impression that all those workers support Romney whether or not it's the case.
    Ed just repeating your point with the same faulty premise. It's spin, not fact.

  10. #58
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,983, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496539
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,675
    Points
    858,983
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,212
    Thanked 147,549x in 94,400 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    To follow up my case, here is another video on the same subject. (Different show.) I like this one because it not only makes the point that I have in response to criticisms here -- that this may be legal, but it does boil down to intimidation of subordinates -- but also reveals the practical impact of the Citizens United verdict upon what employers can MAKE their workers do to promote their favored candidate. For example, as a direct result of the 2010 Citizens United verdict, employers can force, and are forcing, employees to attend pro-Romney rallies, giving TV viewers the impression that all those workers support Romney whether or not it's the case.
    Citizens United was one of the most dangerous SCOTUS decisions in recent times. It is an example of "bad facts" making bad case law. By bad facts, in this instance, Citizens United was a corporation created by people for the sole purpose of making political statements. That alone is fine and seems to support the decision. But SCOTUS went much further and seemed to imply that the holding applies to all corporations. So let me ask: considering that Citizens United- the people that own it and run it, speak in one political voice, how does this translate to IMB, for example? Surely the people who own, run, and invest in IBM have no common political voice.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    IMPress Polly (10-20-2012)

  12. #59
    Points: 10,300, Level: 24
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 550
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    garyo's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1042
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    764
    Points
    10,300
    Level
    24
    Thanks Given
    244
    Thanked 282x in 190 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My profound astonishment.

  13. #60
    Points: 56,719, Level: 58
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 1,631
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience PointsTagger Second Class
    patrickt's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    17597
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Living in Oaxaca, Mexico, born in Memphis and worked in Colorado
    Posts
    11,977
    Points
    56,719
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    916
    Thanked 5,009x in 3,481 Posts
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If Polly thinks this is pressure then Barack Obama sending his goons to "get in their face" must have made her wet her pants.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts