Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Legality of employee threats in terms of election

  1. #31
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Legality of employee threats in terms of election

    It may or not be legal but it's Dishonest in the extreme.
    this greedy political CLOWN's Business went Blooey.. in 2008.. under BUSH.
    Timeshares being Real Estate's weakest sister and no doubt still not recovered, and probably won't ever.
    His house Was (past tense) For Sale.

    Last edited by mbig; 10-10-12 at 09:55 PM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  2. #32
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Legality of employee threats in terms of election

    Not criminal but made subject to civil damages.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  3. #33
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,375

    Legality of employee threats in terms of election

    How is this different from the Obama admin asking Defense contractors to not comply with the WARN Act. That is current law and tax implications.
    People in Dubai don't like the Flintstones but people in Abu Dhabi do

  4. #34
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,875

    Re: Legality of employee threats in terms of election

    I was looking for a job when I found this one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    The systems that ensure freedom and liberty are breaking down and fundamentalism is growing. Nobody is righteous anymore.


  5. #35
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Legality of employee threats in terms of election

    It would seem free speech would cover a business manager or owner doing so. A question of ethics would be whether the statement was actually true. If it was true, then it would seem management/owner SHOULD tell employees the real effect of the election outcome - unless elections are only supposed to be about platitutes over a fantasy world. What would seem unethical would be deliberately hiding what the known effects of an election outcome might be from employees.

    For example, in a city counsel election one candidate wants to put in place regulations that would ban strip clubs within 1000 yards of a church or school. The other does not. Whoever wins will make the deciding vote on that hot button issue.

    Most employees don't really follow local politics that closely. Are any of you saying it would be wrong for the owner of a strip club 500 feet from a church to tell the employees if candidate A wins we'll have to close down the club and all of you lost your jobs? How would that be unethical? I'd think it would be unethical NOT to tell the employees.

  6. #36
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Legality of employee threats in terms of election

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    It would seem free speech would cover a business manager or owner doing so. A question of ethics would be whether the statement was actually true. If it was true, then it would seem management/owner SHOULD tell employees the real effect of the election outcome - unless elections are only supposed to be about platitutes over a fantasy world. What would seem unethical would be deliberately hiding what the known effects of an election outcome might be from employees.
    I disagree. Because there are many partisan nutjobs out there (most likely including this employer) who truly believes that if the candidate they don't like wins, it will bring about an economic apocalypse of biblical proportions and cause them to close their business...when in actuality, it MIGHT - might - increase their expenses by a couple percent. So it's quite likely that employers who spout off with **** like this seriously believe that they ARE just being truthful with their employees. In reality, they are threatening their jobs.

    It's one thing to tell employees what's going on when there is some certainty. For example, if Obama DOES win reelection, and taxes ARE raised on this dude's business, and he DOES crunch the numbers to determine that he'll have to lay off X employees...then it makes sense to tell the employees as soon as possible. But threatening their jobs like this is an implicit threat to vote for whomever the employer wants them to vote for. To put it another way: What does notifying the employees of this BEFORE the election - when there is uncertainty about whether Obama will even be reelected, let alone whether he'll get to enact some specific economic agenda, let alone how that agenda will affect a particular business - accomplish? The only thing that employees could do differently is change how they vote...which is the very definition of voter intimidation as far as I'm concerned.

    For example, in a city counsel election one candidate wants to put in place regulations that would ban strip clubs within 1000 yards of a church or school. The other does not. Whoever wins will make the deciding vote on that hot button issue.

    Most employees don't really follow local politics that closely. Are any of you saying it would be wrong for the owner of a strip club 500 feet from a church to tell the employees if candidate A wins we'll have to close down the club and all of you lost your jobs? How would that be unethical? I'd think it would be unethical NOT to tell the employees.
    Is it assured that the election of the candidate would cause the strip club to be shut down? If so, then that's slightly more acceptable IMO. But even still, the employer shouldn't do anything more than make voters aware of that candidate's position on strip club laws, and let them read between the lines for themselves. I think it's still crossing the line to tell his employees pre-election that they're fired if the employer's preferred candidate loses...especially since they don't have control over anything more than their own vote.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 10-11-12 at 10:28 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #37
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,407

    Re: Legality of employee threats in terms of election

    For the sake of conversation, what if he's being factual? What if really will let so many employees go if Obama is elected? Is that intimidation, or is that fair warning?

    Then again, what if all his employees vote for Romney, and Obama still wins?
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  8. #38
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Legality of employee threats in terms of election

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    For the sake of conversation, what if he's being factual? What if really will let so many employees go if Obama is elected? Is that intimidation, or is that fair warning?
    Still intimidation IMO. In fact, that makes it even worse because it's an infantile form of collective punishment. Now if Obama is reelected and Obama actually passes some actual POLICY that harms his business, then I think he can and should let his employees know as soon as possible just so that they're in the loop.

    But I think that it's a HUGE leap from "Candidate X gets elected" to "It won't be profitable for me to continue employing you." There are MANY things that could potentially be bad for business, but there is no point in worrying your employees when they are only possibilities. I would regard this as the equivalent to a farmer telling his workers "If it doesn't rain tomorrow, it means the crops won't grow very well by next month, and therefore it won't be profitable for me to continue employing you." There are several steps in that logical chain that are nothing more than conjectures, and in any case there isn't much the employees can do about it anyway.

    In 99% of the cases, asshats that threaten their employees' jobs if some politician gets elected aren't doing it for any factual basis. At best, they're just running their mouths based on a ridiculously warped view of what is likely to transpire if that candidate wins...and at worst, they're intentionally trying to intimidate potential voters.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #39
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,407

    Re: Legality of employee threats in terms of election

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Still intimidation IMO. In fact, that makes it even worse because it's an infantile form of collective punishment. Now if Obama is reelected and Obama actually passes some actual POLICY that harms his business, then I think he can and should let his employees know as soon as possible just so that they're in the loop.

    But I think that it's a HUGE leap from "Candidate X gets elected" to "It won't be profitable for me to continue employing you." There are MANY things that could potentially be bad for business, but there is no point in worrying your employees when they are only possibilities. I would regard this as the equivalent to a farmer telling his workers "If it doesn't rain tomorrow, it means the crops won't grow very well by next month, and therefore it won't be profitable for me to continue employing you." There are several steps in that logical chain that are nothing more than conjectures, and in any case there isn't much the employees can do about it anyway.

    In 99% of the cases, asshats that threaten their employees' jobs if some politician gets elected aren't doing it for any factual basis. At best, they're just running their mouths based on a ridiculously warped view of what is likely to transpire if that candidate wins...and at worst, they're intentionally trying to intimidate potential voters.
    Well written post.

    My first thought when I heard of this was, "Doesn't say much for you as a businessman, does it?"
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  10. #40
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 09:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    396

    Re: Legality of employee threats in terms of election

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Still intimidation IMO. In fact, that makes it even worse because it's an infantile form of collective punishment. Now if Obama is reelected and Obama actually passes some actual POLICY that harms his business, then I think he can and should let his employees know as soon as possible just so that they're in the loop.

    But I think that it's a HUGE leap from "Candidate X gets elected" to "It won't be profitable for me to continue employing you." There are MANY things that could potentially be bad for business, but there is no point in worrying your employees when they are only possibilities. I would regard this as the equivalent to a farmer telling his workers "If it doesn't rain tomorrow, it means the crops won't grow very well by next month, and therefore it won't be profitable for me to continue employing you." There are several steps in that logical chain that are nothing more than conjectures, and in any case there isn't much the employees can do about it anyway.

    In 99% of the cases, asshats that threaten their employees' jobs if some politician gets elected aren't doing it for any factual basis. At best, they're just running their mouths based on a ridiculously warped view of what is likely to transpire if that candidate wins...and at worst, they're intentionally trying to intimidate potential voters.

    As an employee working for that farmer, I would want to know if my job was threatened by something that is out of my control, or even more relevantly, partially in my control. What was passed along was information. Decisions have costs and benefits. In any decision, I would want to know full costs and full benefits before making such a decision.

    SO yes, if the farmer tells me that my job is at risk if it doesn't rain tomorrow, I would appreciate the information so I could start planning. If the farmer tells me that Obama wins the presidency, I'll lose my job, yes, I want to know about it. If he's blowing smoke and doesn't fire his employees after the fact, then it would appear it was a lie with a malice intent: to persuade votes. However, if he truly doesn't find the time of running the business worth it anymore, and shuts down his company, then he was only passing along information.

    Only if one of these eventualities plays out will we be able to accurately judge whether or not the employer is in the wrong here. But if the intent was true and he is going to close down his company, giving that information to his employees is a respectable thing to do as they have the ability to try to prevent it from happening.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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