Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: Legality of employee threats in terms of election

  1. #41
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    394

    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?

    Then again, what if all his employees vote for Romney, and Obama still wins?
    It's not about who they vote for. It's about who wins. The fact (we are assuming it's fact, as per your post) that was passed along was: If Obama wins, the company will need to shut down. So to your question, the only relevant portion was "Obama...wins".

  2. #42
    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 fredmertzz View Post
    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.
    Except the logical leaps between "Obama wins reelection" and "I can't profitably employ you" rely on multiple steps of pure conjecture...steps that are easy for a rabid partisan to make, but are not particularly rational from a business perspective. I'm not buying the "he's just passing along information" thing, because the cause (Obama winning reelection) is so far removed from the effect (firing his employees) that it's pure nonsense. He's assuming that he can predict with 100% certainty how a second Obama term would play out, right down to how it would impact his own business.

    I don't know what (if any) policies Obama has proposed that he's so pissed off about, but let's say that there is a Policy X in Obama's campaign platform that this guy thinks will hurt his business. What are the other possibilities here, if Obama gets reelected? 1) Obama wasn't that serious about Policy X anyway, and never bothers to implement it; 2) Obama wants to pass Policy X, but Congress rejects it; 3) Obama and Congress both want to pass Policy X, but it gets gummed up for procedural reasons; 4) Obama and Congress both want to pass Policy X, but just never get around to it; 5) Obama and Congress actually pass Policy X, and it doesn't have as big of an impact on this guy's business as he thought it would; 6) Obama and Congress actually pass Policy X and it does hurt this guy's business, but some other factor offsets the loss.

    There are other possibilities too, but the bottom line is that he most likely has no idea what the next four years will bring for his business, and the identity of the president is pretty far down the list of factors that could hurt a person's business. If we take the charitable view of his actions, he's just a blowhard who is blowing off steam. The less charitable view is that he's intentionally trying to manipulate his employees to voting for the person he wants them to.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 10-12-12 at 11:02 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #43
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    394

    Re: Legality of employee threats in terms of election

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Except the logical leaps between "Obama wins reelection" and "I can't profitably employ you" rely on multiple steps of pure conjecture...steps that are easy for a rabid partisan to make, but are not particularly rational from a business perspective. I'm not buying the "he's just passing along information" thing, because the cause (Obama winning reelection) is so far removed from the effect (firing his employees) that it's pure nonsense. He's assuming that he can predict with 100% certainty how a second Obama term would play out, right down to how it would impact his own business.

    I don't know what (if any) policies Obama has proposed that he's so pissed off about, but let's say that there is a Policy X in Obama's campaign platform that this guy thinks will hurt his business. What are the other possibilities here, if Obama gets reelected? 1) Obama wasn't that serious about Policy X anyway, and never bothers to implement it; 2) Obama wants to pass Policy X, but Congress rejects it; 3) Obama and Congress both want to pass Policy X, but it gets gummed up for procedural reasons; 4) Obama and Congress both want to pass Policy X, but just never get around to it; 5) Obama and Congress actually pass Policy X, and it doesn't have as big of an impact on this guy's business as he thought it would; 6) Obama and Congress actually pass Policy X and it does hurt this guy's business, but some other factor offsets the loss.

    There are other possibilities too, but the bottom line is that he most likely has no idea what the next four years will bring for his business, and the identity of the president is pretty far down the list of factors that could hurt a person's business. If we take the charitable view of his actions, he's just a blowhard who is blowing off steam. The less charitable view is that he's intentionally trying to manipulate his employees to voting for the person he wants them to.
    Well there is no denying this, I admit. It is quite a leap to assume that any candidate will be able to go through with, and actually go through with, what they say they will do. Obama says he will raise taxes on this size of a business. The business owner could clarify that if Obama is re-elected and is able to pass the increased taxes that he says he will, then ... etc. etc.

    But the question is one of legality. The business owner makes the assumption that the politician will do what he says, which I don't think the court will find as too much of a leap, and let's his employers know of the consequences of these events. That's information being passed on a not-so-stable, but reasonably figured, argument, IMO, and I would not expect it to be illegal.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

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