• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Legality of employee threats in terms of election

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you think it is /should be illegal for an employer to tell an employee or employer "You certainly can vote however you want nor need tell me, but if Obama (or Romney) wins the election you will be laid off? Does it matter if that statement is accurate?
 
Don't know why it didn't go to the poll details page as I checked it to have 4 poll options.
 
I think it is wrong and there may be some law against it but it happens all the time. A case was on the news last nite just like that.
 
Do you think it is /should be illegal for an employer to tell an employee or employer "You certainly can vote however you want nor need tell me, but if Obama (or Romney) wins the election you will be laid off? Does it matter if that statement is accurate?

Yes, it should be illegal as it's a veiled threat to vote for the employer's preferred candidate.
 
What were the poll options?

I think it should absolutely be illegal for employers to threaten to fire employees unless they vote a certain way. That is absolutely despicable, and allowing that type of behavior is anti-democratic.

The news story you are alluding to is a little different. He basically warned them that Obama's policies may cost them their jobs. I really don't like that either. But I'm not sure I would go so far as to say I think that type of behavior should be illegal.

I don't believe this guy will, as he claims, be "forced" to fire anybody if Obama is reelected. He may choose to do so to cut some of his costs while maintaining his luxurious standard of living (which is his right). I guess it's fair for him to warn employees of that fact. I just hope his employees and customers punish him for his greed rather than punish Obama for it.
 
If you are talking about something like the email from the Westgate Resorts CEO, I think it is a blatant attempt to bully employees into voting in the interest of the corporation over their own. Notice that Mr. Siegel doesn't assure his employees he won't lay anyone off if Romney is elected so he could basically do what corporations did with the myriad tax breaks over the last decade, get what benefits you and then do whatever you want anyway. Really what is ironic is idiots like Siegel probably end up boosting support for Obama since their hypocritical and elitist attitude toward the peons just shows the right's true agenda.
 
Do you think it is /should be illegal for an employer to tell an employee or employer "You certainly can vote however you want nor need tell me, but if Obama (or Romney) wins the election you will be laid off? Does it matter if that statement is accurate?

I don't know if it's legal or not but it certainly is bull****.
 
It should be illegal for anyone to coerce or threaten someone to vote a certain way. Who you vote for is no one's business.
 
If you are talking about something like the email from the Westgate Resorts CEO, I think it is a blatant attempt to bully employees into voting in the interest of the corporation over their own. Notice that Mr. Siegel doesn't assure his employees he won't lay anyone off if Romney is elected so he could basically do what corporations did with the myriad tax breaks over the last decade, get what benefits you and then do whatever you want anyway. Really what is ironic is idiots like Siegel probably end up boosting support for Obama since their hypocritical and elitist attitude toward the peons just shows the right's true agenda.

Most of Siegel's letter was lifted from a letter going around in 2008. Siegel and his wife are the quintessential tasteless, nouveau riche one encounters in Florida. Older guy with a bottle blond bimbo with big boobs and bad taste. Siegel's wife looks like a hooker from the Sopranos. She bragged about spending a million a year on clothes. She was once "Mrs. Florida America", whatever the hell that is. LOL! I think her husband bought her a new beauty pageant that she could win. I'm serious. She is also said to have been an actress. I think she played a tree once on Pee Wee Herman's Fun House. I'm betting Dan bought her into some bit roles, aren't you? Wait, it gets more stereotypical!

Dan Siegel is quick to tell everyone that he was so poor growing up in Miami that he lived in a studio apartment with his parents. But things got better. There's nothing wrong with that. Siegel got in Orlando fairly early in the time share thing and now owns resorts all over the place - or did.

This all works better if you've read Siegel's letter to his employees.

Siegel began building the largest house in the U.S. about 3 years ago, 90,000 sq. ft. He called it the "Versailles." Building a big house in the U.S. and calling it the Versailles fits perfectly into the Siegel and wife persona of tasteless Florida nouveau riche. Pictures of the unfinished edifice of excess are difficult to look at without laughing out loud. It's butt ugly. No doubt Dan and "Mrs. Florida America" drew the design themselves. Why build a residence that large? "Because I can," said Dan, the one percenter.

"Versailles" drips with tastelessness and would have been a monument to more money than brains - had they finished it. Seems Dan over extended himself. Naaaaa, ya think? He also overextended himself when time shares became liabilities to a lot of people. Dan and Mrs. Florida America got caught living waaaaaaay too large. Versailles saw its construction halted a couple of times because Dan couldn't float the construction costs. Now Versailles is on the market unfinished, if you're interested. 75 million, I think, and you have to install your own plumbing. A billionaire fixer upper. :wink:

Dan has let a thousand or so people go as he tried to hang on to his empire while building a house that includes 11 kitchens, 6 swimming pools and a 20 car garage. You gotta toss a lot of staff over the side to help pay for that kind of "home".

So Dan sends out the letter, which he plagiarized, that says "Hey, this is all mine. I want to keep it. You people have to help me. If Romney wins I'll be able to continue to live shamelessly. My losses thus far are all the fault of Democrats and if Romney doesn't win, the Democrats will destroy my business and I'll have to fire many or most of you. Vote Romney."

What a load of horse ****!
 
Last edited:
Do you think it is /should be illegal for an employer to tell an employee or employer "You certainly can vote however you want nor need tell me, but if Obama (or Romney) wins the election you will be laid off? Does it matter if that statement is accurate?

Unless we suspended the First Amendment, I'd say an employer can say anything he'd like. And, no, it doesn't matter whether or not it's accurate.
 
Do you think it is /should be illegal for an employer to tell an employee or employer "You certainly can vote however you want nor need tell me, but if Obama (or Romney) wins the election you will be laid off? Does it matter if that statement is accurate?

That would be absurd unless the job specifically related to the candidate. ie ... A project or job or staff position related to either candidate then clearly if the opponent wins the position no longer exists.
 
Unless we suspended the First Amendment, I'd say an employer can say anything he'd like. And, no, it doesn't matter whether or not it's accurate.

Is intimidation now allowable? I guess we won't be hearing MaggieD ever complaining about how the New Black Panthers intimidated voters in Philly. :)
 
Unless we suspended the First Amendment, I'd say an employer can say anything he'd like. And, no, it doesn't matter whether or not it's accurate.

Then I can suggest to someone that voting for Obama might improve the chances their house doesn't burn down? If the man wanted to discuss possible impacts of Obamacare, which Romney will not be able to repeal in all likelihood, or other specific economic influences on his business it is quite a different thing than saying if Obama gets elected I'll close the company down. Isn't this the same kind of hollow and egotistical threat Alec Balwin was ridiculed for by the right in 2004?
 
Then I can suggest to someone that voting for Obama might improve the chances their house doesn't burn down? If the man wanted to discuss possible impacts of Obamacare, which Romney will not be able to repeal in all likelihood, or other specific economic influences on his business it is quite a different thing than saying if Obama gets elected I'll close the company down. Isn't this the same kind of hollow and egotistical threat Alec Balwin was ridiculed for by the right in 2004?

Would you be arrested if you suggested such? I don't anything about Alec Baldwin and 2004.
 
Is intimidation now allowable? I guess we won't be hearing MaggieD ever complaining about how the New Black Panthers intimidated voters in Philly. :)

Completely different set of circumstances. If my company says to me, "If Obama gets elected for another term, I'm probably going to have to shut the company down because he intends to raise taxes on business. I'm barely making it now," I wouldn't consider that intimidation. Swinging night sticks in front of polling places? Just a tad different.
 
Pee Wee's Playhouse - Fixed that for you.....

Though another flaw would be the hookers on "The Sopranos" were a couple notches above Siegel's wife though the realism of that could also be called into question.
 
Though another flaw would be the hookers on "The Sopranos" were a couple notches above Siegel's wife though the realism of that could also be called into question.

I couldn't resist. I bought every season of Pee-Wee's Playhouse on iTunes, and my 2yr old daughter and I watch an episode every night before I read to her and put her to bed. Despite Pee-Wee's past indiscretions (which were overblown, btw) the show was very imaginative for kids.
 
Would you be arrested if you suggested such? I don't anything about Alec Baldwin and 2004.

Sorry, Baldwin threatened to leave the U.S. if Bush was elected in 2000. He didn't carry through with it and neither will Siegel unless A) His company is in trouble anyway and this is a convenient excuse. B) His own financial ineptitude causes the company to tank. It is the essential difference between the elitist class and the common citizenry that one threat(leveled across a vast number of people whose personal actions can't assure the desired outcome) to deprive someone of an economic necessity is considered legal while one directed against an individual who completely controls their own fulfillment of the demand isn't. They are both intimidation and should be treated equally. BTW, unless I was stupid enough to make my suggestion in front of witnesses, I could always claim I either never said it or my meaning was misinterpreted.
 
Completely different set of circumstances. If my company says to me, "If Obama gets elected for another term, I'm probably going to have to shut the company down because he intends to raise taxes on business. I'm barely making it now," I wouldn't consider that intimidation. Swinging night sticks in front of polling places? Just a tad different.

Ah, it's different when it's the intimidation you have no problem with. Good to hear you're being casually inconsistent.
 
Ah, it's different when it's the intimidation you have no problem with. Good to hear you're being casually inconsistent.

Good to hear you're an alarmist. You call this intimidation?

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company," he wrote. "Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."

Quit being so hyperbolic.
 
Good to hear you're an alarmist. You call this intimidation?

Quit being so hyperbolic.

Yes, because he's telling people he'll fire them if Obama is elected. As if taxes were guaranteed to stay low with Romney elected. Again, intimidation and you're being extremely hypocritical in not admitting it.
 
There's a difference between threatening that you will purposefully choose to punish your employees if they don't vote a certain way, and simply warning them that, unfortunately, there will likely be some regrettable consequences for you and they alike if the election happens to go a certain way because of policy beyond your control. That's not a threat. That is being a decent boss, and making sure your employees are not blindsided when you're forced to shut down the company because of oppressive taxation. Sounds to me like he's just giving them a heads-up out of concern.

What, do you guys think he's trying to sway the election through force? I mean, how many employees does this guy have? That's just silly.
 
it's seedy, but i don't think it reaches the threshold of banned speech. it should, however, be illegal for an employer to fire an employee because of political affiliation.
 
Back
Top Bottom