There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
while i believe his actions are beyond ethical
there can be found no taking of liberty
his employees must exercise their rights ... not forfeit them to some con artist such as this bastard
every employee gets to vote without anyone knowing how they voted
if they feel their job security depends upon their employer knowing how they voted then tell him what he wants to hear
that in no way imposes on them an obligation to actually vote the way he would wish
He has the right to say that. Then anyone he fires can sue his ass.
My father in law was under a similar order in '84 to vote for Reagan. For some unknown reason, he did. Since he lived in Minnesota, it made no difference as it was the only state Mondale won. But I can't figure out how this guy's going to know who his employees voted for. If indeed he can find out, I'd worry about what kind of election fraud he's able to pull off. It would be a worrisome state if he could know.
The 24-Karat Tool, however, is as tooly as presented. He probably has Alzheimer's Disease.
Sue on what grounds? He's not saying he'll fire them in retaliation. He's saying he'll decide to go out of business and retire to a sunny beach. Different things.
But let's just be honest here. The guy's a ****ing idiot.
Thank you, Quazi!
This is not the Gilded Age. It isn't right for business owners or anyone else to coerce the votes of people in this manner. This kind of thing should be illegal. We had another thread on this a few days ago...I think they're crossing the line to tell workers that they'll be forced to cut back on staff if a certain candidate wins office, because there is an implicit threat there. I'm not buying the line of thought that they're simply conveying to the workers what is likely to happen, because there is so much conjecture involved that there's no way they can accurately predict what the business conditions will look like depending on who wins election.
Back in 2009, at my first job out of college, I remember that the management called us into a meeting. At the time, "card-check" (pro-union) legislation was in the news and there was a big concern at my company that it was going to become law. They told us how card-check legislation would have a negative impact on our company and might ultimately cause them to make budget cuts (although they didn't specify from where). In my opinion, even THAT is a gray area of inappropriateness and walking a pretty thin line with voter intimidation...even though they didn't explicitly threaten our jobs and there wasn't even an upcoming election. I think it DEFINITELY crosses the line when a manager explicitly threatens their job if a specific candidate wins, especially just before an election.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Thank you, Quazi!