CEOs taking away political freedom of workers.

MaggieD · Oct 16, 2012

Einzige said:
That was obviously the intent. The CEO didn't need you to swoop in to defend his speech. jamesrage wasn't threatening it.

Well. Then let me make this perfectly clear to you: In this illustration, freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a guy can be fired if Obama wins. Clear?

Moon said:
I saw that and agree with what you said. I don't see you stating that firing someone is freedom of speech, as was claimed.

Thanks, Moon.

Einzige · Oct 16, 2012

MaggieD said:
Really? Link? What does execrable mean?

Execrable means '****ty'. It's derived from 'exrement'.

I don't have a link, because it was a flyer that they handed out at a campaign event I attended. It had a little man in a hard-hat on it who looked like Bob the Builder emphasizing that the EFCA didn't ban open shops, and that it wouldn't be used to create closed shops. I doubt that's strictly true, but the moral hyperventilating on the subject is incredibly annoying.

MaggieD · Oct 16, 2012

Einzige said:
Execrable means '****ty'. It's derived from 'exrement'.

I don't have a link, because it was a flyer that they handed out at a campaign event I attended. It had a little man in a hard-hat on it who looked like Bob the Builder emphasizing that the EFCA didn't ban open shops, and that it wouldn't be used to create closed shops. I doubt that's strictly true, but the moral hyperventilating on the subject is incredibly annoying.

You're cute. :rofl

You've never read me when I moral hyperventilate have you?

The bolded part? From your lips to God's ear. Ha!

Donahue · Oct 16, 2012

Mickey Shane said:
The Tool can say whatever he wants to say. There is no breach of Liberty because all of our votes are secret ballots. At most, he'll minimize the number of Obama/Biden bumper stickers in the parking lots.

I'd still fly mine, if only just to let him know that I personally plan to negate his vote at the Polls.

He isn't threatening to fire anyone for voting for Pres. Obama though.

He's simply acknowledging that if Pres. Obama raises taxes as planned he will have no choice but to fire employees. In other words: no duh.

What did you think he was going to do? Operate at a loss and just pay these people out of his own pocket?

I don't understand why this is even remotely controversial.

d0gbreath · Oct 16, 2012

Donahue said:
He isn't threatening to fire anyone for voting for Pres. Obama though.

He's simply acknowledging that if Pres. Obama raises taxes as planned he will have no choice but to fire employees. In other words: no duh.

What did you think he was going to do? Operate at a loss and just pay these people out of his own pocket?

I don't understand why this is even remotely controversial.

The taxes will rise regardless of who wins the election. It's inevitable.

clownboy · Oct 16, 2012

Einzige said:
An employer is not ethically at liberty to fire him 'at will' where the impetus is the employee's private life where it has no effect on the operations of the business. I'm aware of the 'at will' status of employment in most of the country. But this has its objective ethical limits, and these limits should be recognized legally.

Coercion, be it State-sanctioned or privately enforced, is wrong.

That just not so, legally at least. If you are employed "At Will" the employer can fire you for ANY reason. I noticed you hedged a bit and said "should", so you do recognise that is the case now.

However, though it would piss me off as an employee, an employer's threat to take his toys and go home if Obama is re-elected (leaving me without a job), it's well within his/her rights to close up shop whenever and for virtually whatever reason they wish.

Donahue · Oct 16, 2012

Mickey Shane said:
The taxes will rise regardless of who wins the election. It's inevitable.

I don't know about inevitable. The real issue is where taxes rise though.

President Obama and Democrats have built their message around the populist idea that wealthy business owners and executives need to be socked real good but the inevitable - and I stress inevitable - outcome will be a loss of jobs and that is all this guy said. He did not say he is firing employees who vote for the POTUS and saying otherwise is simply a lie.

justabubba · Oct 16, 2012

Donahue said:
I don't know about inevitable. The real issue is where taxes rise though.

President Obama and Democrats have built their message around the populist idea that wealthy business owners and executives need to be socked real good but the inevitable - and I stress inevitable - outcome will be a loss of jobs and that is all this guy said. He did not say he is firing employees who vote for the POTUS and saying otherwise is simply a lie.

this does not make sense
employees are not hired or fired based on tax rate or taxes paid
the taxes are paid on taxable income
income generated by the employee
the business which terminates employees because taxes/tax rates will be higher is not making an economically defensible decision
that person is only terminating employees who were generating the revenues upon which tax was ultimately paid
in short, it is a very stupid premise

Donahue · Oct 16, 2012

justabubba said:
this does not make sense
employees are not hired or fired based on tax rate or taxes paid
the taxes are paid on taxable income
income generated by the employee
the business which terminates employees because taxes/tax rates will be higher is not making an economically defensible decision
that person is only terminating employees who were generating the revenues upon which tax was ultimately paid
in short, it is a very stupid premise

You can give the same "you didn't build it" speech all you want but in the real world people are going to lose their jobs if Pres. Obama implements his taxes, regulations, etc.

justabubba · Oct 16, 2012

Donahue said:
You can give the same "you didn't build it" speech all you want but in the real world people are going to lose their jobs if Pres. Obama implements his taxes, regulations, etc.

like i said, that is a stupid premise, to believe tax rates/tax expenditures impact hiring
the good news is that without employees the employer will not have to pay income taxes
the bad news is that without employees the employer will generate no income

radcen · Oct 16, 2012

RGacky3 said:
Your party registration is a matter of public record.

Not every party-affiliated person votes strict party line. I, for one, never did when I associated myself with a party.

haymarket said:
He is ALREADY taking money he made off his workers and using it for political activity that goes against the interests of his workers.

That is ALREADY happening.

Key point, right there. As a business owner, he put in the most risk, he gets the most reward. That's how it works, that's how it should work. At this point, money he earned is indeed HIS money to do with as he pleases.

I still think the guy is an unethical jerk, but the fact that he can take his money and do as he wishes (legally) is indisputable and in and of itself fully ethical.

rocket88 said:
Well, OK. I like how he admits to illegalities in helping Bush by not turning in registrations for Democrat employees. Can you say "fraud?" I know someone will defend him for that. In 3,2,1...

Not cool.

haymarket · Oct 16, 2012

radcen said:
Key point, right there. As a business owner, he put in the most risk, he gets the most reward. That's how it works, that's how it should work. At this point, money he earned is indeed HIS money to do with as he pleases.

I still think the guy is an unethical jerk, but the fact that he can take his money and do as he wishes (legally) is indisputable and in and of itself fully ethical.

Not cool.

The man is legally using his money for his own purposes. I do not dispute that. I only brought it up because another poster seemed to feel that it was wrong to use money to advance ones own interests.

cpwill · Oct 16, 2012

haymarket said:
Why would you introduce material that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed? Your personal right wing cause celebre quixotic war on unions is irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

You are complaining about a boss doing the same thing that union leadership already does, making political activity a condition of employment. let me know when you decide to pluck that log out of your eye.

justabubba · Oct 16, 2012

cpwill said:
You are complaining about a boss doing the same thing that union leadership already does, making political activity a condition of employment. let me know when you decide to pluck that log out of your eye.

i missed your cite/proof of such happening

Donahue · Oct 16, 2012

justabubba said:
like i said, that is a stupid premise, to believe tax rates/tax expenditures impact hiring
the good news is that without employees the employer will not have to pay income taxes
the bad news is that without employees the employer will generate no income

Why on earth would you not think tax rates impact hiring?

I find it mind boggling.

Goshin · Oct 16, 2012

RGacky3 said:
Yet I guess libertarians will thing this is absolutely ok ... which goes to show, they don't care about liberty, they are all for private plutocratic tyrannies.

Okay, item one: if you've been paying attention you're probably heard me say that corporate employers can be nearly as tyrannical as any gov't, and more likely to get away with it, and that that crap needs to be reined in and stepped on.

Having said that...

If you listen to the video, the guy talking is clearly massively biased against Romney, so what he says is questionable as partisan hackery.

LITERALLY, the king guy did NOT say "if you vote Obama I will fire you". He said "If Obama gets elected and I have to pay more taxes, I will have to downsize this company". The former would be interfering with an election... the latter is an expression of opinion, a prediction of what MAY happen, and a caution about same. Anyone, including CEO's, can express their opinion.

Now if any employer ACTUALLY told their employees "Vote for X guy or be fired", I'd want him charged with felony violations of his employees Constitutional rights, to be sure. That doesn't quite appear to be what is going on this THIS particular case.

Got to listen closely to what is REALLY being said, vs how it is being SPUN.

haymarket · Oct 16, 2012

cpwill said:
You are complaining about a boss doing the same thing that union leadership already does, making political activity a condition of employment. let me know when you decide to pluck that log out of your eye.

Log!?!?!?!?!? I have no idea what you are talking about and apparently neither do you.

Please go to this site as the information there will educate you to correct your blatant misinformation about union members:

UnionRefund.org

In 1988, the U. S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case Communication Workers v. Beck, which established the rights of employees working under union contracts to pay only those union dues or fees necessary for performance of a union’s employee representation duties. Under Beck, fees to support union expenditures unrelated to workplace representation, such as political, social, or charitable contributions, are not mandatory.

Do I as a worker have the same right a union member has in this regard to withhold monies from my employer if I do not like the political cause to which they are spent.

NOT AT ALL DO I HAVE THAT SAME RIGHT.

So you are comparing apples to cinderblocks.

My point stands.

cpwill · Oct 16, 2012

justabubba said:
i missed your cite/proof of such happening

Unions are allowed to use their members dues to cover the administrative costs of their PACs, freeing up that money for political activity.

So, to compare, Haymarket is upset because an employer pointed out to his employees that government policy affects his ability to grow or being forced to shrink his business, because he thinks that that is some kind of imposition of political speech upon employees. But he's fine with unions actually doing what he claims the employer in this case is doing.

Chickenhawks · Oct 16, 2012

RGacky3 said:
Yet I guess libertarians will thing this is absolutely ok ... which goes to show, they don't care about liberty, they are all for private plutocratic tyrannies.

I would seize their companies, their money, kick them out of the country...

we should probably fight a war over this...cant think of a better reason myself

whenever I read a person who can barely afford mac and cheese for dinner talking down unions, I know the brainwashing worked.

Thrilla · Oct 16, 2012

at least he's giving his employees a heads up... he could just remain silent, then close up shop suddenly and head for the beach.
(which is kinda what Obama has done when he ordered contractor not to warn employees of layoffs until after the election, in contravention of the WARN act)

He was rather hackish in his delivery... but there's nothing wrong with the message of "if i'm taxed more, i'm outta here".... he's the chief, it's his business and he can close it if he wants to...for whatever legal reason he wants.

Thrilla · Oct 16, 2012

Chickenhawks said:
I would seize their companies, their money, kick them out of the country...

we should probably fight a war over this...cant think of a better reason myself

whenever I read a person who can barely afford mac and cheese for dinner talking down unions, I know the brainwashing worked.

grab a gun and get to fightin', warrior.

ReformCollege · Oct 16, 2012

RGacky3 said:
Yet I guess libertarians will thing this is absolutely ok ... which goes to show, they don't care about liberty, they are all for private plutocratic tyrannies.

You're an idiot. Its not a restriction of political freedom if he says that raising his taxes will force him to lay off workers. That's not the same as saying "vote for Romney or you're fired." YoungTurks is quite possibly the most satirical excuse for political news.

justabubba · Oct 17, 2012

Donahue said:
Why on earth would you not think tax rates impact hiring?

I find it mind boggling.

then we are in agreement that this topic boggles your mind
here is an example
employees' effort at the company results in a $1 million taxable income
if the owner is taxed at 15% or if the tax rate is 85%, the tax rate had no bearing on the reality that the employees' efforts generated the taxable income
whatever is lost to taxes is independent of the ability of the employees to generate revenue for the business
now, in that example the business owner realizes $850,000 or $150,000, depending on tax rate, on that $1 million taxable income
a net profit to the owner was realized despite the tax rate
neither of those tax rates used in the example impacted the employees' ability to generate the $1 million taxable income
thus, the tax rate has NO bearing on the employees required by the business

RGacky3 · Oct 17, 2012

rocket88 said:
That assumes you don't cross party lines.

radcen said:
Not every party-affiliated person votes strict party line. I, for one, never did when I associated myself with a party.

Thats not important ... its still CEO's punishing workers for political affiliation.

MaggieD said:
At 3:10, this guy talks about Murray Energy, the coal company where rumor had it that the miners were forced to go to a Romney Rally. That is blatantly false.

The 24-Karat Tool, however, is as tooly as presented. He probably has Alzheimer's Disease.

Where is that false? Show me a source ... I've heard it other places.

MaggieD said:
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.

Whether or not he's a tool doesn't matter ... the fact is he's using his economic power to take away take away political freedom of workers, which shows that capitalism can and does take away freedom from people just as government can and does.

Caine said:
LOL..... You make a "guess" of what a libertarian would say....

Then claim that your "guessed" conclusion SHOWS that Libertarians don't care about liberty and are all for private plutocratic tyranny.

You don't get to make up your own GUESS about how others would feel and then claim that it shows (as if by some kind of proof) one of your prejudiced opinions about them.

Get a clue.

I make a guess based on a history of dealing with libertarians ...

SO tell me how would a libertarian stop this kind of thing?

Goshin said:
LITERALLY, the king guy did NOT say "if you vote Obama I will fire you". He said "If Obama gets elected and I have to pay more taxes, I will have to downsize this company". The former would be interfering with an election... the latter is an expression of opinion, a prediction of what MAY happen, and a caution about same. Anyone, including CEO's, can express their opinion.

Now if any employer ACTUALLY told their employees "Vote for X guy or be fired", I'd want him charged with felony violations of his employees Constitutional rights, to be sure. That doesn't quite appear to be what is going on this THIS particular case.

Got to listen closely to what is REALLY being said, vs how it is being SPUN.

ReformCollege said:
You're an idiot. Its not a restriction of political freedom if he says that raising his taxes will force him to lay off workers. That's not the same as saying "vote for Romney or you're fired." YoungTurks is quite possibly the most satirical excuse for political news.

He's saying if Obama gets elected he will fire employees ... NOT if the taxes are raised.

MaggieD · Oct 17, 2012

RGacky3 said:
Where is that false? Show me a source ... I've heard it other places.

BEALLSVILLE - Coal miners at the American Energy Corp. Century Mine said they want President Barack Obama to stop what they term the war on coal - and to stop spreading mistruths about them.

Miners gathered Friday afternoon to express their opposition to Obamas energy and environmental policies, which they believe threaten their jobs. Miner Mitch Miracle read aloud a letter the miners mailed to Obama that outlines some of their concerns.

The miners said Obamas campaign team is running ads filled with blatantly false statements about the miners regarding their participation in Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romneys August campaign stop at the Century Mine. These ads assert that the miners were forced to attend the event by the mines owner, Robert Murray.

Miners gathered Friday afternoon to express their opposition to Obamas energy and environmental policies, which they believe threaten their jobs. Miner Mitch Miracle read aloud a letter the miners mailed to Obama that outlines some of their concerns.

The miners said Obamas campaign team is running ads filled with blatantly false statements about the miners regarding their participation in Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romneys August campaign stop at the Century Mine. These ads assert that the miners were forced to attend the event by the mines owner, Robert Murray.

There are numerous false statements and absolute lies concerning our participation in this event, mostly started by a local shock jock radio host, the miners letter to Obama states. Why would you (Obama) lie about the 500 working miners who have signed this letter? We, the employees of the Century Mine would request you immediately stop these false ads.

From the letter he read, “We voluntarily and enthusiastically attended the event and take great offense to the disingenuous reporting of the event by you and other media outlets.”

Miracle said there were five points in the letter that needed to be acknowledged by media outlets, who have repeated the Obama narrative, and Bloomquist: 1. No workers were forced to attend the Romney rally, 2. No attendance records were kept at the rally for hourly employees, 3. There were no penalties or punishments for workers, who did not attend, 4. The Romney campaign advance requested list of names for security and transportation purposes.

“And number five: It was an honor to host this important event for Governor Romney,” he said.

Unlike Bloomquist’s unnamed sources, the miners at Century Mine signed their names and showed their faces, he said.

“You see Mr. Bloomquist there is a war on coal and we do want to protect our jobs. Mining jobs are being eliminated and coal fired power plants are being shut down from the President Obama’s actions and policies,” he said.

“This is our statement, our choices and our signatures,” he said.

http://pushbacknow.net/2012/10/15/ohio-coal-miners-rally-against-obamas-absolute-lies/

CEOs taking away political freedom of workers.

Is this a breach of liberty?

Yes

No

Elitist as Hell.

Active member

Yellow Dog Democrat

Active member

long standing member

Active member

long standing member

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

long standing member

Active member

Burned Out Ex-Mod

long standing member