• 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!

CEOs taking away political freedom of workers.

Is this a breach of liberty?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 53.8%
  • No

    Votes: 18 46.2%

  • Total voters
    39
It is as soon as someone advocates a law prohibiting such comments by anyone.

They can comment to their hearts' content. The moment they actually engage in firing someone, it ceases to be an expression of speech and becomes an infringement on the liberties of the individual. And the individual is always - always - more important than the collective. And 'the collective' includes corporations.
 
They can comment to their hearts' content. The moment they actually engage in firing someone, it ceases to be an expression of speech and becomes an infringement on the liberties of the individual. And the individual is always - always - more important than the collective. And 'the collective' includes corporations.

As long as we got past the nonsense that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Actions against another are not speech.
 
As long as we got past the nonsense that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Actions against another are not speech.

The 'nonsense' is that actually firing the employees has anything to do with freedom of speech. It's a violation of the liberties of his employees, and justifies State intervention to vouchsafe those liberties.
 
They can comment to their hearts' content. The moment they actually engage in firing someone, it ceases to be an expression of speech and becomes an infringement on the liberties of the individual. And the individual is always - always - more important than the collective. And 'the collective' includes corporations.

Unless an employee is under contract, an employer is free to fire him at will -- assuming the firing doesn't violate The Civil Rights Act. And political affiliation isn't covered under that act.
 
Unless an employee is under contract, an employer is free to fire him at will -- assuming the firing doesn't violate The Civil Rights Act. And political affiliation isn't covered under that act.

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.
 
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.

I would assume then, that you are completely and totally against non-secret union voting. Would that be yes? Because unions want to take away that right.
 
I would assume then, that you are completely and totally against non-secret union voting. Would that be yes? Because unions want to take away that right.

If it is a closed shop, yes. If it isn't a closed shop, then the employee isn't under any obligation to join the union and must abide by the rules of those organizations he voluntarily chooses to submit himself to. More pertinently, voting in a union election occurs within the group; the union member who votes in a union election votes as a union member. The employee who votes in a national election votes as a private citizen.

The two things are not equivalent, and wishing will not make it so.
 
The 'nonsense' is that actually firing the employees has anything to do with freedom of speech. It's a violation of the liberties of his employees, and justifies State intervention to vouchsafe those liberties.

Who, besides you, is claiming that firing someone has anything to do with speech?
 
As RGacky3 mentioned, party affiliation is public. Also political campaign contributions. Political campaign volunteering although not officially published can be monitored. Yard signs, bumper stickers, etc. are all public.

So what?

Contrary to the nonsensical rantings of the political hack in the video none of the men mentioned actually said they are going to fire anyone for voting for Pres. Obama. What they did say was if Pres. Obama is re-elected and increases taxes as planned they will have no choice but to lay off some employees, etc. The only real question is WHAT THE HECK DID YOU THINK THEY WERE GOING TO DO?
 
Unless an employee is under contract, an employer is free to fire him at will -- assuming the firing doesn't violate The Civil Rights Act. And political affiliation isn't covered under that act.

Maybe I misunderstood the thread topic, but I read it as whether employers SHOULD be allowed to do such things, rather than whether they ARE allowed to do them. It seems to me that a person's voting preference absolutely should be protected from the whims of the employer, as it's anti-democratic to do otherwise. It violates the principle of one-person, one-vote if employers can essentially cast extra votes on their employee's behalf. And the employer's "freedom of speech" should not extend to voter intimidation for the same reasons it doesn't allow him to sexually harass his employees.
 
Who, besides you, is claiming that firing someone has anything to do with speech?

MaggieD, for one, until she shifted the goalposts.
 
If it is a closed shop, yes. If it isn't a closed shop, then the employee isn't under any obligation to join the union and must abide by the rules of those organizations he voluntarily chooses to submit himself to. More pertinently, voting in a union election occurs within the group; the union member who votes in a union election votes as a union member. The employee who votes in a national election votes as a private citizen.

The two things are not equivalent, and wishing will not make it so.

The legislation (that failed, by the way, but will probably be brought up again if Obama wins; and still won't pass) applies to forming unions within a company. The union wants to know who's voting against forming a union so they can be pressured by their peers into changing their vote next time. Card Check is its name.
 
The legislation (that failed, by the way, but will probably be brought up again if Obama wins; and still won't pass) applies to forming unions within a company. The union wants to know who's voting against forming a union so they can be pressured by their peers into changing their vote next time. Card Check is its name.

I know.

EDIT: If the aim is to create a closed shop, then it ought to be opposed. If there is no intent to create a closed shop, I hardly see a reason to oppose it.
 
You'll have to post it, because I don't see where she said that at all.

Let me help. Here's where he's coming from:

Originally Posted by jamesrage
This is a breach of liberty.Employers have no business extorting their employees to vote a particular way.This should be a criminal offense with a mandatory minimum of 5 years in a real prison and the company seriously fined.

Then MaggieD posted (that's me!): Nonsense. Freedom of Speech.

I wasn't, obviously, associating freedom of speech with firing anyone -- just that the employer had the right to say it. If you read some of my earlier posts, you'll see that I think the guy's a jackass for saying it, by the way.
 
I wasn't, obviously, associating freedom of speech with firing anyone -- just that the employer had the right to say it. If you read some of my earlier posts, you'll see that I think the guy's a jackass for saying it, by the way.

jamesrage was pretty clearly calling for him to be imprisoned if he actually made good on his threat, so you'll forgive me for assuming that the letter of your post was true to your intent.
 
I know.

EDIT: If the aim is to create a closed shop, then it ought to be opposed. If there is no intent to create a closed shop, I hardly see a reason to oppose it.

Well, for heaven's sake. If you know, why are you talking about closed shops? (Oh, I see, you edited it B4 I pulled your quote.) The intent is always to create a closed shop. So then, you would be opposed. Good.
 
jamesrage was pretty clearly calling for him to be imprisoned if he actually made good on his threat, so you'll forgive me for assuming that the letter of your post was true to your intent.

I beg your pardon. His quote I responded to did not state "if he made good on his threat." Freedom of speech would have absolutely nothing to do with that.
 
Well, for heaven's sake. If you know, why are you talking about closed shops? (Oh, I see, you edited it B4 I pulled your quote.) The intent is always to create a closed shop. So then, you would be opposed. Good.

Nonsense. The campaign here in Illinois took great pains to emphasize that there would continue to be open shops (and did it in the most execrable way possible).
 
The legislation (that failed, by the way, but will probably be brought up again if Obama wins; and still won't pass) applies to forming unions within a company. The union wants to know who's voting against forming a union so they can be pressured by their peers into changing their vote next time. Card Check is its name.

This is why instead of having unions with collective bargaining or right-to-work legislation that allows for exploitation, the US should instead push for guilds that provide workers in an industry the contract minimums those workers should demand when looking for a job.
 
This is why instead of having unions with collective bargaining or right-to-work legislation that allows for exploitation, the US should instead push for guilds that provide workers in an industry the contract minimums those workers should demand when looking for a job.

I like that a lot.
 
I beg your pardon. His quote I responded to did not state "if he made good on his threat." Freedom of speech would have absolutely nothing to do with that.

That was obviously the intent. The CEO didn't need you to swoop in to defend his speech. jamesrage wasn't threatening it.
 
Nonsense. The campaign here in Illinois took great pains to emphasize that there would continue to be open shops (and did it in the most execrable way possible).

Really? Link? What does execrable mean?
 


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.


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.
 
Let me help. Here's where he's coming from:



I wasn't, obviously, associating freedom of speech with firing anyone -- just that the employer had the right to say it. If you read some of my earlier posts, you'll see that I think the guy's a jackass for saying it, by the way.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom