• 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
Mitt Romney: Company defends decision to dock miners a day's pay after 'pressuring' them to attend a pro-coal rally | Mail Online

I guess its he said she said ...

The Los Angeles Times reports that when asked to comment, the mine's chief operating officer Robert Moore said 'Attendance was mandatory but no one was forced to attend'.
'We are talking about an event that was in the best interest of anyone that's related to the coal industry in this area or the entire country,' Mr Moore continued.



Read more: Mitt Romney: Company defends decision to dock miners a day's pay after 'pressuring' them to attend a pro-coal rally | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
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

What you just explained describes why tax rates don't affect workers productivity.

What I think you are missing:

1) The employer lives, eats and breathes his company (if they are a good employer). They're the ones with the risks and the responsibility and frequently, the start up labor cost, risk, time and ideas to generate the company. If they do not feel that their efforts and risks are rewarded appropriately, say with a $150,000 salary vs an $850,000 salary, they may not continue to do their job. If they pay for work is low enough, no one with a high value will do the job, and the company will fall apart. OR the owner will find a way to increase their salary to make their job worth the money. They do this by cutting costs. Hence jobs are lost.

2) If the company's net profit is $150k and was previously $850k, the growth potential of that company has just been significantly decreased. That money is primarily reinvested in the company. The owners do not generally (in good companies) take a majority of the net profit. The company stagnates, the growth slows or even halts entirely. New jobs aren't created.

If you are satisfied with stagnating employment rates and median salaries being reduced, then yes, raise taxes. The only way to grow the economy while raising taxes would be a communist-type government where private industry is strictly controlled in all aspects or non-existent. However, if you wish to maintain liberty, taxes are not a solution.
 
Thats not important ... its still CEO's punishing workers for political affiliation.
i don't see it that way
from my vantage he is warning his staff that if the candidate he opposes prevails, then economic consequences which result may cause the company to have to jettison workers

Where is that false? Show me a source ... I've heard it other places.
i would also want to see evidence which proves the coal miners were not obligated to attend that political function. i even saw that they were not compensated for the time they spent attending the event

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.
he takes nothing away from any worker
he is using his status as employer to force his staff to hear his pro-romney perspective
but there is no abuse there (assuming he is paying his staff while they are attending that meeting)
and there certainly is no taking away of personal freedoms
not a single employee is prevented from exercising their rights because of his actions

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

SO tell me how would a libertarian stop this kind of thing?
you wrongly presume that there is anything which needs be stopped
that employer has every right to engage in free speech
he has done nothing wrong
while i do not agree with his political position, it is incumbent on us to recognize he should in no way be deprived of his right to free speech

He's saying if Obama gets elected he will fire employees ... NOT if the taxes are raised.
and what is wrong with his saying that
hell, there is nothing illegal about him actually doing that
unless he is bound by contract, in a right to work state, and most others, he can terminate his employees for any reason other than those protected (race, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, marital status) including that the guy he wanted was not elected
that would be an imprudent decision, but it is one, as business owner, he has the right to exercise

freedom. what a concept [/s]
 


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.



If he actually told them: "If you vote for Obama, you're fired" then yes, he can and should be prosecuted.

But that's not what he said. He said if taxes are levied, if his costs go up, he'll be forced to lay-off employees, which offset the higher cost of taxes. Just sound business to me. Perhaps Washington could use him!
 
he takes nothing away from any worker
he is using his status as employer to force his staff to hear his pro-romney perspective
but there is no abuse there (assuming he is paying his staff while they are attending that meeting)
and there certainly is no taking away of personal freedoms
not a single employee is prevented from exercising their rights because of his actions

The first guy is making a blatent threat ... not that he might have to make a buisiness decision .. but that he will fire people if obama gets elected, which would be taken as a threat by anyone.

As for the second guy, if the government forced you to watch government propeganda you'd call that an abuse of personal freedom ... rightly so, this is as well.

you wrongly presume that there is anything which needs be stopped
that employer has every right to engage in free speech
he has done nothing wrong
while i do not agree with his political position, it is incumbent on us to recognize he should in no way be deprived of his right to free speech

Threatening people's lively hood, or forcing people to watch propeganda is not just free speach ...

and what is wrong with his saying that
hell, there is nothing illegal about him actually doing that
unless he is bound by contract, in a right to work state, and most others, he can terminate his employees for any reason other than those protected (race, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, marital status) including that the guy he wanted was not elected
that would be an imprudent decision, but it is one, as business owner, he has the right to exercise

freedom. what a concept [/s]

The point is that Capitalism, i.e. economic plutocracy, destroys politica lfreedom ... those workers are NOT free, because their livelyhood is tied to the Capitalist because of the institutions of capitalism. So in this case, Capitalism, i.e. the control of the means of production by Capitalists and only being accountable to profit, TAKES FREEDOM AWAY from workers.
 
thus, the tax rate has NO bearing on the employees required by the business

No, but what it DOES affect is the PROFITS the company sees on that $1 Million. Whether it's a 15% or 85% tax rate DOES have a massive impact on the company's PROFITS. So what the boss is saying is this..... "If the taxes go up and my profits go down, I'm going to have to reduce expenses to maintain that profit margin. I'll do that by laying people off. If I can't get to that profit margin with the reduced workforce I'll simply close the shop, take my metaphorical ball, and go home where I already have a nice little nest egg set aside."
 
thus, the tax rate has NO bearing on the employees required by the business
No, but what it DOES affect is the PROFITS the company sees on that $1 Million. Whether it's a 15% or 85% tax rate DOES have a massive impact on the company's PROFITS. So what the boss is saying is this..... "If the taxes go up and my profits go down, I'm going to have to reduce expenses to maintain that profit margin. I'll do that by laying people off. If I can't get to that profit margin with the reduced workforce I'll simply close the shop, take my metaphorical ball, and go home where I already have a nice little nest egg set aside."
What you just described is how tax rates DO (or CAN) have a bearing on employment.
 
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.

Libertarians, you mean the people who are against coercion of any kind and worship the bill of rights? Yeah, that does sound like us to endorse coercion and pressure workers out of their consitutional rights.

If you're going to throw insults around, at least be accurate.
 
Last edited:
What you just described is how tax rates DO (or CAN) have a bearing on employment.

Exactly. It's the main way that government affecte ANY business... through taxes, licensing fees, etc....

I work in a State Regulated industry (Electric Utility). Last year this company laid off over 1200 employees. You want to know why?.... Because they didn't get a positive result on the Rate Cases they filed with the states we do business in and they'd already promised a specific profit margin to the investors. Therefore the only way to make that profit margin was to get rid of the one disposible expense.... EMPLOYEES.
 
No, but what it DOES affect is the PROFITS the company sees on that $1 Million. Whether it's a 15% or 85% tax rate DOES have a massive impact on the company's PROFITS. So what the boss is saying is this..... "If the taxes go up and my profits go down, I'm going to have to reduce expenses to maintain that profit margin. I'll do that by laying people off. If I can't get to that profit margin with the reduced workforce I'll simply close the shop, take my metaphorical ball, and go home where I already have a nice little nest egg set aside."
as i pointed out, the tax rate will impact the after-tax profits generated by the business
but that has absolutely NO bearing on the employees hired to generate the revenues which will ultimately be taxed
your suggestion that the employer would be wise to reduce staff again demonstrates how so many of those on the right know so little about how business and the economy works. thus, they subscribe to this voodoo economic propaganda. the employer who terminates his employees because of higher tax rates cuts his own financial throat
only a fool would knowingly reduce employees which will then reduce profits, only because they want to reduce the taxes paid on a lower amount of profits
 
as i pointed out, the tax rate will impact the after-tax profits generated by the business
but that has absolutely NO bearing on the employees hired to generate the revenues which will ultimately be taxed
your suggestion that the employer would be wise to reduce staff again demonstrates how so many of those on the right know so little about how business and the economy works. thus, they subscribe to this voodoo economic propaganda. the employer who terminates his employees because of higher tax rates cuts his own financial throat
only a fool would knowingly reduce employees which will then reduce profits, only because they want to reduce the taxes paid on a lower amount of profits

What you are saying just isn't remotely true.
 
COSTS... regardless what form they take... most certainly do have bearing on other aspects of business, including how many employees a business can or is willing to hire.

A good business will not hire 50 employees when 30 will do simply because costs are low, but they might try and get by with hiring 25 when they really need 30 if costs are high.
 
What you are saying just isn't remotely true.

and it is noted that you have made no effort to disprove my position
try again
this time offer something of substance
 
He's saying if Obama gets elected he will fire employees ... NOT if the taxes are raised.

The assumption being that Obama would raise his taxes. And he does say "if my taxes go up I will lay off workers"
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Libertarians, you mean the people who are against coercion of any kind and worship the bill of rights? Yeah, that does sound like us to endorse coercion and pressure workers out of their consitutional rights.

If you're going to throw insults around, at least be accurate.

I'm talking about Libertarians that worship Capitalsm.
 
I believe this is wrong. We live in a nation where we have the right to freedom of speech. A CEO telling his workers that they cannot vote for someone violates that right. He may have no way of knowing who votes for who, but the threat is still there and should be handled accordingly.

Some of those workers might believe that he, the CEO, can find out who they vote for and give in to his threat causing that employee to not vote based on their beliefs.

The goal of this nation is to have our people vote for who they wish to vote for, not to vote for someone they were told/forced to vote for.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
What has capitalism to do with a boss using coercion and or intimidation against his workers to influence their voting habits?

It has to do with the fact that he is using his position as a capitalist and his control over the means of production ... to do that. Its totally internal to Capitalism.
 
It has to do with the fact that he is using his position as a capitalist and his control over the means of production ... to do that. Its totally internal to Capitalism.

Capitalism does not inherently give anyone a blank check to do what they please, regardless of the rights violations. Perhaps you're thinking of every socialist country that ever existed.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Capitalism does not inherently give anyone a blank check to do what they please, regardless of the rights violations. Perhaps you're thinking of every socialist country that ever existed.

According to most libertarians I know, its HIS buisiness so he can hire or fire whoever he wants for whatever reason ...

Unless of coarse your talking about some social right that comes before property.
 
According to most libertarians I know, its HIS buisiness so he can hire or fire whoever he wants for whatever reason ...

Unless of coarse your talking about some social right that comes before property.

He can fire whoever he wants, but not because of the way they vote.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
He can fire whoever he wants, but not because of the way they vote.

Says who? The government? Isn't that restricting his "liberty?"
 
Says who? The government? Isn't that restricting his "liberty?"

Oh.. I see what you did there. You made the assumption that libertarians are against laws. Seems you need to do more studying.

You are aware that libertarianism and anarchy aren't even remotely similar to each other, much less synonyms as you seem to imply, right?
 
Oh.. I see what you did there. You made the assumption that libertarians are against laws. Seems you need to do more studying.

You are aware that libertarianism and anarchy aren't even remotely similar to each other, much less synonyms as you seem to imply, right?

So you thing that the government should regulate hiring and firing of workers?

Well, thats an interesting strand of libertarianism.
 
Back
Top Bottom