• 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
I hope that you are not suggesting that the CEO monster that detests the democratic rights of workers is a new phenomenon?

Unions were targeted a long long time ago - there is a direct relationship between the demise and crushing of workers Unions and the emergence of the fascist Corpocracy

fascism_is_the_american_dream.jpg
 
Klown said:
I hope that you are not suggesting that the CEO monster that detests the democratic rights of workers is a new phenomenon?

Unions were targeted a long long time ago - there is a direct relationship between the demise and crushing of workers Unions and the emergence of the fascist Corpocracy

View attachment 67136265
Click to expand...

Your posted image is offensive, not just because it is incorrect, but you don't even know the difference between fascism and nazism. Board rules prevent me from characterizing you further.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Your posted image is offensive, not just because it is incorrect, but you don't even know the difference between fascism and nazism. Board rules prevent me from characterizing you further.
Click to expand...

You seem to be always worried about everything but what the topic is
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Your posted image is offensive, not just because it is incorrect, but you don't even know the difference between fascism and nazism. Board rules prevent me from characterizing you further.
Click to expand...

There were 3 major forms of fascism to emerge in the 20th century

Bolshevism
Nazism
Corporatism

Youre living in one now and yet it doesnt offend you. Your concern for symbols is touching as your once great nation yields to the tyrannical corporate fascists and yet you sit there and do nothing

now that is interesting!
 
Last edited:
mhurford said:
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.
Click to expand...
you misrepresent what he said
but that is also possible since you possess freedom of speech
... just like the CEO

He may have no way of knowing who votes for who, but the threat is still there and should be handled accordingly.
Click to expand...
that's right. he has NO way of knowing how they actually voted
so, who is going to handle it accordingly
and what the hell does 'handle it accordingly' mean. what exactly do you propose be done to that CEO

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.
Click to expand...
wait, if the listener is too ignorant of their rights, the nannystate is supposed to step in and make sure things are not said to them which exploits their stupidity
who is in charge of the group assigned to fulfill this function and what is its standard operating procedure

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.
Click to expand...
it is the RIGHT of citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice
we get told to vote for someone every day via commercials on the net, print media, radio and televisions. why not just allow individuals to exercise their right instead of asking for a nannystate response to a non-issue
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Your posted image is offensive, not just because it is incorrect, but you don't even know the difference between fascism and nazism. Board rules prevent me from characterizing you further.
Click to expand...
why should that be found offensive
 
justabubba said:
sure he can
what prevents him from doing so?
Click to expand...

A) How will he know who they voted for?
B) Even if he did know, it would still probably be covered under discrimination laws. You can't fire someone for their political beliefs. You have to find a real reason.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
A) How will he know who they voted for?
B) Even if he did know, it would still probably be covered under discrimination laws. You can't fire someone for their political beliefs. You have to find a real reason.
Click to expand...

missed that one
not being able to fire someone for their political beliefs
would you please offer a cite to show that this prohibition actually exists
 
Klown said:
There were 3 major forms of fascism to emerge in the 20th century

Bolshevism
Nazism
Corporatism

Youre living in one now and yet it doesnt offend you. Your concern for symbols is touching as your once great nation yields to the tyrannical corporate fascists and yet you sit there and do nothing

now that is interesting!
Click to expand...

Bolshevism is Fascism? The US, one of the most liberal countries in the world, is now a fascist country?
I have to say, the standards of DP has gone down
 
Its every American's right to act like an asshole.
 
Klown said:
There were 3 major forms of fascism to emerge in the 20th century

Bolshevism
Nazism
Corporatism

Youre living in one now and yet it doesnt offend you. Your concern for symbols is touching as your once great nation yields to the tyrannical corporate fascists and yet you sit there and do nothing

now that is interesting!
Click to expand...

"There were 3 major forms of fascism to emerge in the 20th century" I can't find that you have ever expressed that before. As for what you consider interesting...
 
Proud South Korean said:
Bolshevism is Fascism? The US, one of the most liberal countries in the world, is now a fascist country?
I have to say, the standards of DP has gone down
Click to expand...

Corporatism is the most recent form of fascism - its no secret

and the USA has a Corporately run speudo capitalist society that enslaves the bulk of its citizens whilst enriching a tiny minority

Surely you didnt believe that the USA was a democracy?

LOL
 
AliHajiSheik said:
"There were 3 major forms of fascism to emerge in the 20th century" I can't find that you have ever expressed that before. As for what you consider interesting...
Click to expand...

i missed the point of that post
one you please construct one and reveal it to us
 
now we see where this practice originated
at romney's urging
... “I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections,” Romney told members of the ostensibly nonpartisan National Federation of Independent Business, an anti-union group whose endorsements tend to align with Republicans.

“And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope — I hope you pass those along to your employees,” he added. “Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well.” ...
Click to expand...
Romney to bosses: Tell workers how to vote | The Raw Story
 
justabubba said:
you misrepresent what he said
but that is also possible since you possess freedom of speech
... just like the CEO


that's right. he has NO way of knowing how they actually voted
so, who is going to handle it accordingly
and what the hell does 'handle it accordingly' mean. what exactly do you propose be done to that CEO


wait, if the listener is too ignorant of their rights, the nannystate is supposed to step in and make sure things are not said to them which exploits their stupidity
who is in charge of the group assigned to fulfill this function and what is its standard operating procedure


it is the RIGHT of citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice
we get told to vote for someone every day via commercials on the net, print media, radio and televisions. why not just allow individuals to exercise their right instead of asking for a nannystate response to a non-issue
Click to expand...


Media and other sources tell us to vote for everyday. However, you fail to notice that the CEO is not just telling them who to vote for, he is threatening their jobs. You also asked what I meant by handled accordingly (please calm down by the way lol) and what I meant was someone of authority should remind him that he can't threaten peoples' jobs indirectly to make them vote for who he wants to win the election. The CEO did say in the video that he caused George Bush to win the elections before and it may have been illegal. I'm just paying attention to details, sorry if I have been upsetting you in any way.
 
mhurford said:
Media and other sources tell us to vote for everyday. However, you fail to notice that the CEO is not just telling them who to vote for, he is threatening their jobs.
Click to expand...
he is conveying to them how their jobs are at risk if the 'wrong' candidate prevails
how is that not within the bailiwick of his right to free speech

You also asked what I meant by handled accordingly (please calm down by the way lol)
Click to expand...
yes, because i wanted to know how you would propose that person's legitimate comments be 'handled'
and chances are good that i am stoned when responding, so be assured i have no need to calm down ... if i could only find some chocolate to snack on

... and what I meant was someone of authority should remind him that he can't threaten peoples' jobs indirectly to make them vote for who he wants to win the election.
Click to expand...
and who in authority would you deem appropriate to restrict this person's legitimate free speech. for extra credit, tell us what standard operating procedures would be used to ensure the next victim of this person of authority was not you, inhibiting how you are able to speak. and for a gold star, explain for us what prevents this employer from firing his employees if the candidate he does not support win the election


The CEO did say in the video that he caused George Bush to win the elections before and it may have been illegal. I'm just paying attention to details, sorry if I have been upsetting you in any way.
Click to expand...
and despite all of your words you have been unable to share with us why the comments of that CEO are found to be other than protected by the free speech provisions of the Constitution
the only thing upsetting about your posts is your continued inability to offer anything of substance to defend them
 
justabubba said:
he is conveying to them how their jobs are at risk if the 'wrong' candidate prevails
how is that not within the bailiwick of his right to free speech

yes, because i wanted to know how you would propose that person's legitimate comments be 'handled'
and chances are good that i am stoned when responding, so be assured i have no need to calm down ... if i could only find some chocolate to snack on


and who in authority would you deem appropriate to restrict this person's legitimate free speech. for extra credit, tell us what standard operating procedures would be used to ensure the next victim of this person of authority was not you, inhibiting how you are able to speak. and for a gold star, explain for us what prevents this employer from firing his employees if the candidate he does not support win the election



and despite all of your words you have been unable to share with us why the comments of that CEO are found to be other than protected by the free speech provisions of the Constitution
the only thing upsetting about your posts is your continued inability to offer anything of substance to defend them
Click to expand...


I have mixed feelings about this...Unions endorse candidates...and by that endorsement they are for all intents and purposes telling the membership who would be good for them in their opinion.
A CEO is a bit different however. the union is not your employer, they do not hire and fire and promote. The CEO does as the boss he has a position of authority and has the ability to make you or break you...Having said that if the ceo puts out a memo saying I want you all to vote for Romney...I dont see how thats much different than what the union does...but if he tells employees if I find out you voted for obama you done here...thats different. I can see both sides...
 
lpast said:
I have mixed feelings about this...Unions endorse candidates...and by that endorsement they are for all intents and purposes telling the membership who would be good for them in their opinion.
A CEO is a bit different however. the union is not your employer, they do not hire and fire and promote. The CEO does as the boss he has a position of authority and has the ability to make you or break you...Having said that if the ceo puts out a memo saying I want you all to vote for Romney...I dont see how thats much different than what the union does...but if he tells employees if I find out you voted for obama you done here...thats different. I can see both sides...
Click to expand...

opposite side of the same coin
union can exercise "negative" control. it withholds union representation. no longer acts on behalf of your interests
while illegal under the federal statutes, try proving it
and unfortunately, as a union officer, it is too prevalent to pretend such union official attitudes do not exist
 
justabubba said:
opposite side of the same coin
union can exercise "negative" control. it withholds union representation. no longer acts on behalf of your interests
while illegal under the federal statutes, try proving it
and unfortunately, as a union officer, it is too prevalent to pretend such union official attitudes do not exist
Click to expand...

Ive never seen that happen bubba...I didnt vote my union endorsements for decades...and I made it known and I never had a problem with the union...I actually got voted in as VP....
 
lpast said:
I have mixed feelings about this...Unions endorse candidates...and by that endorsement they are for all intents and purposes telling the membership who would be good for them in their opinion.
A CEO is a bit different however. the union is not your employer, they do not hire and fire and promote. The CEO does as the boss he has a position of authority and has the ability to make you or break you...Having said that if the ceo puts out a memo saying I want you all to vote for Romney...I dont see how thats much different than what the union does...but if he tells employees if I find out you voted for obama you done here...thats different. I can see both sides...
Click to expand...
Interesting point.

Small aspect, but a union is also an employer itself in that they have their own staff, and so on. Could their recommendations extend to their own staff as well?
 
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...
Click to expand...
Are employers in the USA required to accept and file voter registration forms for employees?

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom