Romney: OK for employers to influence employees' votes

Nice job you got here. Be a shame if something happened to it.

 

Why should I have to lie?

 

I don't think it should be made illegal. I think corporations as they are structured should be made largely illegal.

If you are a wage slave, which you are, then you can't dictate what your owner tells you within operating hours as long as it can be shown to be legal.

 

Bosses pressuring employees to vote for preferred candidates. Employees feeling it necessary (and acceptable) to lie to their employers who have pressured them to vote for a certain candidates.

I find it telling that the Romney supporters on this board can comfortably support something that is so clearly wrong, just because it help get Romney elected. SMH.

 

Let us trade swigs of this Victory Gin! It ain't half bad!

 

Is an employer recommending to his/her employees who to vote for any different than a union recommending to their members who to vote for?

Has there ever been anything documented regarding an employee who didn't vote for the candidate their employer suggested getting fired or disciplined?

Anyone who thinks this is the first election in which an employer is encouraging his/her employees who to vote for, is a bit naive.

 

"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. I particularly think our young kids ... they need to understand that American runs on a strong and vibrant business and we need businesses growing and thriving this country."

--Mitt Romney

No Mitt, there's nothing "illegal" about your suggestion, but what it does show is your sliminess and ruthless attitude towards how you conduct your business and treat people.

 

How do interpret that statement as slimy and ruthless?

This is why Romney is winning, his opponents are reduced to hyperbole and caricature.

Romney might be the most philanthropic candidate ever to run for President.

 

Romney is not winning and (thank god) will come no where near the White House.

 

He might be, but he is most definitely the wealthiest.

 

Too bad there aren't documents that all other candidates have released for many years that could document this type of thing.

 

This x1000

 

The union can't fire you, but it would be better if unions and employers both backed off.

I think what made this an issue is the insinuation that the workers will lose their jobs if they voted for Obama. At my previous job, Steve Wynn scheduled a "mandatory meeting" and gathered all his employees in an auditorium so he could tell everybody who to vote for. It wasn't worded in a way that held the employees jobs hostage, so everybody kinda rolled their eyes and went back about their work.

The same isn't true of Aurthur Allen's email:

 

That's basically what this amounts to: thinly veiled threats under the guise of free political speech. Win the election, by any means necessary, even extortion. Disgusting.

 

I know you're being sarcastic, but I do think it's outrageous that employers do this. Even if they won't know who I vote for, even if I lie about who I support, and even if my vote won't matter (I live in Texas), it makes for a hostile work environment. If my employer is an unabashed Romney supporter who just wants to let me know there might be lay-offs if Romney loses, I'll have to keep my burning Obama-love secret at the office when he's talking about Romney at every turn. All the other Romney lovers can slap each other on the back, go out for drinks, and give each other promotions while the Obama supporters sit in the corner and hope no one notices them lest they be fired as traitors. Politics is best left out of the workplace.

Fortunately, I work for a big professional company than I believe is smart enough not to open that can of worms. We're an energy business, we lobby governments all the time, we have a PAC that will accept donations from employees to represent the company's interests in elections. I'm pretty sure senior leadership leans Romney. But, at least they're careful about not stating their preference, and they certainly don't tell us we might all get fired if we vote for the wrong person. If they did -- even if they told me to vote Obama -- I'd be flat-out offended they dared say it; I wouldn't be too happy to continue working here.

And, I think it's wrong to shrug it off as insignificant. Voter intimidation in one office won't move the needle on the election. But, if Romney is telling people to do it and business leaders in many companies engage in intimidation, it could have a real effect on an election. And, for it to keep up over a sustained period, it can create a business culture in which ambitious workers must prove themselves politically to have success within the company.

 

Let's say you're supposed to arrive to work at 8:30, but you arrive at 8:40. Your boss arrives at 9, but you know he's a stickler for rules, especially tardiness. Now let's say he stops by your office and asks when you arrived. Knowing that he has no way of verifying your answer and you could possibly be disciplined for being tardy, what do you tell him?

People lie, especially when it's harmless and in their best interest. That's human nature as well as the reality we live in.

And it's comical that you're posting in a political thread asking why people should have to lie.

 

Some of us would prefer not to lie even if we won't get caught.