Koch Industries & other CEO's: Warning

[45Auto]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/k...-election.html

Looks like a thinly vailed threat to me; Vote our way or we will fire you.

[steve4102]

More like stating the facts.

[45Auto]

It's unlawful for a Govt. agency to tell Govt. employees how to vote. But it's perfectly legal for Corporations. Welcome to the machine.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

It's unlawful for a Govt. agency to tell Govt. employees how to vote. But it's perfectly legal for Corporations. Welcome to the machine.

I don't understand the "welcome to the machine" part there.

It's legal for the owner of a corporation to address political views because the owner is using his money to do it. If he wastes $50,000 in paper, toner, and staff time to get his newsletter put together and distributed, it's his money he wasted. And he ought to be able to spend his own money as he chooses.

If a government agency used $50,000 to do the same thing, it's our money they wasted. And they definitely don't deserve to spend my money to achieve political goals that are against my own.

[rcairflr]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

I don't understand the "welcome to the machine" part there.

It's legal for the owner of a corporation to address political views because the owner is using his money to do it. If he wastes $50,000 in paper, toner, and staff time to get his newsletter put together and distributed, it's his money he wasted. And he ought to be able to spend his own money as he chooses.

If a government agency used $50,000 to do the same thing, it's our money they wasted. And they definitely don't deserve to spend my money to achieve political goals that are against my own.

Well said.

[bamajoey]

If I owned a corporation, and research showed obama being reelected was going to hurt my business, I would warn my employees of the consequences, then let them decide how they wanted to vote.

[76Highboy]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

I don't understand the "welcome to the machine" part there.

It's legal for the owner of a corporation to address political views because the owner is using his money to do it. If he wastes $50,000 in paper, toner, and staff time to get his newsletter put together and distributed, it's his money he wasted. And he ought to be able to spend his own money as he chooses.

If a government agency used $50,000 to do the same thing, it's our money they wasted. And they definitely don't deserve to spend my money to achieve political goals that are against my own.

Very well said Josh. I agree.

[al45lc]

Sorry, gotta throw the B.S. flag on this one.
If my boss tried to tell me how to vote, I'd have his fanny in the ringer with a few phone calls.
I left a Union because of this, the bastards. They knew in no uncertain terms to NOT mess with me after the threats that were made. It was VERY unfriendly, to put it mildly.
And if some employee is too afraid of his /her boss and allows themselves to be bullied in such a way, they get no sympathy from me, we're supposed to be Americans, we stand on our on two feet.
I cannot concern myself with the sheeple.
What I see is a company saying, 'If this economy continues in this manner, we won't have jobs because we can't afford to do business here.'
Well, who here isn't aware of THAT problem?
And when did it get so bad, as in 'on who's watch?'
We all know the unemployment rate is actually much higher than put out, so what's wrong with these guys warning their people about the hazards of Obama as they see it?
Nothing, in my book. That's the American way, to watch out for one's best interest.

[76Highboy]

Originally Posted by al45lc

Sorry, gotta throw the B.S. flag on this one.
If my boss tried to tell me how to vote, I'd have his fanny in the ringer with a few phone calls.
I left a Union because of this, the bastards. They knew in no uncertain terms to NOT mess with me after the threats that were made. It was VERY unfriendly, to put it mildly.
And if some employee is too afraid of his /her boss and allows themselves to be bullied in such a way, they get no sympathy from me, we're supposed to be Americans, we stand on our on two feet.
I cannot concern myself with the sheeple.
What I see is a company saying, 'If this economy continues in this manner, we won't have jobs because we can't afford to do business here.'
Well, who here isn't aware of THAT problem?
And when did it get so bad, as in 'on who's watch?'
We all know the unemployment rate is actually much higher than put out, so what's wrong with these guys warning their people about the hazards of Obama as they see it?
Nothing, in my book. That's the American way, to watch out for one's best interest.

That is what I am getting from the news letter. I am not reading it as saying If you vote for Obamma you will be fired". I am reading if Obamma gets back in were all fired". That is how I am reading it. Maybe I am wrong. It seems to me they are making certain to put the info out that needs to be put out.

[gvw3]

I don't have a problem with a company stating its political ideas. If it is a corporation the owners are the shareholders. Not the CEO or President. They may be partial owners but not full control.

If you own stock in this corporation they are spending your money. I can see this being a problem down the road. I don't want some company I hold shares in spending my money unless I approve.

[steve4102]

My boss did the same thing only different. He told us that he would not partake in Obama care and would pay the fine as long as he could. When that option ran out he would close up shop.

Is that a threat? Hell no. It is a fact, pure and simple. He will not continue to run his business if Obama is elected for another 4, cannot afford it.. I could not agree more with him.

[76Highboy]

Originally Posted by steve4102

My boss did the same thing only different. He told us that he would not partake in Obama care and would pay the fine as long as he could. When that option ran out he would close up shop.

Is that a threat? Hell no. It is a fact, pure and simple. He will not continue to run his business if Obama is elected for another 4, cannot afford it.. I could not agree more with him.

10-4 Steve. I agree.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by gvw3

I don't have a problem with a company stating its political ideas. If it is a corporation the owners are the shareholders. Not the CEO or President. They may be partial owners but not full control.

If you own stock in this corporation they are spending your money. I can see this being a problem down the road. I don't want some company I hold shares in spending my money unless I approve.

Koch Industries is privately owned. The two brothers are the sole shareholders.

[gvw3]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Koch Industries is privately owned. The two brothers are the sole shareholders.

If that is the case they can spend their money as they see fit. It's their money to spend.

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Koch Industries is privately owned. The two brothers are the sole shareholders.

That is true, they own it and they can do as they please. I think the Koch brothers long for the good old days of the company store in the company town and no regulation for miles around. I can picture them listening wistfully to "Sixteen Tons" sung by Tennessee Ernie Ford.

[Diamondback]

Originally Posted by al45lc

Sorry, gotta throw the B.S. flag on this one.
If my boss tried to tell me how to vote, I'd have his fanny in the ringer with a few phone calls.
I left a Union because of this, the bastards. They knew in no uncertain terms to NOT mess with me after the threats that were made. It was VERY unfriendly, to put it mildly.
And if some employee is too afraid of his /her boss and allows themselves to be bullied in such a way, they get no sympathy from me, we're supposed to be Americans, we stand on our on two feet.
I cannot concern myself with the sheeple.
What I see is a company saying, 'If this economy continues in this manner, we won't have jobs because we can't afford to do business here.'
Well, who here isn't aware of THAT problem?
And when did it get so bad, as in 'on who's watch?'
We all know the unemployment rate is actually much higher than put out, so what's wrong with these guys warning their people about the hazards of Obama as they see it?
Nothing, in my book. That's the American way, to watch out for one's best interest.

Along this line: several years ago I worked for a company locally. Several years before I went to work there, the owner found out that someone was trying to organize a vote to unionize. The owner called a meeting of all 500 of the employees, shut down all operations and informed them that if they voted for the union he would close the business and retire. He effectively told them how to vote. Who are you goin to call and report him to? It is his business and he can bloody well tell how he wants you to vote. If you do not and he subsequently fires you, how are you going to prove it was because of the way you voted? BTW the company was not unionized.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Diamondback

Along this line: several years ago I worked for a company locally. Several years before I went to work there, the owner found out that someone was trying to organize a vote to unionize. The owner called a meeting of all 500 of the employees, shut down all operations and informed them that if they voted for the union he would close the business and retire. He effectively told them how to vote. Who are you goin to call and report him to? It is his business and he can bloody well tell how he wants you to vote. If you do not and he subsequently fires you, how are you going to prove it was because of the way you voted? BTW the company was not unionized.

If it was an at-will state, it doesn't matter why he fired you as long as you can't prove that it was for a prohibited reason (race, gender, religion, national origin, etc.). And if he weren't stupid enough to say why, there would be no proof. He could say it was because he didn't like your shoes, and that would be a legitimate reason.
Of course, if it were shoes related, he may have trouble retaining employees from there on.

And it's definitely the owner's right to close the business. Or fire the entire unionized labor force (depending on the state). Or make everyone wear clown costumes to work. Whatever he wants; he owns the place. If you don't like it, you can go get a job somewhere else or start your own business.

Indiana recently passed a "Right to Work" laws that prevents compulsory union membership. Even if the shop you work in is unionized, you don't have to be part of that union, and they can't take union dues without your permission.
Had that been the law in 2008, my father wouldn't have lost his job as the Controller of an auto parts factory. His factory was one of eight the company had in the US, and all of the factories were operating at about 60 to 70% capacity. Two of the factories were union shops, and the rest weren't.
My dad's shop was actually one of the top two in both QC and production. But when it was not feasible to keep open eight shops at 70% capacity each, want to guess which ones closed?

Before the right to work law, one of my brothers worked as a bag boy and cart pusher at a supermarket with a union. They took $0.60 out of his pay every hour he worked. But because he was part time (as were about 35% of the employees, mostly high school and college students), the union wouldn't represent him. It was simply government-endorsed theft. The union got the money before it even went to his paycheck, and he didn't even get a vote in the matter. He had to pay the dues, but he wasn't allowed any of the "perks."

I've said this before and I'll say it again now: We need either workplace regulations (minimum wage, overtime laws, OSHA, etc.) or unions, not both. It's now two entities competing to have the same effect. I'm OK with either one, but having both just doesn't make sense.

But now I feel like this whole post was mostly rambling... I need to sleep more.

[al45lc]

So how does a Union vote equate to the Vote for the President? It doesn't, not even close.
And I see that some apparently aren't familar with current employment laws, yes you might get fired, but that doesn't shield ANY employer from a wrongful termination lawsuit.
And guess who 'wins' at most of these, garnering at the least severence wages, because the State does NOT want to pay unemployment if it can avoid it. Look it up, this is why many people are kept on (even the really bad ones) until the record for termination is VERY open and shut. I know, I used to do just that.
Even in so called "right to work" states, there are hundreds of laws and many Govt. institutions protecting workers, and those institutions LOVE to stick it the 'Rich' employers.
No employer in his or her right mind wants that kind of Govt. watchdog looking over their shoulders.
In my experience, many workers will complain and never stand up for themselves, will often find fault where there is none or displace what is in fact their own fault, and many FAR overrate their own value and act as though the place won't go on without them.
This skews their perception of the true nature of business and their relationship with their boss.
Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

[millwright]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/k...-election.html

Looks like a thinly vailed threat to me; Vote our way or we will fire you.

One man's "threat" is another's precautionary "heads up " !!

BTW, Koch isn't saying anything many economic prognostigators with good track records aren't saying. >MW

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by al45lc

So how does a Union vote equate to the Vote for the President? It doesn't, not even close.
And I see that some apparently aren't familar with current employment laws, yes you might get fired, but that doesn't shield ANY employer from a wrongful termination lawsuit.
And guess who 'wins' at most of these, garnering at the least severence wages, because the State does NOT want to pay unemployment if it can avoid it. Look it up, this is why many people are kept on (even the really bad ones) until the record for termination is VERY open and shut. I know, I used to do just that.
Even in so called "right to work" states, there are hundreds of laws and many Govt. institutions protecting workers, and those institutions LOVE to stick it the 'Rich' employers.
No employer in his or her right mind wants that kind of Govt. watchdog looking over their shoulders.
In my experience, many workers will complain and never stand up for themselves, will often find fault where there is none or displace what is in fact their own fault, and many FAR overrate their own value and act as though the place won't go on without them.
This skews their perception of the true nature of business and their relationship with their boss.
Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

Not sure how this thread went from "Layoffs" due to economic reasons to "wrongful termination", but it did.

He said he will have to cut back, that means layoffs and I'm sure a whole host of other cost cutting measures. No threat and no wrongful termination. Layoff workers and stay in business or close up shop, that's simple enough, where is the wrongful termination?

[al45lc]

Your not following. Diamondbacks post spoke to a scenario of an employer effectively telling workers how to vote in a union election.
Nonsense.
And if that happens, and a worker tells their boss "nonsense" or votes the other way and gets fired What then? That's what I'm speaking to.
I have actually been at one of these, the State mediator made it VERY clear that threats, even of closing shop, were strictly forbidden.
And a National election for President is far from this.

[obxned]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/k...-election.html

Why all this confusion and discussion. The message was easy to understand: If you were lucky enough not to loose your job during the first term of our 'dear leader', don't bet on being that lucky if we suffer another 4 years of this crap.