# Another company found to be "recommending" who their employees vote for. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 26, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953 "2012-10-26T17:29:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2012, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/21 "2012-10-28T17:28:19Z")
Up until 2010, it was illegal under federal law. The Citizens United decision allows companies to do this now. Welcome to the new America. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/22 "2012-10-28T18:20:33Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > Up until 2010, it was illegal under federal law. The Citizens United decision allows companies to do this now. Welcome to the new America. This is a complete falsehood. There is not even a grain of truth in your statement. ---
**Author:** ![mkecane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9e8a1a/32.png) [@mkecane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mkecane)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/23 "2012-10-28T19:12:14Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Frylock: I agree that makes absolutely no sense. They are saying that since Obama is imposing a penalty that is lower than the cost of their health care plan they will drop their health care plan and pay the penalty. > > Well, without Obamacare the penalty is zero, much less than the cost of the health care plan, so if they would drop healthcare if they had to pay a small penalty for doing so, why do they offer health care now? Offering healthcare when the company doesn’t have to is to attract better employees, I assume. However if Obama wins and RH drops the plan, if I’m looking for a new job and I’m qualified for something Rite-Hite has open, they’d have to realize I may not be interested in going further than the first interview once I find out they want me on my own. Let them take the 2nd best qualified candidate. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2012, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/24 "2012-10-28T20:41:35Z")
> [@Agent\_Foxtrot](#): > > Is anything going to happen to these companies and owners? I thought this stuff was kind of illegal, right? First Amendment FTMFW ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2012, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/25 "2012-10-28T23:43:29Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > This is a complete falsehood. There is not even a grain of truth in your statement. Okay, well [here’s](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/us/politics/bosses-offering-timely-advice-how-to-vote.html?ref=stevengreenhouse&_r=0) an article that says exactly what I said. Show me the money. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2012, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/26 "2012-10-28T23:50:35Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The American equivalent to the CAW is the UAW. > > The UAW is openly campaigning for Obama/Biden. > > I mean, you can’t deny they’re telling their members how to vote. They can’t FORCE them to, but neihter can an employer. The message is still there; vote Democratic or things will be worse. (And hey, given the candidate’s positions on the auto bailout, they have a point, but there you go.) > > Hell, it’s on the UAW home page: > > [http://uaw.org/](http://uaw.org/) > > Today, the UAW home page _ **refers to Mitt Romney as a traitor.** _ They’re just as strident about this as any employer. I don’t deny that unions tell their members how to vote. I DO deny that it has the same import or impact as a message from an employer, because with a union’s message there is no implicit or explicit threat of being fired. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2012, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/27 "2012-10-29T00:41:49Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > Okay, well [here’s](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/us/politics/bosses-offering-timely-advice-how-to-vote.html?ref=stevengreenhouse&_r=0) an article that says exactly what I said. Show me the money. This isn’t what Citizens United decided. \* Nor, for that matter, is the phenomenon new;\* employers urged employees to vote a certain way in past elections. Wal Mart quite famously told people in 2008 to vote Republican. [QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] I DO deny that it has the same import or impact as a message from an employer, because with a union’s message there is no implicit or explicit threat of being fired. [/QUOTE] How can an employer fire someone for voting a certain way? Isn’t it a secret ballot? In what state do employers have the ability to find out how their employees voted? ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/28 "2012-10-29T01:52:20Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > This isn’t what Citizens United decided. \* Nor, for that matter, is the phenomenon new;\* employers urged employees to vote a certain way in past elections. Wal Mart quite famously told people in 2008 to vote Republican. From another [source](http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/employers-and-employees-contemporary-liberalism-and-class-warfare.php): > [@](#): > > Prior to Citizens United, companies could communicate with salaried employees about politics, but not hourly employees. While the Citizens United decision says not a word on the topic, it is generally believed that the First Amendment principles enunciated in that case imply that companies can communicate with their hourly employees as they can with members of the general public. So, since 2010, more companies have tried to explain to employees how various political outcomes could impact their businesses, and their employees’ jobs. The implications of Citizens United about 1st Amendment rights leaves the door open for employers to “inform” employees about how their votes will affect their jobs, without risk of legal retribution. I believe it stops short of allowing companies to tell employees who they must vote for, and there are, of course, laws about terminating employees who don’t vote the company party line. > [@](#): > > How can an employer fire someone for voting a certain way? Isn’t it a secret ballot? In what state do employers have the ability to find out how their employees voted? They can’t, legally. As for finding out who an employee votes for, it’s ridiculously simple to find out what party someone belongs to, and a few conversations with fellow employees will probably tell you who someone voted for. Next time you want to call me a liar, get your own shit together first. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2012, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/29 "2012-10-29T01:54:54Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > How can an employer fire someone for voting a certain way? Isn’t it a secret ballot? In what state do employers have the ability to find out how their employees voted? An employer _could_ fire people if his candidate lost and he _thought_ certain employees had voted for the opposition. A union _cannot_ fire people, as they do not employ the workers in question. Do you really not see the difference in the two situations? ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/30 "2012-10-29T02:20:10Z")
When I lived in Hawaii, I heard stories of the old days where plantation workers who did not vote “properly” were fired. Can’t remember the exact logistics, but it involved the stylus or pen used in voting. It was tied to a poll overhead, and observers could see by which direction the sting was stretching toward how the vote was being made. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/31 "2012-10-29T20:32:19Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > An employer _could_ fire people if his candidate lost and he _thought_ certain employees had voted for the opposition. > > A union _cannot_ fire people, as they do not employ the workers in question. > > Do you really not see the difference in the two situations? Of course. But the fact remains that isn’t what’s happening here. What’s happening is that employers are saying not “vote X or you’re fired,” they’re saying “if so-and-so wins we might be forced to lay employees off, so it’s in your interests to vote for the other guy.” I mean, it’s a horrible thing to say (and probably total bullshit, since it makes no sense at all) but it is what it is. Can you really not see the difference in the two situations? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/32 "2012-10-29T20:34:24Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > From another source… This was my favourite part: > [@](#): > > While the Citizens United decision says not a word on the topic… Get back to me when it does. And, again, this stuff really is old news. Employers have been pressuring employees for ages. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/33 "2012-10-29T20:36:25Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Of course. But the fact remains that isn’t what’s happening here. What’s happening is that employers are saying not “vote X or you’re fired,” they’re saying “if so-and-so wins we might be forced to lay employees off, so it’s in your interests to vote for the other guy.” I mean, it’s a horrible thing to say (and probably total bullshit, since it makes no sense at all) but it is what it is. > > Can you really not see the difference in the two situations? Blackmail vs. coercion? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/34 "2012-10-29T20:53:42Z")
Yeah, Citizens United doesn’t allow employers to send persuasive messages to employees. Citizens United as a decision would be a great reference for an employer’s attorney to use if an employee filed suit against the employer for the communication, as it would clearly seem to protect such activity. However, no one (including the New York Times article author and the author of the other article, who cite no legal or factual resources in just making a claim anyone off the street could make) actually cites any factual legal statute or case law that, prior to Citizen’s United, would have prevented (at a Federal level) employers from sending such communication to employees. A few state laws exist that regulate such speech, but if you’ve followed the news on this most of the balanced articles mention that such laws are ill-tested and thus no one really knows how a court would accept them or under what parameters. There is basically a vague assertion here, that “something” was impermissible prior to Citizens United, but Citizens United as a case did not directly impact employer communications to employees of _any type_. Employers have been running PACs and such for years prior to Citizens United and presumably employers have been communicating on various topics to employees for years. In general, under our legal system the assumption must be that employers have always had freedom to communicate with their employees in any way imaginable. Only if you can cite specific statute prohibiting certain types of communication, can you argue that communication was ever legally impermissible. For example sexual harassment, and other things of that nature, there are clear laws on the books saying an employer can’t verbally commit sexual harassment on an employee. Do you know how I know that? Because there is both clear statute and case precedent showing me that’s not permissible communication. Unless someone can show this type of communication was generally impermissible prior to Citizens United, and that would mean citing statute and, if you can’t come up with a statute, citing some case law in which the court interpreted such an argument then we have to assume such communication was always permissible. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2012, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/35 "2012-10-29T22:34:15Z")
The best thing that can be said is that the same Court who decided Citizens United might well also decide that such employer statements to their employees are also protected by the First Amendment. The actual Citizens United Decision doesn’t touch the issue. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/36 "2012-10-30T00:56:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > \*\*The best thing that can be said \*\*is that the same Court who decided Citizens United might well also decide that such employer statements to their employees are also protected by the First Amendment. > > The actual Citizens United Decision doesn’t touch the issue. So would I be right in thinking that, to you, it is ok for employers to tell their employees who to vote for? To, in essence, attempt to bully people over whom they have a degree of power? I don’t mind “an employer” saying whatever the hell he likes in the public sphere. However, when it comes to communications within the workplace I feel that part of the social compact is that he (or she) shouldn’t be trying to foist their opinions on the employee. It would be good to see the matter legislated and protected. And no, I don’t think it is a curb on free speech - as it wouldn’t prevent the employer from saying whatever they like in public, it would only prevent them from bullying what may very well be vulnerable employees ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/37 "2012-10-30T01:35:59Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > PLEASE tell me that Rite-Hite is a tree-farming concern headquartered in Minnesota… They make dock-levelers ([the things that make it so a forklift can get from the dock onto a semi](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3lFJUqOeL0)) and other dock equipment. Up until about a year ago they were (more or less) across the street from my house. They just moved to another warehouse in Milwaukee. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/38 "2012-10-30T04:28:35Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I don’t deny that unions tell their members how to vote. I DO deny that it has the same import or impact as a message from an employer, because with a union’s message there is no implicit or explicit threat of being fired. Fired - no Broken knee caps - ??? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/39 "2012-10-30T13:51:31Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > So would I be right in thinking that, to you, it is ok for employers to tell their employees who to vote for? To, in essence, attempt to bully people over whom they have a degree of power? > > I don’t mind “an employer” saying whatever the hell he likes in the public sphere. However, when it comes to communications within the workplace I feel that part of the social compact is that he (or she) shouldn’t be trying to foist their opinions on the employee. > > It would be good to see the matter legislated and protected. And no, I don’t think it is a curb on free speech - as it wouldn’t prevent the employer from saying whatever they like in public, it would only prevent them from bullying what may very well be vulnerable employees As long as we have a secret ballot, this issue is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953/40 "2012-10-30T13:59:54Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > So would I be right in thinking that, to you, it is ok for employers to tell their employees who to vote for? To, in essence, attempt to bully people over whom they have a degree of power? > > I don’t mind “an employer” saying whatever the hell he likes in the public sphere. However, when it comes to communications within the workplace I feel that part of the social compact is that he (or she) shouldn’t be trying to foist their opinions on the employee. So, he can write a letter to the editor saying he’ll probably have to lay people off if Smith is elected, but he can’t say that in his office? What’s the difference? > [@](#): > > It would be good to see the matter legislated and protected. And no, I don’t think it is a curb on free speech - as it wouldn’t prevent the employer from saying whatever they like in public… You’re right. It would prevent them from saying whatever they like on their own property. (Not always, but often.) > [@](#): > > …it would only prevent them from bullying what may very well be vulnerable employees If the employee is “vulnerable” what difference does it make if he hears it in the office or out in the street, if it’s coming from the same person? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-company-found-to-be-recommending-who-their-employees-vote-for/638953.md?page=3)