Look: The employer has every right in the world–provided he’s not the government–to voice his opinion of the possible outcomes of the election. That’s called reality. What he does not have the right to do, and it is actually illegal, is to order his employees to vote for someone in particular.
And you’re now pretending that the employer can actually determine how the employee voted? If not, then what’s with that “the employee chance it” comment?
I know it’s not hard. I’m not a fucking simpleton. Don’t talk to me like I am. Got it?
Really? The Democratic Party is planning a criminal investigation? Interesting. I’d’ve thunk that’s the purview of the government. I mean this isn’t China. Well, where I am it’s China. But Ohio ain’t here.
We already curtail political speech. We do it in churches. We do it in and around the polling stations. So we do it in some cases as to whom and others as to where and when. It would not be difficult to do so here as well, just for different reasons.
Just because an employee is ostensibly alone in the voting booth with his or her thoughts does not mean that those thoughts need to be clouded with threats from someone with economical power over them.
I apologize for seeming snarky. Was not my intent.
I can’t see this as a threat because the boss is saying if Obama wins (regardless of whether you employee or anyone in this state) votes for him these bad things will happen.
So even if Employee X videotaped himself voting for Romney and turned this video over to the boss and Obama wins, if the boss is right these bad things will happen.
So in your analogy the shopkeeper paid the mob guy the money and had his place burned down because the people in Ohio and Florida didn’t pay. I don’t recall that technique on Sopranos.
It’s the boss offering his political wisdom and how an Obama win will affect his employee. And employees are free to ignore as they will - especially since the boss has no way of knowing how they voted.
You’re missing the point… The issue is how direct a threat has to be for it to be considered an actual “threat” by some posters here. Apparently some people have a much higher threshold for what the person who signs the checks that feed the children of their employees can say without it being sufficiently threatening.
And it doesn’t matter that they have no way to knowing who I vote for. Why should I be subject to any kinds of threats just because they might not be able to follow through on them?
We curtail political actions in places and situations where the lack of such curtailment is unreasonable. Churches can easily avoid the curtailment by giving up their tax-exempt status. Heck, given a current situation right now, it seems they don’t even have to give that up to actively support a particular candidate.
The voter is never just alone in the booth, using your imagery if I may. He is always there with his thoughts. His thoughts may include comments from his boss (whom he may despise and wishes to go out of business, thinking the employee himself may have no problem on the dole or changing employment). His thoughts may include all of the pro-Party A or pro-Party B or both editorials in various news outlets. They may include nothing more than his hatred of one candidate’s race, his hatred of one candiate’s actual religion, or his hatred of one candidate’s incorrectly attributed religion. Heck, it might even include nothing more than “My wife says I’m not getting any if Person C gets elected.”
The boss can state that, in his opinion, having a particular person as president will be bad for his business. That is not a threat to the employee. If the employee deems it a threat, then the employee needs to work out how he believes the boss will know he voted.
Apology accepted.
May I repeat the question? How does the boss intend to discover how the employee votes? What’s to stop all the employees from voting for Person A, but Person B (the boss’s favorite {“B” for “Boss” of course}) loses, and the employees all tell the boss, “Drat. The guy we voted for lost!”?
Come to think of it, various editorials for one side or the other make out the other side as bad for employees or bad for business or bad for whatever. Is that a threat from the editor to the reader?
Another come to think of it: Isn’t that basically what Politics is, anyway, scaremongering?
I think this should be illegal; and this is also why I’m the rare progressive who is against vote-by-mail. Early voting in a private voting booth, sure. But vote-by-mail violates the essential protection of the secret (“Australian”) ballot. How long can it be in VBM states before businesses like those cited upthread hold “ballot-marking parties” with required attendance for all employees? And how many households headed by Archie Bunker types already find the patriarch getting the little lady, and any adult children living at home, together to fill out ballots? Terribly, terribly shortsighted for progressives to support this concept.
Right, the threat should be direct enough that it points to an action the employee controls - which “if Obama is elected” doesn’t.
And should punish those who didn’t do what was demanded - which “I’ll have to drop health care (for everyone)” or “there will be high taxes” doesn’t.
What about if it’s a local election instead? Suppose that you know/believe that someone running for mayor hates your business and will have the ability to harm it financially if they are elected. Should you tell your employees so that they can consider whether or not they want to get involved or should you remain silent?
As much as I dislike the cause and the method of supporting it, I believe employers have the right to try to persuade/intimidate their employees this way.
The tactic could backfire on any employers who acts this way. It’s bad for their business.
If you worry about your vote getting back to your boss, when you’re inside a voting booth, you have more to worry about than your vote getting back to your boss.
