Show how the employer can gain knowledge of how the employee voted and you would have a point. But employers can be jerks, there’s no way to legislate around that.
Oh, PUH-LEEZE! Why did he send the letter to his employees if not to influence their votes? This is what I hate about legal wrangling, you aren’t allowed to simply state the obvious, which was that those letters were intended to coerce their employees to vote a certain way by threatening their livelihoods.
Yes, the employees have the ability to say “Yes boss, you have made a very good point,” and then go vote for Obama, otherwise, of course, elections would be travesties. But is there not merit in avoiding moving in the general direction of electoral travesty?
I didn’t say he wasn’t trying to influence their votes, in fact I pointed out that he was:
But there’s a difference between trying to influence somebody’s vote and actually threatening somebody with direct retaliation if they personally don’t vote the way you want them to.
And I’m sorry, but although I fully agree with you that Robert Murray is lower than an iguana’s penis and that his neo-serfdom management tactics are vile and despicable, I don’t think you’ve got a leg to stand on when you accuse him of literally “threatening the livelihoods” of his workers if they did not follow his lead in their electoral preferences.
No, he threatened their livelihoods if the WHOLE COUNTRY didn’t concur with his electoral preferences. Not the same thing.
What kind of “avoidance” are you recommending? Should employers be legally forbidden to discuss electoral politics issues with their employees?
What electoral travesty are you referring to? Because as much as I think this employer is a scumbag, I also believe he has the right to be a scumbag.
Benefits are horrendous! The government has gotten people reliant on benefits so that they’ll literally die if they’re thrown off them, so they’re forced to vote against their economic interests for the welfare party!
See sig.