We've talked a bit lately about business leaders using heavy-handed election tactics, pressuring their employees to support Mitt Romney, apparently at the candidate's behest. Several Republican CEOs have taken Romney's request to heart, and have abandoned subtlety when giving their workers voting instructions.
Among the most notable examples is Arthur Allen, CEO of ASG Software Solutions, who told his employees via email, "If we fail as a nation to make the right choice on November 6th, and we lose our independence as a company, I don't want to hear any complaints regarding the fallout that will most likely come." As "Up with Chris Hayes" reported over the weekend, that's not all Arthur Allen said.
As it turns out, the ASG Software Solutions chief "has repeatedly solicited his more than 1,300 employees not only to support Mitt Romney, but to donate up to the maximum $2,500 to Romney's presidential campaign."
What strikes me as interesting about this is the degree to which a company can keep tabs on its workers.
A CEO can send emails every day, pleading with them to vote one way or another in a given election, but when push comes to shove, an individual American walks into the voting booth and casts a secret ballot. It's public information as to whether that person voted, but how he or she voted is entirely private.
If a worker runs into the boss at the water cooler, and the employer says, "So, did you vote the way I told you to?" the employee can say, "Absolutely, boss!" No one ever will know whether the assurance is true or not.
But urging employees to contribute the legal maximum is something else altogether.
When someone donates $2,500 to a presidential candidate, that's reported to the FEC. In other words, when the worker runs into the boss at the water cooler, and the employer says, "So, did you donate the way I told you to?" the employee can't lie.
To be sure, Arthur Allen never used his messages to threaten workers who didn't donate, and never said those who choose not to contribute will face negative consequences, but the intimidation is nevertheless obvious. The CEO who can raise or lower your salary, promote or demote, hire or fire, has urged his employees to give money to a candidate -- and he'll know which workers followed his "advice" or which didn't.
Leave a Comment:
and if an Obama supporter had issued such a statement....oh never mind
Find one who did and they'll get condemnation as well. This is about employers using their unequal power relationship with employees to intimidate and threaten them into supporting particular political issues and candidates and that activity being legal. It is not about republicans versus democrats.
That the GOP supporters are the one's most frequently seen doing this isn't surprising given their tendency to authoritarianism, but if you're trying to suggest that no one here would condemn these actions if it were a democrat supporter, you've missed the point.
I'll take the Merry out of your kid's Christmas if you don't vote to benefit my share holders.
No, what he is trying to point out is that Fox News would be decrying it 24/7. As would Breitbart and all the right-wing blogs. It would make it onto CNN (probably via Dana Loesh and Erick Erickson), and onto MSNBC via Joe S., which would then become what everyone else was talking about.
THAT was his point.
The magic words are "hostile environment".
If you work for someone who does this, you should sue.
Thank you Ms Joanne ...that is exactly it ...but just for fun can anyone out there find an example of a Dem doing it ?
I suspect not because it seems you have to be a seriously greedy A$$hole who does not respect his employees to say something like that
And when do they send in the Pinkerton security guards to monitor what the employees are doing? Disgusting!
Boycott People Soft.
How is this any different than automatic payroll deductions of union dues for public workers?
Maybe because unions act on behalf of employees and advocate for them whereas this guys is just a dick.
Unions are working for the best interests of the union members. Trying to facilitate things that are beneficial to those groups.
A CEO in this case is "purportedly" saying that this is in the best interest of our company, but those interests may not be in the best interests of the individuals working for that company.
Example. In some Republican controlled states, the Republicans are trying to eliminate child labor laws and minimum wage laws. While those policies might be beneficial to the company, they certainly are not beneficial to the individuals working in that company.
It is very different. If you don't want to be a unionized teacher, teach at a non union public or private school.
it's voluntary and known as part of being part of a union you pay for their advocacy. a boss trying to shake down employees is generally not part of the conditions for their employment
because unions do not hire and fire employees or sign their checks
Thanks ever so much you drooling idiot, for the daily demonstration of how stupid stupid has to be to be one of you disgusting morons.
Hank you make an entiely logical and clear headed objection. The line of your inquiry leads in a dangerous direction you may not appreciate.
We can begin with the difference that ASG is non unionized, and the US workplace has been systematically stripped of representation of alternate voices on what is in the worker's best interest. Any voice that contradicts the CEO on what is best for middle class incomes is silenced with a pink slip.
Hank, you are correct that the CEO is exercising first ammendment rights. Your argument also applies to a boss who repeatedly asks well paid secretary to a bar even though her response is that both af them are married.
Free speech but such propositions not allowed under current labor law.
So the question is, what is the difference between plutocrats raping their secretaries in such exercises of free speech and such "consensual sex" acts, and 1% plutocrats raping the middle class of 43% of the wealth of the US.
Where does the politicization of the workplace end.? Say the employer starts hiring based not on race of sex, but on whether you know what Hannity said about a software subject in the news? Maybe the interviewer thinks it is in the economic interests of the company to hire only people who listen to pundits of a particular ideology.
Free country, right?
Hank, one thing we probably agree on is the impossibility of legislating good will and adherence to principles our nation was founded on. The plutocrats can push the envelope further and further.
But make no mistake. There are solutions to massive income inequality. Eventually the people set up the guillotines.
John I would point out that for sake of argument there are business that can fire or hire based on political or religious affiliation. Their justifications are usually centred around issues of workplace "harmony and productivity". Whether or not that is strictly legal or not is open to debate but it is a common enough practice in this country many people just accept it as essentially "Routine" particularly in rural areas where the labor pool is far less diverse.
I am not defending the this sort of policy but I am pointing out that it in fact already exists and is practiced.
Keeping this short:
http://aclj.org/workplace-rights/unions-union-dues
Please read the paragraph titled "Resigning Union Membership and Objecting to Dues for Political Activities". Union members actually have MORE control over whether their funds are used for political purposes they oppose than shareholders do. Shareholders typically aren't even told if company funds are being directed toward a political agenda.
My union dues goes to the union, not directly to the candidate. The union then uses that dues for many different purposes, one of which is to support candidates who support union causes. And, every time I belonged to a union shop, I always had the choice not to join the union. I could still enjoy many of the same compensation benefits (compensation, medical benefits, etc), but not all the protections (like they may not provide a union lawyer for me if I needed representation for some reason, etc.).
And one other point, WE that are in a Union, ELECT our leadership, Buisness Agent's, Secratary, etc, with that said WE can also vote them out, CEO's can't be voted out by the employee's, But the employee's sure as heck be fired!!
Dragoon- you mean that say a company of right wingers with employees that espouse Christian supremacy actually exist? I suppose you are going to tell me they could be contracted by a GOP administration led by a born again President, to privatize services, including the security of diplomats, and that big budgets would be allocated for money going to such companies. I suppose in your dystopian world that a GOP congress would cut back severely such security funds when the money did not flow to such Right Wing companies?
It's crazy.
Such a policy is not just cronyism, such a game of politicizing government security services would lead to the deaths of US gubmint bureaucrats.
It would never happen in America.
Wait.
How is employer intimidation to have employees vote the right way or suffer the consequences different from the boss engaging in sexual harassment with the threat of negative consequences? The Supreme Court has unanimously found sexual harassment to be illegal and punishable. Employer intimidation is no different and should be illegal!
Different states have different laws. Right to
workbe a weasely freeloader states prohibit compelling union membership in union shops. In California however, if you choose to decline membership in certain unions, you can. You do still have to pay union dues. Your dues are discounted the political activities costs, and the administrative costs (for the lawyers who bargain for your pay and benefits and work rules) are donated to a charity of the union's choice.Prop 32 in CA will cease the automatic deductions of union dues for CA public union workers which is about time. I already voted for this and Hope for this Change in our state policy to break the cycle of union dues going to corrupt paid for politicians who reward their benefactors with ever increasing generous wage and benefits packages which are unsustainable.
I suspect that this will be overplayed by zealous CEO's and have a net negative effect. If you were told by your boss to vote the way the boss wants you to, what would be your gut reaction?
I would vote the opposite of what he told me to do.
Bravo! The very idea that an employer would try to influence his employees' lives in this way is absolutely sickening. Why in the hell would anyone give a damn what their employer thinks about politics, or anything else for that matter?
That's one thing that the employers seem to be forgetting. People generally don't like being to what to do. If you're hourly, you don't like middle management, and no one's really fond of the boss. For the employers to also be pointing out "I hold the pursestrings and can damage your life," isn't likely to have a positive influence on most people's perception of them.
Not all American's are so defiant. Most American's, especially the working class, want what's best for their wallets. If their employer, the purveyor of their paycheck claims things will be better for them if they vote a certain way, that's what many will do.
"If we fail as a nation to make the right choice on November 6th, and we lose our independence as a company,..."
Lose our independence as a company???? Just what did he mean by this? What is he implying would happen to his company in a second Obama term that didn't happen in a first?
The United States of America LLC.
He heard it on Fox news . Doocy and Hannity told him.
NEA and both state/local affiliates must have a separately endorsed form for a separate contribution for political campaign support. My dues for my professional association/union did not go for political campaigns without my specific designation of an additional payment to them and written authorization. So, there's a huge difference between the union member choosing to use his/her union to campaign for positions and candidates that might benefit members and their constituencies and a company owner coercing his employees to contribute and/or camapgin for the owner's choice. My union doesn't limit my choice to speak against it; doing so does not risk my ability to act on my own behalf or my job. The business owner by requiring his employees to acceed to his wishes is creating a hostile work environment. If such actions are not illegal, they ought to be.
Thought control. Are we really supposed to live out George Orwell's novel? This kind of thing should be nipped in the bud. 8+4=12.
As it is written, so shall it be done.
Exactly how would ASG "lose its independence as a company?" By paying a couple % more in taxes? By providing health care to employees? By not having free reign to destroy the earth, or at least the economy, without any regulation? 'Tis a puzzlement, at least to me.
I seem to remember that one of the coal mines was taking deductions from the paychecks of people. They insisted that the process was completely "Voluntary" but if they are controlling payroll then there is no way to be positive and even if it were then they would know who had signed up and who had not. Not a position you want to be in with your employer.
When you get down to it the bizarre part of it is that they are essentially charging their at best middle class employees a Super PAC "Tax" to fight taxes on the wealthy
I disagree that the company may not know how you vote.
While it is true that they won't know how a specific individual votes, they can get a feeling of how the community voted.
Example. Gerber Baby Food is in a very small town, Freemont, MI. About half of the town's adult population works for Gerber. So if a vote went 75% against the CEO's views, that CEO has a fairly good idea that many of the Gerber workers voted against them.
BTW. I use Gerber as an example. To the best of my knowledge Gerber has NEVER sent out this type of letter/memo.
Thanks to computers we can now quickly check cities' voting trends. So yes, an major employer in a rural community could see if his/her employees followed the directive. If that employer had threatened to move a plant if workers didn't vote in line, and then did so, your point would prove out. It's only collectively that the employer can view employees' voting record, and then harm the employees as one.
The main still point discussed here does still stand tho', because unless 100% of Freemont votes against the directive, the employer can't identify exactly which individuals voted which way. Individual voting records are not available publicly, so the employer can't view them. Individual threats made against employees can't be acted upon. It has to be a group target.
I think you may have missed the point, daw. I suspect that Sickneffintired meant that the GOP would have gone ape@!$%# over any democrat doing as arthur allen.
What happens when an employer makes 'manatory, but voluntary' that employees register to vote; vote by absentee ballot; and submit their absentee ballot thru their supervisor? What happens when an employer provides a 'bonus' for an employee's spouse to do the same?
Is this all part of Freedom of $$$peech?
To the best of my knowledge what you are saying is illegal.
I'd go along with the registration idea and not have a problem with that.
Submitting your absentee ballot to your supervisor has the obvious problems that your ballot could be changed. Of course if you objected to voting, you could always give the supervisor a blank ballot.
Dogjudge, you say that it's illegal as if that has any meaning to the GOP. Even if a boss did something that fascist, do you really think anything would come of it?
SOV - What you are describing is, indeed, very much illegal. The only people allowed to handle an absentee ballot before submitted are:
• the voter
• a legally designated power of attorney (if one exists)
That's it. Unless that supervisor is planning on becoming POA for a whole lotta people, s/he can't legally handle the completed form. Both the supervisor and the employer would be in trouble, because it would be clear that the employer set it up.
Since Ohio's a nice, important swing state, here are their laws on political bribery.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3599
(It's always bribery - no matter what you call it.
One of these employees should bring suit for "political harassment" . . . similar to a sexual harassment in that, in both cases, employers are using the power of their position to force an employee to do something they do not want to do.
Not to mention this scumbag wants them do donate the maximum and he wants them to forego paychecks between now and December 1st so he can make an interest payment - while he keeps riding around in his $50 million private jet! "We're all in the same boat here" - yeah right you lying piece of something I scrape off my shoe.
I'm hearing this new push by republican owners are from the Citizen's United ruling that corporation are people. If most companies and corporation are owned and ran by republicans than they would support republican campaigns. It was Mitt Romney that encourage via a conference call these republican companies to do this shake down of it's employees cause winning the election is all that is important. His VP choice Paul Ryan will pay them all back in the form of decreases their taxes even more. So their little upfront donations/investment now will payoff big time later if Mitt Romney wins.
A new low will be validated if Romney gets elected,
.
I agree completely. I'd hate to see the nation even dumber than when Bush stole the elections..
But what have the believers in free elections been done these past 4 years to prevent (more) stolen elections? I don't know.
Let's try another tack...
What has the right done to "help" gain a few votes for Mitt if the margins are narrow enough? Mitt's curious business interests in voting machines, moralists dumping registrations, more redistricting, quickly enacted voter ID laws, scrubbing voter lists, incorrect information out to voters, pulpit politics, corporate pressure...
It will validate Citizens United. It works. Money buys stupid.
Arthur Allen is abully and a liar. I actually have MET this person in regards to software. When we decided to go with another vendor because ASG had not done anything in R&D for years, he flew in and went to management. Then I got called up to the executive offices to 'defend' my decision. He denigrated me in front of MY employers, called me a liar and suggested that I be fired. My response is 'if you care so much about us keeping your software why haven't you done anything except threaten? Where are YOUR people? Where are YOUR upgrades? He went purple and said I was disrespectful. It was totally incredible.
@Mego - Good for you for standing up to him!!!! And, since he called you a liar, can you sue him for slander?
It is critical to note that on January 23rd, 2009, ASG closed at .3482.
yesterday, they closed at .71- or over two times what they were worth when Mr. Obama took office.
It is this sort of blatant, patronizing bull@!$%# that really makes me mad.
I worked in a non-union place a few years back. When I was filling out my papers before I started, they placed a card for United Way in front of me. I was told a certain amount would be taken from my paycheck every week and everyone that worked there donated. I got the hint and signed it. That was a great number of years ago. Sad that things still are the same.
I haven't donated to United Way since.
So almost of these threatening CEOs do not come from "small business"...
Makes one wonder if Mr. Romney is really going to work for small business as he claims he will!
Not like this hasn't happened before. This happened in my state a little over a decade ago...http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1998/mar/19/gop-donor-admits-caign-violations-thomas/
So, the CEO's need to start subscribing to, or at least reading, Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/
Hmmm...just a reminder, Mitt is running for CEO, NOT President of the US. These guys are just falling in step with the CEO-in-Chief.
Perhaps a possible water cooler response: "Yes boss, I did contribute, as you asked, but all I could afford was a coupla hundred bucks. Sorry about that. But every little bit helps, right?"
Contributions under $250 don't get reported, so there's no way to check. Of course, that also means you can't contribute more than that to Obama, either.
I have a friend who got a letter from his workplace to vote for Romney or else people would be fired. He's not gonna do it and will wait to see what happens.
I see this as fear. The 1% have had it so good for so long, with all of their loopholes and tax breaks (and money to pay accountants to find them, and pay legislators to make them), they want to put one of them in office to protect their interests. It's a pretty basic human reaction if you ask me--"protect what's mine."
Romney is a carpetbagger. He will say what is beneficial to himself and his own. He has no nation other than the one he chooses for the moment. If unsuccessful, he moves on to the next opportunity. When successful, he runs it into the ground before selling the bones to someone else before the marrow dries.
In 2003, he was anti coal burning for his own portfolio interests:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgLYryI8g
He was learning the ropes. So much for employee interests.
In 2006 he believed in global warming and the US EPA obligation to regulate greenhouse gasses:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1120
He has been rewarded handsomely when manipulating market conditions from public office.
His one true allegiance is to the BBC (billionaire boys club). His eye is on the prize now. He is getting old and can taste it.
BLET373