Fair play? CEOs using job threats as intimidation to vote Romney

Jump to Last Post 1-13 of 13 discussions (101 posts)

83
Connie Smithposted 12 years ago
I am very disturbed by the use of intimidation by multi-millionaire (and billionaires) to intimidate their employees to vote for Romney. We take pride in our fair and free elections, but it doesn't look like they are fair or free anymore.

The Koch Brothers definitely have their fingers in every piece of this election. I believe that severe sanctions are called for, but does a monetary fine even affect these multi-gazillionaires? Do you think that these threats of job loss by CEOs are fair play?

Read more: See Article
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Say, for the sake of argument, that a candidate said he was going to raise corporate taxes to 100%. Would it be a bad thing for an employer to tell his employees that the business would be unable to operate and would have to shut down under those conditions?
  reply report
  67
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nice attempt at rephrasing the argument, but that's not even close to what business owners are experiencing or will experience if Obama is elected.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Will business expenses go up(even more) under Obama for some businesses?
  
  Yes or no please.
  reply report
  67
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's a very vague and loaded question.....
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How about this.
  
  Will Obama's tax increases cause an increase to the cost of doing business for some businesses?
  
  (I used some words twice to be cool)
  reply report
  72
  livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  For some businesses yes... for the majority of small businesses NO. The vast majority of businesses in this country earn less than $200,000 a year and they are also the source of the majority of employment. So go find some other horror story to prove your point.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  3% of businesses will be affected by it. Do you know how many people those 3% of businesses employ?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know you didn't ask me, but I'll stick my nose in anyway. :-)
  
  Business expenses might go up under Obama, but it won't be Obama who personally makes that happen in the strictest sense; it will be Congress who does it. Also, I'd be willing to bet the million bucks I don't have that business expenses for some businesses will also go up if Romney is elected.
  
  The question is whether or not it is ethical for an employer who has the power to fire people to imply that voting a particular way will result in them losing their jobs. I say it is NOT ethical and is in fact a sleazy and manipulative act.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Its not retaliatory, its warning that certain changes will force layoffs.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, it isn't necessarily retaliatory, but it is definitely intimidation and the threat of retaliation can seem very real to a person who needs that job.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why is it intimidation?
  
  If a company's tax rate will go up under one candidate, why is it intimidation to warn employees about it?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Jaxson, I know you're not that stupid. Tax rates will only go up if Congress votes them up. That could happen, or not, under either candidate.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But Obama is saying that he wants to raise them. Romney isn't.
  
  It's a threat... Obama got his way with healthcare, why not taxes?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He might get his way; he might not. Romney might get his way, or Congress might decide to raise taxes.
  
  Right?
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right. So what is wrong about warning employees about ANY candidates, for president or congress, that support raising taxes?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I already told you what is wrong. If you don't get it by now, you won't get it.
  
  It's called ETHICS.
  report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You say it is unethical because it is retaliation or intimidation.
  
  I'm asking if an employer says that a candidates positions would cause the company to have to lay off employees... does that count as intimidation, or education?
  report
  68
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Possibly true, and it's even more likely that Romney would put the economy back in the ditch.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Also, if you answer the question, it will go to show whether or not you agree with the practice, in principle.
  reply report
  67
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Will it really? Or have you just formed the question to elicit the response that you want?
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It will. Really.
  
  Do you think it would be ok for a company to warn its employees about possible legislation that could put the company out of business? Yes or no please.
  reply report
  67
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It depends on:
  
  1) What the legislation is
  
  AND
  
  2) Whether the threat is accurately being portrayed
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  100% tax rate.
  
  Yes.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just the fact that you said it depends shows that you aren't necessarily against the actual practice of warning employees.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean the answer is invalid.
  
  The logical answer is that it would be ok for the company to do that. That shows that it's not necessarily a bad thing for a company to do.
  reply report
2. 82
  MelissaVsWorldposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do I believe it is fair, no. However, although not nearly as publicized, employers do the same for Obama. It isn't just CEO's though, sometimes it's the low level managers who order their entire crew for the day to show up or "face the consequences".
  
  Elections have not be "fair and free" for a long time. From the misinformation being spewed forth from both sides to the double-and even triple-talking politicians who can't keep their stories straight on what they do and do not support, the election process is far from fair.
  
  I honestly believe we need a massive overhaul of the entire electoral process, but how to achieve this I'm not certain. Doing away with the party system would be a nice start, as well as doing away with "career politicians", but we all know that will never happen.
  reply report
3. 68
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Koch brothers aren't the only ones telling their employees how to vote.
  
  http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-b … as-elected
  reply report
4. 61
  tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Connie, I just read about this on another hub, wow how low will they go, the sad part is it will probably work. I have never been so disappointed since the OJ Simpson trial, if money can buy the highest office in the land, we are in big trouble my friends..buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride..
  reply report
5. 0
  Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's quite despicable, abusing a position of power like that.
  reply report
  60
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, exercising ones right to freedom of speech can be quite despicable. Case and point Joe Biden at the Vice Presidential debate.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL.
  
  Amusing. The CEOs are not just expressing their support for Romney, but actually telling the employees they will be fired if Obama wins.
  
  That's political intimidation, and it's inexplicable why you and other conservatives are actually defending this.
  reply report
  61
  tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Repairguy, are you for real...you say the most uneducated, nasty things on every hub that is pro- Obama...we get it already, you hate the man...Why? Because he is black? How did this man personally hurt you?Please do tell, what policies of Obama have personally caused you pain or greif?
  reply report
  60
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hysterics again. Over emotional and claim the strangest things.
  reply report
  61
  tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Repairguy, I am the hysreical one? Do tea party repubs take a class to learn to dodge questions with pointing blame? Answer the question, why do you hate the man with such vigilence?
  reply report
  61
  movingoutposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Probably because he and so many others are uneducated as to who Romney the man is. He has strong religeous convictions which made me research the Morman religeon. It's scary to think a church has a "Living Prophet" who speaks for God on all matters. Imagine this "living prophet" telling Romney to go to war! He would have to follow the prophet. Then there's this little issue about Planet Kolob! Do a google search on Planet Kolob, he may be shocked! I was. And btw, I'm an Independent, not a Democrat. I'm that important swing vote! Tammy I agree, Republicans seem to dodge the questions and point blame, or at the very least redirect the question at the other side!
  reply report
  60
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Because they have the right to hire and fire as they see fit! I'm still waiting for the answer to the question as to how do you think employers will know who voted for who? The answer is quite simple, they wont and nothing will happen to them in any case unless the business fails.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're correct; they have a right to run their business and be a jerk if they so desire.
  
  The employers will not know who voted for who, but if Obama wins, will the CEOs follow through on their assertions about inevitable firings? It's doubtful, but their grandstanding, bombastic drivel is a cowardly abuse of power.
  reply report
  61
  tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, now see that is making a point...I have no idea, maybe they have enough money to hire people to correctly calculate how many votes it will take...and the Koch brothers own a lot of large corps., so maybe if he doesn't win off with their heads,LOL...I dont have a clue either, but it's sad that anyone would try to buy the seat, that's already happening anyway with superpacs and lobbyists...it's wrong.
  reply report
  83
  Connie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The problem is that the Koch Brothers are behind those same lobbyists and Super Pacs, Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works and the Tea Party. Yes, they are going all out to buy the election.
  reply report
  61
  tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Connie, you nailed it:) Money can apparently buy anything today....but all dogs have their day!
  reply report
  60
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm so happy you approve, the only problem is I wasn't making a point to you. I have no desire to converse with you about anything, you have proven who and what you are to me and your remarks will be ignored.
  reply report
  61
  tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Repairguy...okay, take your ball and go home:)
  reply report
62
readytoescapeposted 12 years ago
I not sure that you can call an employer’s being honest with his employees about their futures, intimidation.

Have you ever had to tell your children it was going to be a lean Christmas because the cost of taxes, rent, insurance, gas, food were all going up and income was down and nothing was going to be left over?

Businesses do not operate all that much differently than households.
reply report
1. 83
  Connie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you seriously think that, since these businesses have not gone down during Obama's first term that that they are going to hell in the second? Intimidation only.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you think you can increase the cost of doing business, and not have any negative consequences?
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And manipulation of the money supply, which Romney would still do.
  reply report
  83
  Connie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We are still doing the trickle down economics, where the Kochs live in $18 million dollar houses, have billions in the bank and their only worries are getting the gravy train rolling so that they can have more, more, more. However, the middle class is worried about having a house at all, an affordable education and making sure that one trip to the emergency room doesn't break the bank permanently. If all our jobs had not been sent overseas by greedy CEOs, looking for the big fat bonus in their paychecks or by greedy private equity groups like Bain, who suck the assets out of going businesses and leave them dead or dying, then we would have jobs and a healthy middle class. Why are we looking at the very people who did this to us to save us?
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Answer my question. Can you increase the cost of doing business without some kind of negative consequence?
  
  If you want to get into a discussion about Bain capital, or the effects of CEO's salaries, or the pros and cons to outsourcing, then start a new topic about one of those and we'll discuss it. In here, it's just irrelevant gish-gallup(since that's such a popular term around here right now).
  reply report
  83
  Connie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Of course it is hard for any business to absorb an increase in the cost of doing business. It can and does lead to a negative consequences, such as higher prices and yes, layoffs. I don't think it has been established definitively that the cost of business will be higher under Obama than Romney. Never heard the term gishgallup, but I think that it all goes together. We have record profits, record salaries, yet record layoffs for many companies. Yes, not all of them --yet, but the Koch Brothers, who are the first to intimidate their employees, are the first ones crying poor mouth. Foul play.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Obama wants to raise taxes. That's an increase in costs, and it is going to hit a lot of businesses. It's is definitively an established fact.
  
  As for the company... the last 5 years that we have financial data for... if they distributed 100% of all their profits to all their employees, it would come out to a raise of $0.80/hr. That was for 5 years before the recession, they probably aren't even doing that well now. People always think these large companies are ripping off their employees when it isn't true.
  reply report
  82
  MelissaVsWorldposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You cannot possibly believe that businesses have not been harmed by the policies put forth during the first term of the Obama administration. I do not believe he is the only one to blame for the lackluster job market, small business cutbacks, or health care abomination that is ObamaCare, but truth be told he could have stepped in at any time and vetoed anything that Congress had in the works. I do not believe Romney will do any better, and I'm not quite certain if he could do any worse, but I won't be voting for either at this point unless they can turn things around rather quickly.
  reply report
  83
  Connie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Someone has to win, so not voting because you don't like either? Doesn't make sense.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It makes perfect sense. It's a statement of non-compliance. I vote for neither of these tyrants.
  reply report
  73
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely, it is a statement of lawful rebellion. Casting a ballot is simply a validation of a corrupt and unjust system. Besides, without paper ballots, using electronic voting devices equates to a voting system that cannot be trusted. Without evidence, the people need to BELIEVE that the results are well, the results. And who in their right mind trusts the American political system?
  
  Besides, it does not matter which candidate is chosen, they are nothing more than the salesman for the New World Order agenda. Either one will continue down the path of corporate fascism! So the choice boils down to which face the American people prefer for their dictator!
  reply report
  82
  MelissaVsWorldposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am voting, but not for either of those two. However, before anyone gets on the whole "if you vote third party you are throwing your vote away' bandwagon, I am well aware of what any third party candidates chances of winning are. However, not voting for whom I feel will honestly do the best job simply because others choose not to doesn't mean I'm "throwing away my vote." So long as I vote my conscious, I cannot possibly be throwing away a vote, as I would be if I simply voted for "the lesser of two evils."
  reply report
  72
  livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree... very well said.
  reply report
  68
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lots of businesses, especially the Wall Street Banksters, have been reporting record profits and paying their officers fat bonuses.
  reply report
  82
  MelissaVsWorldposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Big businesses may be, yes, however the small, independent businesses are struggling. Many that I know who had been running small businesses have had to close up shop due to skyrocketing costs and government penalties for newly imposed policies that seem directly aimed at the small business sector. What needs to happen, in my honest opinion, is we need to stop bailing out big business and giving them incentives and tax breaks, and instead help small businesses who hire locally (within the USA) and aren't outsourcing all of their jobs to foreign countries. We need candidates who firmly believe that American companies should have their employees be American, not Chinese, Taiwanese, or any other foreign people(s). The American Dream as we knew it when I was a child is now but a distant memory.
  reply report
  83
  Connie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree that big biz doesn't need the tax breaks, it is the small guy. Yet, they are the ones who get them. I used to own my own business (retail) and between the employee taxes, double SS taxation, permits, local sign laws and more, I just got disgusted with it all. I didn't go under, but I wasn't making enough for it to be worthwhile. I sold my business and got out.
  reply report
  82
  MelissaVsWorldposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I feel for you. The economy is horrible right now, and I've had to forego plans to take my business to a point where I can hire anyone to work under me until such time that the economy improves enough to make the additional costs I'm going to incur to do so worth it in the end. I have several small ventures in the works, but unfortunately at this time they are just that.
  reply report
72
livewithrichardposted 12 years ago
Everything a candidate says he or she wants to do is complete speculation at this point. Whoever wins, their ideas need to start in congress and then move along through the process. How many times has the Bush tax cuts come up for expiration and failed to expire? If the CEO of a major conglomerate threatens to layoff or fire workers if Obama is elected then call him on his bluff... In most cases he is a greedy bastard and would make things work in his favor anyway. If not... then we have this thing called free market and that big conglomerate will just get knocked away by some competitors that will be much more favorable to a smaller, leaner workforce. Blah blah blah... they create jobs.... no they don't... small businesses create jobs... I say vote for whoever you see aligning with your best interests and laugh at those crybaby CEO's as they fall off their high horses... I know I'll be laughing
reply report
81
WriteAngledposted 12 years ago
This all rather surprises me. Do you not have secret voting in the US? Are employers notified by the electoral authorities of how their workers have voted?

I know when I go into the ballot box in the UK (or seal my vote in an envelope were I to use postal voting), that my vote is entirely confidential and anonymous and nobody will ever know whom I chose if I do not tell them.

Were I ever in a position where someone tried to use their power to get me to vote in one particular direction that was contrary to my views, I would probably nod and smile and say that of course I would never dream of voting for anyone else.

I would then take the greatest of pleasure in casting my vote in exactly the opposite direction and as I did so would mentally direct a very rude hand sign at the person who had tried to influence my vote.
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it's secret.
  
  These companies aren;t saying 'If you vote Obama we'll fire you'. They are saying 'Obama's policies will likely lead to layoffs'.
  reply report
  81
  WriteAngledposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, provided people take the trouble to think for themselves, they can decide whether they do or do not accept that statement.
  
  It is the voter's duty to ensure he or she makes an informed choice, but I think the actual percentage of votes made on that basis is probably pitifully small.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly, I have no problem with those kinds of statements.
  
  If a candidate's policies would threaten my business, I would warn my employees about it. It's not forcing them to vote a certain way.
  reply report
  82
  MelissaVsWorldposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. Do I agree with employees being told they have to partake in political rallies on work time to "show support" for a candidate that the bosses support, I do not agree with, and yes it does happen. I can remember, when working for city government, we were told that we "had" to vote a certain way. Most of us knew enough about our government to know there was no way to ensure we did or did not vote for a particular candidate or issue, but still the threat was made.
  reply report
  83
  Connie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Though we do have secret balloting, the intimidation factor is there. If Obama is elected, we are laying you off. It is enough for many to vote as their employers want them to. Read this:
  
  "As Gawker noted, Siegel (CEO of Westgate Resorts) and his wife were the subjects of "The Queen of Versailles," a recent documentary "about their ongoing quest to build the largest house in America." And Siegel has often claimed credit for George W. Bush's victory over Al Gore in the 2000 presidential race. ("I had my managers do a survey on every employee [8,000 total]," Siegel told Bloomberg BusinessWeek. "If they liked Bush, we made them register to vote. But not if they liked Gore."
  reply report
  82
  MelissaVsWorldposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In regards to the surveying of employees, the ethics behind this practice are questionable to say the very least. However, having employees register to vote is a smart move. Yes, it may be a questionable practice, but it isn't much different than going out as an activist for a particular party and registering voters. Besides, simply because the employees said on a survey that they were for a particular candidate doesn't necessarily mean they truly are. If they know the employer's preference, many would simply say whatever they thought the employer wanted to see.
  
  Is this something I would do with my business, no. It is not. I personally do not feel that politics is something to be discussed in most public formats, especially a work environment. Whomever someone wants to vote for is their own personal choice. Will I share information, yes. Will I listen to someone else's information, absolutely. However, it is my responsibility as a voter to do my own research and make the decision for myself. I wish everyone would exercise that responsibility.
  reply report
  68
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It was more of a threat than a statement, one that's similar to what one might imagine occurs in Chinese companies on instructions from the Communist Party. Fortunately, Siegel's threat may well boomerang and cause more of his employees to vote for Obama relying on the fact that there's no way Siegel could find out for whom they vote.
  reply report
  67
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Uh, yes they are...
  
  These business owners are all anti-Obama and are using fear tactics to try and scare employees into voting for who the boss wants them to vote for.
  
  So much fear and propaganda its not even funny anymore.
  reply report
68
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
David Siegel who instructed his employees to vote for Romney or risk being laid off is the idiot in the documentary movie "Queen of Versailles" who has been building a $100 million, 92,000 square foot house in Florida. The movie is worth seeing, by the way. Siegel calls himself the king of time shares. Oops I didn't read the previous comments re: David Siegel. Sorry for the duplication!
reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago
It is intimidation, pure and simple. It is one thing to offer an opinion when asked by an employee. It is a whole new level of low to send a mass mailing implying or saying outright that layoffs would occur if a particular candidate is elected.

Some people are strong enough to resist such manipulations, but many are not. Many would be worried about losing their jobs and how they would survive without it. It is another example of how the wealthy use their power for their own good to the detriment of others.

Obama has been in office for four years and the Koch Bros are doing just fine.
reply report
73
Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago
Have not government unions been engaging in this sort of behavior for many years?
reply report
65
maxoxam41posted 12 years ago
The media now refers to those billionnaires as job creators. But are they really? Most of the manufactured production is outsourced hence I'm wondering how it will affect us if suddenly they decide to lay people off? And what if as a retaliation strategy, we, the people, decided to boycott companies that fired people who will be the bigger loser?
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We all will.
  
  Boycott them, less revenue, more layoffs, more unemployed, less monetary circulation, less economic growth.
  reply report
  65
  maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Since most of the labor employed resides in China I personally think that big companies will loose from the drastic withdrawal of the demand on the American market. They manufacture for few dollars and they sell them at 10, 20, 100 times the original value. They would be the losers. For the economy to suffer harshly the labor force has mainly be on the domestic market. How Abercrombie & Co employ American people?
  reply report
0
JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago
And YES! Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes infinity.

A business owner has every right to explain to his employees what he thinks the effects of a certain candidate's positions would have on the company. There is no legal, moral, or ethical reason why employees shouldn't understand the impact of politics on their jobs.
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are so wrong on this one. So wrong. Employees don't need a person who has power over their livelihoods intimidating, er, I mean "educating" them using their jobs as weapons.
  reply report
  68
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To say the least, Siegel's approach is unorthodox and extreme. Of course he's an unorthodox and extreme megalomaniac businessman.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, if Obama said he was going to raise corporate tax rates to 100%, and had the congressional votes to do so, it would be bad for a CEO to explain to his employees that the business would be closed down under those conditions?
  
  You seem to be taking a 100%-against any discussion of political effects, which would have you saying 'yes' to the above question.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are plenty of systems in place to explain the impact of political decisions to people, the media, the opposition etc. the employee employer relationship is a power unbalanced position, employers should not encourage one vote or another for the same reason that teachers cannot sleep with students even if they are over the age of consent, it's a power relationship.
  
  The company also lied because the group threatening the employees far from not being able to survive another Obama term has actually increased it's profits significantly since Obama came to power. It's an attempt to buy votes pure and simple, "vote as we want and you get to keep your job."
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, link us to the financials for Georgia-Pacific please.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I expected you to be better informed, I use to own stocks in Georgia-Pacific but they were acquired by Koch Industries in 2005 and no longer release their direct profits which is why I said the group threatening the employees, their revenues (Forbes estimate) rose from 98 billion in 2009 to 100 billion in 2011. As they are a private company it's not possible to see much more but a multicompany increasing it's revenue during the toughest economic years in recent history is hardly "not going to survive another Obama term" Lies lies and more lies.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You expect me to be better informed? Ok, then.
  
  Teach me how you can look at a company's revenue(only), and tell how well they are doing?
  
  Do you want to put your skill to a test? I can post two years of a company's revenue, and you tell me whether they are doing better or worse in the second time period. You up to it?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Jaxson seriously?
  
  Answer honestly, if a multi national business which has increased it's revenue significantly to over 100 Billion a year during this Obama term being honest when it says it will not survive another four years?
  
  Yes or No.
  reply report
  60
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So you aren't up to it?
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Answer: It is impossible to know by looking only at revenue. I've seen dozens of companies that increased revenues, while ending up in a worse situation than before.
  
  So how do you know, looking only at revenue, how a company is doing? Will you take my challenge?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Another ridiculous story problem.
  
  What Josak said above: ++
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, it's not a ridiculous story problem.
  
  If you truly are 100% against employers explaining the effects of political positions to their employees, you could easily answer 'yes' to my question.
  
  I, however, feel that it is perfectly within an owner's right to free speech to do so.
  reply report
59
Paul Wingertposted 12 years ago
It'll be a cold day in hell if I bow to an employer's wishes outside of work. Non of their damn business who I vote for!
reply report
80
Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago
I don't know that I would look at such warnings as threats or intimidation. I have not heard anyone state that a company had offered to fire an employee for voting for the wrong man. What I hear are companies' relating that situation in the current market to employees and cautioning that if such an approach to the private sector continues, the company may well have to down-size or worse give it up completely. We stand to tax and regulate the private sector under Obama to the point of breaking it. He sees no danger in that since he figures the government is responsible for all that is good anyway. I see it as simply being honest with the employees...they can still vote as they please but have an awareness of the impact of their convictions. I certainly would have no problem with my employer expressing that concern with me. At least I would know. At the same time, there are never any guarantees that a company can survive in the best of markets but they most certainly are doomed to failure in the worst of them. ~WB
reply report
60
Repairguy47posted 12 years ago
A question for all of you who are against freedom of speech, what do you think will happen to an employee who votes for Obama against their employers will? A second question, HOW would the employers KNOW how the employee voted?

Kind of a silly thing to concern yourselves with.
reply report
1. 59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So true. Unless you tell your employer who you voted, for, they'd never know.
  reply report
67
Cody Hodge5posted 12 years ago
It's kinda sad, businesses intimidate employees, conservatives apparently don't see it. We then wonder why money and corporate power trumps our freedom and liberty.
reply report
1. 60
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You libs crack me up, have you ever been around a union and seen what they do? Obviously not.
  reply report
  67
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I hear horror stories about unions all the time from family members who work at companies that are partially unionized.
  
  Again, stay on topic....
  
  The guys who are pretty much financing the GOP tell employees that they will lose their jobs if Obama is elected. This threat is based on nothing but propaganda and some vague belief that Obama is evil. If you are an employee, what are you thinking right now?
  reply report
  60
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not an employee but if I was I wouldn't care. They won't know who I voted for anyway.
  reply report
  67
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So what are you?
  reply report
  60
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  One of the 53%
  reply report
  67
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Haha OK.....I'm assuming you own your own repair business?
  
  Btw....I am a democrat...
  
  As well as the 53 percent
  
  Mind blown?
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Fair play? CEOs using job threats as intimidation to vote Romney

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Fair play? CEOs using job threats as intimidation to vote Romney

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies