So you've abandoned this fiction of yours that bosses are no more powerful than their employees. Progress!
Paft: In short, he wants his employees to walk into the voting booth thinking, not about what Obama will do for them -- but about what their boss will do TO them if he's upset by an Obama win. v: Ok, assume he really wants it. And there is also a wife who doesn't sleep with her husband and/or threatens him with divorce if Obama wins.
Hardly likely to result in the husband ending up without health insurance, or needed medicine, or enough money to pay for food and shelter. The stakes just aren't as high.
v: And if you really walk into the voting booth thinking about the boss or your wife upset by an Obama win - your boss or your wife means more to you than Obama.
As you know, it's not merely about the employee worrying about the boss being upset. It's about the employee worrying about losing his or her ability to support him or herself because the boss is going to act out by laying off employees.
v: Again, this decision my be silly and childish from your point of view, but the business owner sounds pretty consistent - he decided no to support this particular guy with his taxes and close the business. And he warns the employees he's willing to do that. Why on Earth can't a person do that?
Because it is an attempt to intimidate people into changing their vote. Because if this becomes the norm, political freedom will only be enjoyed by the employers. Employees will increasingly vote the way their boss tells them to because the immediate effects of the boss' favored candidate losing would be them no longer having a job. When the stakes become that high, political freedom vanishes.
v: Well noted!
Nice editing, Shirley. Now deal with the rest of what I posted, which is that when bosses have been given the power to overtly tell their employees, "vote for my candidate or you're fired," they've done it.
v: Look, we're discussing the here and now, not someone's wet dreams.
Indeed. Your little rock-candy mountain bit about bosses not doing such an icky thing is faux naivete. They've done it. Not in wet dreams, but in reality.
PFT: As things stand now, some employers are already interpreting Citizens United as license for forcing their workers to campaign for given political candidates. v: Happens on both sides.
Got some recent examples of Democratic employers demanding that all their workers take an unpaid day off to campaign for Obama?
If you do, yes, it's a threat to political freedom, whoever employees are feeling pressured to vote for by their employers.
v: But it has nothing with punishing _employees_ for their wrong-voting; let's keep to the subject.
Of course it does. The threat is not overt, but it's quite present when your boss says, "if enough of you vote for the wrong candidate that he gets elected, you'll be fired."
no subject
So you've abandoned this fiction of yours that bosses are no more powerful than their employees. Progress!
Paft: In short, he wants his employees to walk into the voting booth thinking, not about what Obama will do for them -- but about what their boss will do TO them if he's upset by an Obama win.
v: Ok, assume he really wants it. And there is also a wife who doesn't sleep with her husband and/or threatens him with divorce if Obama wins.
Hardly likely to result in the husband ending up without health insurance, or needed medicine, or enough money to pay for food and shelter. The stakes just aren't as high.
v: And if you really walk into the voting booth thinking about the boss or your wife upset by an Obama win - your boss or your wife means more to you than Obama.
As you know, it's not merely about the employee worrying about the boss being upset. It's about the employee worrying about losing his or her ability to support him or herself because the boss is going to act out by laying off employees.
v: Again, this decision my be silly and childish from your point of view, but the business owner sounds pretty consistent - he decided no to support this particular guy with his taxes and close the business. And he warns the employees he's willing to do that. Why on Earth can't a person do that?
Because it is an attempt to intimidate people into changing their vote. Because if this becomes the norm, political freedom will only be enjoyed by the employers. Employees will increasingly vote the way their boss tells them to because the immediate effects of the boss' favored candidate losing would be them no longer having a job. When the stakes become that high, political freedom vanishes.
v: Well noted!
Nice editing, Shirley. Now deal with the rest of what I posted, which is that when bosses have been given the power to overtly tell their employees, "vote for my candidate or you're fired," they've done it.
v: Look, we're discussing the here and now, not someone's wet dreams.
Indeed. Your little rock-candy mountain bit about bosses not doing such an icky thing is faux naivete. They've done it. Not in wet dreams, but in reality.
PFT: As things stand now, some employers are already interpreting Citizens United as license for forcing their workers to campaign for given political candidates.
v: Happens on both sides.
Got some recent examples of Democratic employers demanding that all their workers take an unpaid day off to campaign for Obama?
If you do, yes, it's a threat to political freedom, whoever employees are feeling pressured to vote for by their employers.
v: But it has nothing with punishing _employees_ for their wrong-voting; let's keep to the subject.
Of course it does. The threat is not overt, but it's quite present when your boss says, "if enough of you vote for the wrong candidate that he gets elected, you'll be fired."