"Fings Break"

[paft.livejournal.com]

From Monty Python:

Dino: You ought to be careful, Colonel.

Colonel: We are careful. Extremely careful.

Dino: Of course, uh, fings break, don’t they?

Colonel: Break?

Luigi: Well, everyfing breaks, don’t it Colonel (knocks a ceramic vase off the desk) Oh, there,

Dino: Oh see, my brother’s clumsy, Colonel. When he gets unhappy he, uh, breaks fings. Like, say he don’t feel the army’s playing fair by him, uh, he may start breaking fings, Colonel….

Colonel: Are you threatening me?

Luigi: No, no, no, no, no, whatever made you think that, Colonel?

Dino: The Colonel doesn’t think we’re nice people Louie,

Luigi: We’re your buddies, Colonel.

Dino: We want to look after you!

It's not just a few right wing crackpot business owners slipping their leashes and letting their enthused support for Romney carry them away to the point where they obliquely threaten the people who work for them. The idea comes from elected officials and candidates.

GOP Rep. Joe Walsh:

"If you run, manage or own a company tell your employees! What was the CEO this week that said, if Obama is reelected, I may have to let all of you go next year? If Obama's reelected, if the Democrats take Congress, I may not be able to cover your health insurance next year.

Mitt Romney, from Presidential Small Business Town Hall:

I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope, I hope you pass those along to your employees…

Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well.

These people are scared. Republican efforts to make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for many low income Americans to vote just aren’t enough. There are still a few members of the middle class, the ones who work in cubicles, who will likely get past the poll workers and actually get to fill out a ballot.

So, the GOP wants business owners to morph into the Vercotti Brothers. They want rank and file workers walking into the voting booth thinking, not of what a given candidate could do for them, but what their boss might do to them if his or her favored candidate doesn’t get elected.

Because the boss is worried! Honest! The boss wants to look out for you!

The boss just wants you to know that fings break.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> The boss can.

Can do what exactly?
Close the non-profitable business?
Yes, he can and you would do the same.
Disclaimer: Telepathic Accounting exercises are no accepted.

You are trying to twist a motivational speech (no matter how stupid) into a threat "vote for XXX or be fired!"
That threat assumes the boss knows how employees vote - but he doesn't. Q.E.D.

So the boss is left with few choices for the speech discussed.

1) "Vote for XXX or be fired!" is the most stupid tactics because everyone understands the boss is unable to recover per-employee or per-company voting results. Such a speech is a good sign the boss is an idiot and it's better not to work with this boss anymore.

2) "Vote for XXX because of this and that" or "don't vote for XXX because of..." is a legit tactics that includes reasoning: "I believe that if reelected, Obama raises taxes and increase the number of regulations which is bad for our business and I _may_ have to let all of you go next year". Some items may seem obvious from previous actions of the candidates and my therefore be omitted - this depends on the audience, of course, and such a speech, if overheard and taken out of context, may be easily twisted into a speech type_1.

As for "Whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope you pass those along to your employees…" - this is a simple call to go and talk to people around you.

Unfortunately, you and those who think alike are pretty good in demonizing businesses and their owners plus splitting the world into "rich" and "poor". Business owner describing the real business needs and problems may be a good counter-action to remind workers that the boss is also a human and the decisions employees make are as important as his own, or, in this situation, maybe even more important.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Paft: The boss can.
v: Can do what exactly?

Lay off employees out of pique over how the Presidential election pans out.

v: Close the non-profitable business? Yes, he can and you would do the same.

Riiight. Siegel's business was soooo unprofitable he decided to build himself the biggest house in America.

This is not just a matter of a business going bad and the boss having to close shop. The fact that you're carefully phrasing your answer as though it were indicates you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

This is a case of an employer announcing to his employees, shortly before the election, that the election of Obama as president will so surely mean he'll have to go out of business that he has plans to lay off a good portion of his workforce if Obama wins. 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: Yes, he can and you would do the same.

No, actually, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't send out a mass memo to my workers saying, essentially, "elect Romney or else!"

v: Vote for XXX or be fired!" is the most stupid tactics because everyone understands the boss is unable to recover per-employee or per-company voting results. Such a speech is a good sign the boss is an idiot and it's better not to work with this boss anymore.

Now you're trying for the faux naivete bit. "Oh mercy sakes," (says Shirley Temple, waving her lollipop for emphasis) "no boss would be stoopit enough to fire people for the way they vote! And anyone who gets fired by such a stoopit boss should be glad they aren't working for that boss any more."

Give us a break. Before it was illegal, bosses in the past were notorious for marching their workers down to the polls to vote the way the boss wanted them to. Give them the power to do this, and they'll do it again, and few employees struggling to meet mortgage payments, or medical bills, or just put food on the table are going to risk unemployment in a bad job market for the sake of not working for such a "stoopit" boss.

As things stand now, some employers are already interpreting Citizens United as license for forcing their workers to campaign for given political candidates. The recent case where coal miners were made by their boss to take part in a photo-op with Mitt Romney (without pay, incidentally) is just one example of this.

v: As for "Whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope you pass those along to your employees…" - this is a simple call to go and talk to people around you.

...and tell them that their job depends on the outcome of the election because the boss has decided to do layoffs if Obama is elected.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

Paft:Lay off employees out of pique over how the Presidential election pans out.
The boss can do it anytime, actually.
So what?

>> This is a case of an employer announcing to his employees, shortly before the election, that the election of Obama as president will so surely mean he'll have to go out of business that he has plans to lay off a good portion of his workforce if Obama wins. In short,l he wants his employees to walk into the voting booth thinking, not about what Obama will do for them -- but about if he's upset by an Obama win.

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.
And many other agents of influence around.
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.

So what?

Let us also assume for a moment it's true, and someone warns employees the profitable business is closed only and only because someone wins the elections.
It's the business owner to decide. 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?

>> And anyone who gets fired by such a stoopit boss should be glad they aren't working for that boss any more.
Well noted!

>> Give them the power to do this, and they'll do it again, and few employees struggling to meet mortgage payments
Look, we're discussing the here and now, not someone's wet dreams.

>>As things stand now, some employers are already interpreting Citizens United as license for forcing their workers to campaign for given political candidates.
Happens on both sides. But it has nothing with punishing _employees_ for their wrong-voting; let's keep to the subject.

>>...and tell them that their job depends on the outcome of the election because the boss has decided to do layoffs if Obama is elected.
No matter how many times you repeat it, these words won't appear in the Romney's quote.

[paft.livejournal.com]

v: The boss can do it anytime, actually. So what?

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."

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>>So you've abandoned this fiction of yours that bosses are no more powerful than their employees. Progress!
Try to hire and keep a worker first - a programmer, an engineer, any good worker. You'll see it's harder than you think.

>> 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.
That was just an example. Home, kids, sex etc. do matter for many, but if it's just a matter of high stakes - you may always make up another example equal to job loss for you or for me. I can't believe the job loss is what you fear the most.

>> Because it is an attempt to intimidate people into changing their vote.
Well, Surprise then!
It is the norm for thousands of years ;)
I recommend Roman history to explore the issue.

Yet the political freedom is enjoyed by pretty much everyone because the only and the main thing everybody learned is not to take an election bullshit too serious.

>> Got some recent examples of Democratic employers demanding that all their workers take an unpaid day off to campaign for Obama?
We were strongly "asked" to participate some meetings with some Dem people when I was working at the community college.
I didn't give a shit though, but the rest were scared to loose their jobs - that was fun to watch, like back to USSR ;)

>> Of course it does. The threat is not overt...
...and thus empty. Q.E.D.

[paft.livejournal.com]

v Try to hire and keep a worker first - a programmer, an engineer, any good worker. You'll see it's harder than you think.

Try to hang onto a job in tough economic times when bosses are cutting back and nobody's hiring. That's even harder.

v: That was just an example. Home, kids, sex etc. do matter for many, but if it's just a matter of high stakes - you may always make up another example equal to job loss for you or for me. I can't believe the job loss is what you fear the most.

It's pretty high up there. Losing home, kids, health, etc. can follow as the direct result of losing a job.

Paft: Because it is an attempt to intimidate people into changing their vote.
v: Well, Surprise then! It is the norm for thousands of years ;) I recommend Roman history to explore the issue.

Yeah, slavery was the norm in ancient Rome too. Think we should emulate that, too?

v: Yet the political freedom is enjoyed by pretty much everyone because the only and the main thing everybody learned is not to take an election bullshit too serious.

Do you think we shouldn't take the right to vote "too serious?"

v: We were strongly "asked" to participate some meetings with some Dem people when I was working at the community college.

What kinds of meetings were these? Did they include photo-ops?

v: I didn't give a shit though, but the rest were scared to loose their jobs - that was fun to watch, like back to USSR ;)

So you think the USSR's approach to political freedom is also something to emulate? Along with ancient Rome's?

PFT: Of course it does. The threat is not overt...
v: ...and thus empty. Q.E.D.

The fact that a threat is covert does not make it empty, as anyone trapped in an old gangster protection racket will tell you.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> Try to hang onto a job in tough economic times when bosses are cutting back and nobody's hiring. That's even harder.
I did both, thanks. But did you hire anyone?

>> Yeah, slavery was the norm in ancient Rome too. Think we should emulate that, too?
Nope. But intimidating is just a speech. Same as preaching etc.

>> Do you think we shouldn't take the right to vote "too serious?"

Hell no! I simply think that any person at the age of consent able to post in LiveJournal is already immune to this ad:



>>What kinds of meetings were these? Did they include photo-ops?

Told you, I didn't give a shit. Never went there.

>>So you think the USSR's approach to political freedom is also something to emulate? Along with ancient Rome's?
who told you this? And just for the record - not EVERY word I post is something to emulate. Here is a word SLOTH and a word ROBOT and a word LAPTOP - no, I don't offer to emulate these.

>>The fact that a threat is covert does not make it empty,
But the fact you can't check your employee's votes - does.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Paft: Yeah, slavery was the norm in ancient Rome too. Think we should emulate that, too?
v: Nope. But intimidating is just a speech.

It's more than mere "speech" when the person uttering the threat has the means to back it up.

paft: Do you think we shouldn't take the right to vote "too serious?"
v: Hell no! I simply think that any person at the age of consent able to post in LiveJournal is already immune to this ad

That ad is a famous piece of satire. Nobody believed that the dog would get shot if they didn't buy the magazine.

Threats from a boss that he's going to fire people if a candidate he dislikes gets elected is another matter entirely.

Paft: What kinds of meetings were these? Did they include photo-ops?
v: Told you, I didn't give a shit. Never went there.

So I have no reason to believe that these were the equivalent of coal miners being forced to take a day off without pay so they could pretend to cheer for a presidential candidate their boss liked.

Paft: So you think the USSR's approach to political freedom is also something to emulate? Along with ancient Rome's?
v: who told you this?

Your earlier response implied it, when you cheerfully cited the Soviet Union while describing what you claimed was a similar example of a boss coercing employees into supporting a candidate. That's why I'm asking.

v And just for the record - not EVERY word I post is something to emulate. Here is a word SLOTH and a word ROBOT and a word LAPTOP - no, I don't offer to emulate these.

It's not just a matter of the words, but of their context. The context in which you cited the Soviet Union strongly implied that you consider political coercion no big deal.

Paft: The fact that a threat is covert does not make it empty,
v: But the fact you can't check your employee's votes - does.

How so, when the threat is to engage in mass layoffs if the candidate a boss dislikes gets elected? How would not knowing who each employee voted for prevent this?

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> How so, when the threat is to engage in mass layoffs if the candidate a boss dislikes gets elected? How would not knowing who each employee voted for prevent this?

I'm an idiot. I didn't didn't check the exact quote of David Siegel in the first place...
So, the exact quote - just as expected - says (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-workers-youll-likely-fired-131640914.html):
"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."

Just as expected, a very strong mental Kung-Fu allows someone to read is as "I'll fire you if you don't vote for my candidate".

Just as expected.
Damn it.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Oh dear. You've reverted back to this, have you? As I said the last time you trotted this out:

No great "mental Kung Fu" is required to read saying to your employees, "If the candidate I want isn't elected, I'm going to fire people" as a not-so-subtle attempt at intimidation. The boss wants his employees to vote, not for the candidate they consider the best person for the job, but for whoever is least likely to upset the boss.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>>saying to your employees, "If the candidate I want isn't elected, I'm going to fire people" as a not-so-subtle attempt at intimidation.

Ha-ha, you did it again!
"If any new taxes are levied" turns into "If the candidate I want isn't elected"