"Fings Break"
19/10/12 09:55![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
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
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/12 19:58 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/12 20:15 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/12 20:36 (UTC)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 consentable 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.
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/12 20:51 (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 22/10/12 18:27 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 22/10/12 18:41 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 22/10/12 19:31 (UTC)Ha-ha, you did it again!
"If any new taxes are levied" turns into "If the candidate I want isn't elected"