Skip to main content

First, happy Obama victory eve! Id love to do some crowdsourcing to see if we can get a definitive list of CEO's who have threatened their employees with respect to their votes in tomorrow's election.

I find threats like that to be morally repugnant and Im going to try to do my part to make sure this doesn't happen again. The question is how do we affect the companies without hurting employees who are just doing their job, trying to provide for their families. Im not sure that I have an answer for that just yet, but first, a list would be in order so we have the data needed to take future steps.

(note: I'll share this in another diary in a few days)

I'll get this started:

Saddle Creek Corporation
Westgate Resorts
Lacks Enterprises
Wynn Resorts

If you have suggestions on what steps to take to make sure that this is wrong, please do share.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, not a threat, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WithHoney

    at my company's last quarterly meeting, our division head was talking about how profits were up and everything is looking good ("but we're not out of the woods yet" - just in case someone were thinking about asking for a raise), but he cautioned that it would only continue if everybody voted the right way. (Which we all knew was GOP)

    Now, I was just dumbstruck here. He had just been talking about how the recovery had been good FOR THIS COMPANY, and then he urges everyone to put the kabosh on all of that?

    I just don't understand Republicans.

    Oh, I won't name names, but my company is a large regional grocery chain.

    I am progressive. I am liberal. I make no apologies. - Kos

    My political compass: - 8.38,-6.97

    by pucklady on Mon Nov 05, 2012 at 01:18:50 PM PST

  •  Add Papa Johns Pizza (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, lineatus, WithHoney
  •  Boycott, boycott, boycott. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    And explain why you will no longer patronize said business.

    •  Counterproductive... (0+ / 0-)

      Unlike the Romneys of this world whose wealth grows regardless of the fate of the businesses they "lead" (i.e. plunder), small business owners cannot afford to ignore reality.  So boycotting them will only prove them right AND cause the dismissal of their employees as they lose business.
      If you're a parent whose 5-year-old threatened to pack up his things and leave you, you know what to do:  Hold your breath, pray, and hug him when he comes back after half an hour in world he thought he wanted.

      γνωθι σεαυτόν

      by halef on Mon Nov 05, 2012 at 01:40:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  it certainly is tempting (0+ / 0-)

      It is tempting to boycott but the reality is that a lot of people who are bystanders and perhaps unable to get another job would get hurt by that and I dont want to penalize an employee for their CEO being morally repugnant.

      Honestly this needs to be fixed legislatively, but in lieu of that, we need to come up with an idea to make these CEO's pay.

      •  apeshi - and some of these are franchises (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep

        For the franchisee, typically a local small business person, what the idiots at corporate say is something they have no control over. Boycotting them hurts the parent a tiny bit, but severely penalizes the local franchise owner and the local employees.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Nov 05, 2012 at 02:39:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  First you need to define "threatened." (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, nextstep

    Let me give you some context.  The SCOTUS has addressed the First Amendment rights of employers to communicate their views to their employees in NLRB v. Gissel Packing in 1969:  

    But we do note that an employer's free speech right to communicate his views to his employees is firmly established and cannot be infringed by a union or the Board. Thus, 8 (c) (29 U.S.C. 158 (c)) merely implements the First Amendment by requiring that the expression of "any views, argument, or opinion" shall not be "evidence of an unfair labor practice," so long as such expression contains "no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit" in violation of 8 (a) (1). Section 8 (a) (1), in turn, prohibits interference, restraint or coercion of employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.
    Any assessment of the precise scope of employer expression, of course, must be made in the context of its labor relations setting. Thus, an employer's rights cannot outweigh the equal rights of the employees to associate freely, as those rights are embodied in 7 and protected by 8 (a) (1) and the proviso to 8 (c). And any balancing of those rights must take into account the economic dependence of the employees on their employers, and the necessary tendency of the former, because of that relationship, to pick up intended implications of the latter that might be more readily dismissed by a more disinterested ear. Stating these obvious principles is but another way of recognizing that what is basically at stake is the establishment of a nonpermanent, limited relationship between the employer, his economically dependent employee and his union agent, not the [395 U.S. 575, 618]   election of legislators or the enactment of legislation whereby that relationship is ultimately defined and where the independent voter may be freer to listen more objectively and employers as a class freer to talk. Cf. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

    Within this framework, we must reject the Company's challenge to the decision below and the findings of the Board on which it was based. The standards used below for evaluating the impact of an employer's statements are not seriously questioned by petitioner and we see no need to tamper with them here. Thus, an employer is free to communicate to his employees any of his general views about unionism or any of his specific views about a particular union, so long as the communications do not contain a "threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." He may even make a prediction as to the precise effects he believes unionization will have on his company. In such a case, however, the prediction must be carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an employer's belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond his control or to convey a management decision already arrived at to close the plant in case of unionization. See Textile Workers v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U.S. 263, 274 , n. 20 (1965). If there is any implication that an employer may or may not take action solely on his own initiative for reasons unrelated to economic necessities and known only to him, the statement is no longer a reasonable prediction based on available facts but a threat of retaliation based on misrepresentation and coercion, and as such without the protection of the First Amendment. We therefore agree with the court below that "[c]onveyance of the employer's belief, even though sincere, that unionization will or may result in the closing of the plant is not a statement of fact unless, which is most improbable, the eventuality [395 U.S. 575, 619]   of closing is capable of proof." 397 F.2d 157, 160. As stated elsewhere, an employer is free only to tell "what he reasonably believes will be the likely economic consequences of unionization that are outside his control," and not "threats of economic reprisal to be taken solely on his own volition." NLRB v. River Togs, Inc., 382 F.2d 198, 202 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1967).

    In other words, "if you vote for Obama I'll fire you" or "If Obama wins, I'll fire you" is a threat, because that's economic reprisal that the employer is taking on his own volition.  That's a threat -- nothing is making him fire people, the firing is not a result of "economic consequences" but is totally "on his own volition"  -- he is choosing to do it just because he wants to.  

     On the other hand, "If Obama wins and my taxes go up, I'm going to have to lay some people off" or "If Obamacare is implemented and it costs me more, I'm going to have to lay some people off" would probably be considered stating what the employer "reasonably believes will be the likely economic consequences" of something -- tax increases or Obamacare -- beyond his control.  That's probably not considered a "threat" under the law.  

  •  I agree they are reprehensible... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GDbot, WithHoney

    ...but the reason they are allowed to do it now is Citizens United. The correct response IMO is to fight to get Citizens United shot down. This doesn't hurt the legions of employees that need their jobs but it fixes the problem.

     I can't think of a way to hurt the CEOs without hurting the employees otherwise.

    "Good to be here, good to be anywhere." --Keith Richards

    by bradreiman on Mon Nov 05, 2012 at 03:03:55 PM PST

    •  yep you're right (0+ / 0-)

      And just to be clear, I know this is a Democratic site, but it wouldn't sit well with me if a CEO who happened to be a Democrat, did something similar to his or her employees. A person's right to vote is precious and should be respected greatly.

      Man, we gotta get Citizens United changed. It's killing our country.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site