Koch Brothers Warn Employees to Vote Romney
whygohome
Posts: 2,305
Koch Brothers Send Pro-Romney Mailing To 50,000 Employees, Allegedly 'Stifle Political Speech'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 65366.html
David Koch (left) and his brother, Charles, allegedly sent out pro-Romney informational packets to 50,000 employees earlier this month
David and Charles Koch are "attempting to control their workers' votes" by sending out pro-Romney informational packets and "stifling workplace political speech," In These Times reports.
According to an investigation carried out by the magazine, the Koch brothers allegedly sent out a mailing to 50,000 employees earlier this month offering information as to how to vote in this year's presidential election.
The Koch brothers have long been known for their conservative political views, and much has already been said about the hundreds of millions of dollars that the pair have donated to right-wing candidates and causes.
Sections from the packet were reproduced on the magazine's website, as well as on that of Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC's Up w/ Chris.
A letter, dated Oct. 1, from Koch Industries president and Chief Operating Officer David Robertson, was included in the mailing. According to In These Times, Robertson wrote:
If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences. ... It is essential that we are all informed and educated voters. Our future depends on it.
According to Up w/ Chris, the packet also included "editorials critical of the Obama administration, written by Charles and David Koch for newspapers like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post." A flyer which lists Koch-endorsed candidates was also reportedly enclosed in the packet, with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan said to be at the top of the list.
In a statement sent to Up w/ Chris, Rob Tappan, Koch Companies director of external relations, said that the letter was sent "to encourage employees to be informed about and engaged in the political process."
The Koch brothers are not alone in pushing to sway their employees' political views.
In August, The Huffington Post reported that Murray Energy Company allegedly forced hundreds of coal workers in Ohio to give up a day's worth of pay to attend a Romney campaign event. Also in August, Richard Lacks, CEO of Michigan-based Lacks Enterprises, allegedly urged his employees to vote for Romney and warned them in a letter that an Obama re-election could lead to "higher taxes and lower pay."
Then just this week, David Siegel, founder and CEO of giant timeshare company Westgate resorts, came under fire for an "opus-like email" which he allegedly sent out to his employees, "railing against one-percent bashing and arguing that the president’s reelection would threaten" their jobs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 65366.html
David Koch (left) and his brother, Charles, allegedly sent out pro-Romney informational packets to 50,000 employees earlier this month
David and Charles Koch are "attempting to control their workers' votes" by sending out pro-Romney informational packets and "stifling workplace political speech," In These Times reports.
According to an investigation carried out by the magazine, the Koch brothers allegedly sent out a mailing to 50,000 employees earlier this month offering information as to how to vote in this year's presidential election.
The Koch brothers have long been known for their conservative political views, and much has already been said about the hundreds of millions of dollars that the pair have donated to right-wing candidates and causes.
Sections from the packet were reproduced on the magazine's website, as well as on that of Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC's Up w/ Chris.
A letter, dated Oct. 1, from Koch Industries president and Chief Operating Officer David Robertson, was included in the mailing. According to In These Times, Robertson wrote:
If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences. ... It is essential that we are all informed and educated voters. Our future depends on it.
According to Up w/ Chris, the packet also included "editorials critical of the Obama administration, written by Charles and David Koch for newspapers like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post." A flyer which lists Koch-endorsed candidates was also reportedly enclosed in the packet, with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan said to be at the top of the list.
In a statement sent to Up w/ Chris, Rob Tappan, Koch Companies director of external relations, said that the letter was sent "to encourage employees to be informed about and engaged in the political process."
The Koch brothers are not alone in pushing to sway their employees' political views.
In August, The Huffington Post reported that Murray Energy Company allegedly forced hundreds of coal workers in Ohio to give up a day's worth of pay to attend a Romney campaign event. Also in August, Richard Lacks, CEO of Michigan-based Lacks Enterprises, allegedly urged his employees to vote for Romney and warned them in a letter that an Obama re-election could lead to "higher taxes and lower pay."
Then just this week, David Siegel, founder and CEO of giant timeshare company Westgate resorts, came under fire for an "opus-like email" which he allegedly sent out to his employees, "railing against one-percent bashing and arguing that the president’s reelection would threaten" their jobs.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Big labor unions "encourage" members to vote for Obama...
What's the difference?
Just sayin'...
I was just going to post the same thing. My dad would tell me stories about this as far back as I can remember.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Unions don't hire and fire people, owners do. what am I missing?
eh not even remotely close dude, unions are a form of democracy from electing leaders to voting on issues that effect your industry and/or position. read up a bit on unions, i am no union ballwasher but ignorance is not bliss.
MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006
Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006
New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010
Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011
Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012
EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012
Dallas-November 2013
OKC-November 2013
ACL 2-October 2014
Fenway Night 1, August 2016
Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018
Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023
Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023
Austin, Night 1 September 2023
Austin, Night 2 September 2023
It's absolutely the same thing; you have people in positions of authority trying to sway their pack. My dad didn't always feel like his union was necessarily working in his interest and, over the course of 30 years, there was good and bad leadership. There are no absolutes whether you're talking about unions, corporations, etc.; they're not unilaterally greedy or unilaterally benevolent.
One can decide for themselves whether they approve of this practice or not, but you have to take that stance across the board.
A union can encourage it's members to vote one way, but can't threaten it's employees with their jobs. They can say 'we may lose jobs'...but they dont' really have any control over whether they do or not. An owner can decide whether or not to eliminate or outsource jobs.
If the union does something to influence the number of jobs it's members have access to do, they can be voted out. If an owner does something to influence the number of jobs their employees have access to, there are no repercussions.
Yes, unions do not always work in their members' best interests....but their stated role is to do so - the relationship is traditionally, and usually/arguably is, a mutually beneficial one. An owner virtually never works in their employees best interest. The relationship is traditionally, and usually is, an adversarial one.
In this instance:
union = suggest to members which vote is more beneficial
owner = threaten employees with their jobs if they don't vote as told
To me, that's the difference.
These bastards are as much conservative as Darth Sidious is part of the Rebel Alliance.
hands out propaganda to its people, in my opinion, that is a free speech right
to share information and opinion.
It can not be proven to sway or influence, in fact it could actually
do the opposite, prove to deter, depending how the employee feels about the
employer or union or the issues.
I've had a couple employers who I might have just voted opposite
to cancel their vote out
well done.
is what these bosses are doing even legal?
it is immoral for sure. but is it legal?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
As Pandora said, they have no idea how someone actually votes, so none of the threats you propose could ever be followed up on. There could potentially be repercussions in either case if you outwardly expressed a dissenting opinion. In the case of the union, it comes in the form of marginalization. Again, I've heard plenty of firsthand stories about what can happen if it's perceived you're not standing in solidarity.
Of course it is. This practice is as old as time. I can certainly understand having a distaste for it, but it crosses industries and party lines.
i have an even bigger problem with churches telling people how to vote because it will determine where their soul will rest or not rest for eternity. i also have a problem with it because churches do not pay taxes. but that is a conversation for a different thread.... sorry...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
you can argue w/me but your wrong, union members have a vote, they vote on issues, vote on leadership positions, even vote on rules to abide by.
comparing to the kock brothers' voter intimidation tactics is lazy and factually false.
MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006
Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006
New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010
Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011
Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012
EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012
Dallas-November 2013
OKC-November 2013
ACL 2-October 2014
Fenway Night 1, August 2016
Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018
Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023
Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023
Austin, Night 1 September 2023
Austin, Night 2 September 2023
I'm not wrong. My dad was in a union for 30 years and his wasn't the democracy you're describing. You or someone you know may have had a different experience and that's my point. There are far too many unions and corporations to make sweeping generalizations about either.
They have no idea how someone votes. It's a completely unenforceable "threat."
I realize it can't be followed up on....and of course I'm not talking about specific people being singled out and fired for their vote!...I'm talking about downsizing, reorganizing, mass layoffs etc...creating an atmosphere of fear. An owner telling someone 'there will be job cuts if you don't vote for my guy', as someone who has the power to make them happen, is totally different than a union leader saying 'this guy favours unions so vote for him', because they have no direct influence over hiring and firing, and are more accountable than an owner. One is a threat with weight behind it...the other is a suggestion, with very little leverage over the person to whom it's directed.
You're right...I re-read my last post and it wasn't really clear. I didn't mean to imply a corporation had no means of follow-up, but a union could. The point I was trying to make is that a corporation would use the threat of direct layoffs in the same way a union would use the threat of marginalization. Also, both use the indirect threat of job loss ("voting for this guy is bad for our company or trade's employment outlook"). They use similar tactics and neither group has any way to enforce a "threat." Again, you can be for or against the practice, but it's a practice applied widely.
In the union scenario, as you say, it's about perception. A person can vote either way with no one knowing. They would only be marginalized if they told everyone who they voted for.
Technically this is true, but I can't fathom a company laying off workers out of spite for who was elected. Hell, even if they knew everyone voted the opposite way, it wouldn't likely be enough to swing an election. There might be one small business-owning lunatic, but that's about it. I'm not saying that you necessarily do, but I believe it would take an unhealthy level of cynicism to believe that would happen. And this is coming from a fairly cynical dude.
By the way, I haven't complimented you on your avatar yet. I'm a Floyd freak and I salute a marching hammers gif.