Koch Brothers Warn Employees to Vote Romney

pjl44 wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

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.

You're having it both ways here, tho....you use the private vote as a reason to both discredit my stance, and confirm yours....
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.

I hear what you're saying...I think ....but my disagreement is with the bolded part. A corp/owner can enforce their threat of layoffs, downsizing, and outsourcing - not specific to certain voters....but on 'day one', they can announce layoffs. A union doesn't have that kind of power in their 'marginalization' - this then goes back to the private vote. Even if every single person followed an owners 'suggestion' to vote for a certain candidate, the company could face layoffs if the other one wins. So there is a fear instilled in the workforce that they better vote a certain way and pray their boss's guy wins, or risk being one of the unlucky people who lose their jobs.
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.