CEO emails 7,000 employees: Defeat Obama or else

[markomalley]

This isn’t just letting employees know. It is threatening employees with the loss of their jobs if they don’t vote for Mitt Romney.

No, he did not threaten their jobs. He said:
I want to emphasize two things about these lists. First, and most important, we believe any decision about which candidates to support is – as always – yours and yours alone, based on the factors that are most important to you.
He did tell them what was going to happen to industry and the consequences to their lives if Obama was re-elected. Nowhere did he say (or, contrary to the author, imply) that there would be consequences with their individual vote.

Besides, how would the evil Koch Bros even know how an individual votes anyway?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Oooooooooohhhhhhh … the eeeevvvviiiiilllll Koch Bros.

Per Yahoo’s “The Ticket”:
Koch Industries, other CEOs warn employees of layoffs if Obama is reelected

Koch Industries, the Wichita, Kan.-based company run by the billionaire Koch brothers, sent a voter information packet to 45,000 employees of its Georgia Pacific subsidiary earlier this month.

In it was a letter, dated Oct. 1, from Koch Industries president Dave Robertson implicitly warning that “many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences” of voting for President Obama and other Democrats in the 2012 elections, a list of conservative candidates the company’s political action committee endorses and a pair of editorials: one, by David Koch, supporting Mitt Romney, and the other, by Charles Koch, condemning Obama.

“While we are typically told before each Presidential election that it is important and historic, I believe the upcoming election will determine what kind of America future generations will inherit,” Robertson’s letter–first published by InTheseTimes.com–begins. “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, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills. This is true regardless of what your political affiliation might be.”
It’s a good thing that they are warning employees of the consequences of the continuation of the Obama Regime.

For everyone’s information:

Wisconsin teacher’s unions have millions of dollars invested in Koch subsidiaries.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

He did tell them what was going to happen to industry and the consequences to their lives if Obama was re-elected. Nowhere did he say (or, contrary to the author, imply) that there would be consequences with their individual vote.

The intent is clear; intimidate employees into voting for Mitt Romney by threatening them with job loss.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=EmperorNapoleon;9894762]This isn’t just letting employees know (as if

It’s quite clear that it is.

they have a magic crystal ball that tells them the economic future of their company or that their outlook will change just because Mitt Romney enters into office).

It’s history, not a crystal ball. Romney’s policies work. The president’s do not.

It is threatening employees with the loss of their jobs if they don’t vote for Mitt Romney which is a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

No it’s not. You don’t have any right to a job under the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution.

Companies aren’t going to fire people on the basis of who they vote for. What they are saying is that liberal policies will force the layoffs because their taxes will go up and if the workers want that money, they’ll have to grovel at the feet of DC which keeps over 70% of every dollar they get.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The intent is clear; intimidate employees into voting for Mitt Romney by threatening them with job loss.

That’s a stretch. I think they are just stating reality, which is what is done in the private sector.

 

[markomalley]

The intent is clear; intimidate employees into voting for Mitt Romney by threatening them with job loss.

Unless you are accusing Koch of being exceedingly stupid (which is inconsistent with the standard left-wing caricature of them being the evil geniuses behind the vast right wing conspiracy), I ask you again, how would he know?

Look, I used to work for Raytheon (a major democratic donor, believe it or not). I used to get letters all the time from RAYPAC…usually encouraging me to support democrats (and to make donations to RAYPAC, so that they could donate to my local Democrat). And, yes, there were implicit threats that if our benefactors (usually Congressional democrats) were not returned to office, that contracts would be impacted and Raytheon would have mass layoffs.

I don’t see the big deal.

I never felt threatened…I threw the blasted letters in the trash.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

The intent is clear; intimidate employees into voting for Mitt Romney by threatening them with job loss.

Still, I hope the Koch employees consider their employers’ suggestion very strongly in the voting booth. If an Obama victory ensures layoffs, they will be voting to save their jobs by electing Romney…

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

IIt’s history, not a crystal ball. Romney’s policies work. The president’s do not.

The only record Romney has in terms of jobs is shipping them to China. Obama’s policies work.

No it’s not. You don’t have any right to a job under the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution.

Yes it is. Corporations don’t have the right to threaten their workforce with job loss if they don’t vote for its preferred candidate.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

The only record Romney has in terms of jobs is shipping them to China. Obama’s policies work.

Yes it is. Corporations don’t have the right to threaten their workforce with job loss if they don’t vote for its preferred candidate.

 

[rlg94086]

I’d file a class action lawsuit for voter intimidation.

And, you would lose.

You can always file, though…

 

[rlg94086]

Unless you are accusing Koch of being exceedingly stupid (which is inconsistent with the standard left-wing caricature of them being the evil geniuses behind the vast right wing conspiracy), I ask you again, how would he know?

Look, I used to work for Raytheon (a major democratic donor, believe it or not). I used to get letters all the time from RAYPAC…usually encouraging me to support democrats (and to make donations to RAYPAC, so that they could donate to my local Democrat). And, yes, there were implicit threats that if our benefactors (usually Congressional democrats) were not returned to office, that contracts would be impacted and Raytheon would have mass layoffs.

I don’t see the big deal.

I never felt threatened…I threw the blasted letters in the trash.

That does surprise me. My Dad was similar - 33 years for Lockheed Missiles and Space and a lifelong Democrat. As a teen, I remember challenging him on the fact that every time a Democrat ended up in office, Lockheed would have layoffs. It made no sense to me for him to vote Democrat (even though I was basically a Communist at the time…the logic just didn’t add up).

 

[ringil]

And, you would lose.

You can always file, though…

On the other hand filling a suit against the guy for being a bombastic, blowhard, piece of work might very well go places.

I wonder when Mr. Moneybags can get going on his “American Versailles” again. . . .

 

[markomalley]

That does surprise me. My Dad was similar - 33 years for Lockheed Missiles and Space and a lifelong Democrat. As a teen, I remember challenging him on the fact that every time a Democrat ended up in office, Lockheed would have layoffs. It made no sense to me for him to vote Democrat (even though I was basically a Communist at the time…the logic just didn’t add up).

Remember, John Murtha (who, even when the Dems were in the minority, had a MAJOR role in defense appropriations) was a Democrat.

In my experience, Democrat members don’t mind defense contracts. In fact, they rather like using earmarks and Congressional adds as “walking around” money. They also don’t mind military operations. The only time they, as a whole, mind, is if the Commander in Chief is a Republican.

(You would be stunned with which members requested adds…)

 

[rlg94086]

On the other hand filling a suit against the guy for being a bombastic, blowhard, piece of work might very well go places.

You can file suit against someone for being a “bombastic, blowhard, piece of work?”

I wonder when Mr. Moneybags can get going on his “American Versailles” again. . . .

I’m sure the workers employed on the project hope he can get going very soon.

Why do you have a problem with what “Mr. Moneybags” does with the money he earned?

 

[stinkcat_14]

How is this intimidation? If Obama is re-elected, a lot of businesses are going to downsize or be shuttered. That is a fact. Some by choice, some by mandate.

Should not an employer let his employees know that there are consequences?

Another fact is that if he is not elected, a lot of businesses will downsize or shut down.

 

[markomalley]

Another fact is that if he is not elected, a lot of businesses will downsize or shut down.

By all means, if a business believed that their external environment would be severely complicated (so as to be a threat) with a Romney/Ryan election, I would, by all means, not try to discourage communicating that threat to their employees.

Good examples:

• Teacher unions (oh, wait, they already do)
• Health insurance processors
• Planned Parenthood
• Alternative energy companies (like Solyndra)

and so on.

But that’s their business what they do one way or the other.

 

[Lapey]

The intent is clear; intimidate employees into voting for Mitt Romney by threatening them with job loss.

Are you joking are really this intellectually lazy?

 

[Lapey]

The only record Romney has in terms of jobs is shipping them to China. Obama’s policies work.

Yes it is. Corporations don’t have the right to threaten their workforce with job loss if they don’t vote for its preferred candidate.

Private corporations have the right to do exactly what they wish, private is private.

Do unions have the right to take union dues which are required by members and give it to the democrat machine? Do those unions have the right to tell its members whom they should vote?

Its amazing how one side does things but feels it is exclusively right to the one side, the left. There is a word that describes this…hypocrisy.

 

[markomalley]

Private corporations have the right to do exactly what they wish, private is private.

Do unions have the right to take union dues which are required by members and give it to the democrat machine? Do those unions have the right to tell its members whom they should vote?

Its amazing how one side does things but feels it is exclusively right to the one side, the left. There is a word that describes this…hypocrisy.

Interesting that you mention that. It brings back to memory St Pius X’s encyclical Singuilari Quadam:

1. Furthermore, if Catholics are to be permitted to join the trade unions, these associations must avoid everything that is not in accord, either in principle or practice, with the teachings and commandments of the Church or the proper ecclesiastical authorities. Similarly, everything is to be avoided in their literature or public utterances or actions which in the above view would incur censure.

The Bishops, therefore, should consider it their sacred duty to observe carefully the conduct of all these associations and to watch diligently that the Catholic members do not suffer any harm as a result of their participation. The Catholic members themselves, however, should never permit the unions, whether for the sake of material interests of their members or the union cause as such, to proclaim or support teachings or to engage in activities which would conflict in any way with the directives proclaimed by the supreme teaching authority of the Church, especially those mentioned above. Therefore, as often as problems arise concerning matters of justice or charity, the Bishops should take the greatest care to see that the faithful do not overlook Catholic moral teaching and do not depart from it even a finger’s breadth.

Or, more to the point, Bl. John Paul II’s encyclical Laborem Exercens:

In this sense, union activity undoubtedly enters the field of *politics, *understood as *prudent concern for the common good. *However, the role of unions is not to “play politics” in the sense that the expression is commonly understood today. Unions do not have the character of political parties struggling for power; they should not be subjected to the decision of political parties or have too close links with them. In fact, in such a situation they easily lose contact with their specific role, which is to secure the just rights of workers within the £ramework of the common good of the whole of society; instead they become an instrument used for other purposes.
I wonder how campaign donations to the Democratic Party would be seen in light of the two above extracts?

 

[SuperLuigi]

The only record Romney has in terms of jobs is shipping them to China.

People will do business in countries with lower taxes and places without frivolous environmental regulations.

I don’t see how that is Romney’s problem.

Besides, from your vantage point, shouldn’t the democrats have helped anyone who has lost their job? You just said the president’s policies were working. If so, where’s the problem?

The president’s policies work.