CEO threatens layoffs if he is taxed any further

[Sorrior]

And i shall be there leading it from the forefront!

Dibs on the alaska branch.

But seriously this kinda thing gets me screaming head on a pike in a big way.

[cubby]

Gotta say that Money doesn't buy happiness. However the lack of it wont buy anything and will probably lead to unhappiness.

Money absolutely buys happiness. Not all of the available happiness, and some things are not for purchase (i.e. love). But the people who think money doesn't buy happiness, never really had any to begin with.

Cracks me up when I hear that phrase, every time.

[Sorrior]

I tremble to think what could happen if Obama is re-elected, and I'm not even talking from a Republican viewpoint. A lot of people are really angry and irrational right now. If something ever happened to the President post-reelection, I mean, that could split this country right down the middle.

In some ways i think a split might be best for america. We are too large and divided right now and unless something REALLY crazy happens i don't see us solving our problems soon.

[Gheld]

Rich people are greedy lulz. I shouldn't have to work for a living.

[Wikiy]

Exactly this.

There are socialist countries with socialist traditions and there are more liberal, capitalistic ones. For example in Sweden, people who are successful have often got heavy support from the state to realize their ideas. It is just a socialistic country. You do pay higher taxes but you do get much in return as well. That said, I'll still keep voting for the right wing party

However, in a country like the US, the rich and successful have built themselves up, they owe it all to themselves. So it's completely different and someone coming to say, hey, lets raise your taxes so you can now happily share what youve got is just completely unfair and communist.

You seem to think liberalism and socialism don't go hand in hand. What's up with that? I'd get it if you were talking about libertarianism not agreeing with socialism, but liberalism? Socialism is about liberalism and socialistic systems are the most liberal ones and minority groups enjoy the most rights (that are usually oppressed) compared to the rest of the world in such systems.

[Grizzly Willy]

Rich people are greedy lulz. I shouldn't have to work for a living.

Because people against greed are always lazy, right?

[Wells]

Common knowledge. Maybe you aren't from an area where unions are common.

This isn't proof of anything.

[Rukentuts]

So can somebody tell me why this guy hasn't been charged with 700 counts of voter intimidation yet?

[Purlina]

So can somebody tell me why this guy hasn't been charged with 700 counts of voter intimidation yet?

Because he's rich and probably has powerful friends / connections in high places?

[Grizzly Willy]

Is there proof that this violates a law?

[Rukentuts]

Is there proof that this violates a law?

It appears to at least be blackmail; only instead of money, they get to keep their job.

[Koraak]

If I compare the work field in the USA with the work field in let's say Germany. The USA is in dire need for a REAL unionized work field.
The Unions over there are what Unions suppose to be. They fight for the employees toe to nails. They achieved that the minimum wage is a lot higher than the USA one. They fought that the guidelines apply to the entire job description/field and not just for Union members, even to the extent that it is rock solid integrated into the law. Ranging from job safety, over weelky work hours (lower than in the US), up to hourly wages, job protection, Minimum 30 days paid vacation, almost unlimited paid sick days (after 6 weeks paid by the employer the insurance takes over)
Employees over there have rights, that put the USA into a rather medieval situation in direct comparison.
And... Most importantly, it works just like a charm. Extremely low poverty line. A much broader middle class. And people don't have to work 2 or 3 jobs to live nice.

It would be nice if that were how it could work in the U.S.

Here's my story with in dealing with union workers. Now I work in the manufacturing industry, particularly food plant production systems. I was the head designer of the system and was overseeing parts of the installation. The customer who bought the equipment thought they could save a few bucks by hiring a union contracting company to do the installation. The problems started as soon as the trucks arrived to drop off the equipment. Through the combined efforts of 10 men and a fork truck, it took 3 hours to unload the first truck, and there were 4 others loaded with machinery as well. Back at my company's facility, it took no longer than an hour to load a truck flawlessly with 3 guys and a fork truck. Not only did it take much longer to unload the trucks, they also did thousands of dollars worth of damage to the equipment in the process. Later, once the machinery was in the building, they did further damage by bumping the fork into nearly every piece of equipment as they moved them into place. The customer was so unhappy with their performance, the union company was kicked offsite and my company was contracted to finish the installation.

That's just my story, all the managers at my company have similar horror stories. The bottom line is that union workers (in the manufacturing industry at least) just don't care. They are only willing to do the bare minimum, and in some cases not even that, but they know the union won't fire them. Are there exceptions? Absolutely, but in my experience they are, in all other cases except the union, unhireable.

P.S.

My boss also had an experience when he was back in the union where a fellow union worker threatened to slash his tires unless he stopped working so hard, because he made the rest of them look bad. He quit the union that day and later started the business that I now work for.

[Purlina]

Is there proof that this violates a law?

Electoral fraud / Voter intimidation is against the law.

It's up to the court to decide if this falls under voter intimidation. (Mainly the sub-section of Economic threats)

[Torq]

It appears to at least be blackmail; only instead of money, they get to keep their job.

There's nothing in there that says they have to vote for a particular candidate. All it states is that "if taxes go up, I might have to lay people off." That's not more voter intimidation than any ads that say a particular candidate will raise taxes on you.

[Rukentuts]

There's nothing in there that says they have to vote for a particular candidate. All it states is that "if taxes go up, I might have to lay people off." That's not more voter intimidation than any ads that say a particular candidate will raise taxes on you.

The CEO mentions Obama specifically.

[Destruktion]

It appears to at least be blackmail; only instead of money, they get to keep their job.

At most it appears to be blackmail, and that's straining credulity as it is. If it were blackmail, how exactly would the CEO follow through with it? He doesn't know who is employees are going to be voting for.

[Wells]

This depends a lot on your state but you don't strictly need to be able to carry through on your threats for it to be blackmail so long as A) its at least theoretically possible B) the threat was made seriously and C) the victim felt threatened.

[Rukentuts]

At most it appears to be blackmail, and that's straining credulity as it is. If it were blackmail, how exactly would the CEO follow through with it? He doesn't know who is employees are going to be voting for.

Blackmail is the crime of threatening someone to do something with some sort of incentive (i.e. give me $1M or I publish photos), not actually doing it.

Dammit Wells beat me.

[melodramocracy]

They pay for it by paying the workers salary and they pay the transportation companies to transport their things if needed.. and they also pay for buildings, office equipment and everything. None of it comes for free from the taxes they pay.

No, customers actually pay for all that.

[Destruktion]

Well I can see how this email can be misconstrued as blackmail, since you could make a case it fits the blackmail criteria. Conceiving of a situation where the CEO would have access to his employees' ballots also strains credulity.

It still doesn't really read like a threat, it reads more like a statement of fact. And people are just reading into it as a thinly-veiled threat because CEOs are open targets for vitriol these days.