CEO threatens layoffs if he is taxed any further

[Wells]

Well I can see how this email can be misconstrued as blackmail, since you could make a case it fits the blackmail criteria.

Wouldn't that make it not misconstrued?

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.

Clearly we're the ones suffering under personal bias. And its pretty damn light on facts. Its mostly just another Randian sob story from a guy who has everything in life.

[Rukentuts]

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.

Well phrasing something like this:

If I don't come into a substantial amount of wealth over the next few days some sexually revealing photographs may be released to the press.

...doesn't sound as threatening either.

The same way he "may" have to cut the workforce.

[Destruktion]

Wouldn't that make it not misconstrued?

I don't think so, no. If something reads like an insult, is it always an insult? Sometimes people read into things.

Clearly we're the ones suffering under personal bias. And its pretty damn light on facts. Its mostly just another Randian sob story from a guy who has everything in life.

It isn't a stretch. I've seen the exchanges that happen here.
It might be a threat or a sob story, but it could just be a statement of fact from a business perspective.

Well phrasing something like this:

If I don't come into a substantial amount of wealth over the next few days some sexually revealing photographs may be released to the press.

...doesn't sound as threatening either.

The same way he "may" have to cut the workforce.

I don't see why any person would ever be forced to submit lewd photographs, but I can see why it might be necessary to cut employees when more taxes enter the equation.

If a firm experiences a tax rate increase, isn't the result a reduction in the rate of capital accumulation? The production capacity then goes down which might mean needing to cut workers.

(I'm no economist so this might be totally wrong)

[Wells]

He said that if his personal income tax went up he'd have to downsize his business. I'd hardly call his claims statements of fact.

[Purlina]

I don't see why any person would ever be forced to submit lewd photographs, but I can see why it might be necessary to cut employees when more taxes enter the equation.

If a firm experiences a tax rate increase, isn't the result a reduction in the rate of capital accumulation? The production capacity then goes down which might mean needing to cut workers.

(I'm no economist so this might be totally wrong)

He claimed that if they raised his personal income tax he would have to fire people as well. Personal income taxes have nothing to do with needing to fire workers...

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company"...

[Thetruth1400]

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.

For it to be blackmail, the CEO in this instance would need data that isn't available to him. He'd have to know who each person voted for and the only way he could do that is if he went into the booth with them or he stole the information. If not, he's essentially firing people at will instead of based on who they voted for, and therefore this isn't blackmail at all. Dickish yes, but blackmail no.

[Wells]

For it to be blackmail, the CEO in this instance would need data that isn't available to him. He'd have to know who each person voted for and the only way he could do that is if he went into the booth with them or he stole the information. If not, he's essentially firing people at will instead of based on who they voted for, and therefore this isn't blackmail at all. Dickish yes, but blackmail no.

Again, real world ability to deliver on threats isn't terribly relevant to blackmail. All he has to do is threaten to do something he has the reasonable ability to do. He has the power to fire people.

[Destruktion]

He said that if his personal income tax went up he'd have to downsize his business. I'd hardly call his claims statements of fact.

Didn't read that anywhere. What I read was the following:

Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes.

He didn't mention personal income taxes once, not in the quoted passage, not anywhere.
I'm not going to hate him because he's building a huge house.

[Purlina]

For it to be blackmail, the CEO in this instance would need data that isn't available to him. He'd have to know who each person voted for and the only way he could do that is if he went into the booth with them or he stole the information. If not, he's essentially firing people at will instead of based on who they voted for, and therefore this isn't blackmail at all. Dickish yes, but blackmail no.

Or he could just fire all the people who have not registered as Republicans. He wouldn't know who the person he fired voted for, but sometimes that's how the cookie crumbles...

---------- Post added 2012-10-11 at 08:14 PM ----------

Didn't read that anywhere. What I read was the following:



He didn't mention personal income taxes once, not in the quoted passage, not anywhere.

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company."

[Wells]

Yes he does

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company.

He specifically says that if his personal taxes go up he will have to shrink his company. He's either a complete liar or the worst businessman imaginable.

[Torq]

The CEO mentions Obama specifically.

You could remove all references to "the current President" and the message would remain the exact same, just less a little bit of undertone. It's not blackmail, not in the slightest. It's no worse than the vast majority of campaign ads.

[Wells]

The vast majority of campaign ads aren't from someone telling you that if the election doesn't go their way they'll have to fire you hint hint.

[Destruktion]

I'd vote for 'poor writer' because that's awfully poor wording based on the context of the entire letter.

[Wells]

I'm not sure how you can chalk something he said very explicitly up to bad writing.

---------- Post added 2012-10-11 at 08:22 PM ----------

This smells like hand waving.

[Torq]

The vast majority of campaign ads aren't from someone telling you that if the election doesn't go their way they'll have to fire you hint hint.

There certainly are plenty of them that say "x candidate voted for y legislature, which (did/would have) cost the US (insert number here) jobs.... vote for z, instead!" It's not quite as direct, but it certainly still counts as fear-mongering.

[Destruktion]

I'm not sure how you can chalk something he said very explicitly up to bad writing.

---------- Post added 2012-10-11 at 08:22 PM ----------

This smells like hand waving.

This is one word, "me," versus an entire letter whose context is the business in question.
You could call that hand waving. But it isn't, because I think this is a grievous error that garnered him negative publicity that he wouldn't otherwise have experienced had he stuck simply with "my company."

Scratch that, he would've been lambasted anyways. Because he's a rich guy with a big house.

[Wells]

So his fingers just slipped on the keyboard when he specifically wrote that if his taxes went up he'd have to fire people?

Anyway, since that whole line of argument is too ridiculous to continue, we're back to the beginning where where we began, with this mistake notion that this is a set of claims based in fact.

[Purlina]

Also this...

"“The Queen of Versailles,” the documentary chronicling Siegel’s quest to obnoxiously build the biggest house in America, the Florida real estate mogul claims he was “personally responsible” for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential victory. He also goes on to say that his tactics for helping Bush win “may not necessarily have been legal.” "


Hmmm

[ptwonline]

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.

A statement of fact where there is a harmful contingent future action based upon the actions of the audience may be indeed a statement of fact AND a threat at the same time. "Move and I will I kill you". That could be a statement of fact. But it is also undeniably a threat becaue I make it clear that if you partake in a certain action, I will impose a harmful consequence upon you.

The question about whether it is actually a threat is really based on whether or not it appears to be a statement designed to influence the other party's course of action based on a response from you, factual or not.

The only way really that it could be a statement of fact and not a threat is if the consequences will come outside of the control of the person making the statement. if I say "Jump off the cliff and you will fall to your death"...that's not a threat. That's a warning. If I say "jump up and down on the bed and you might break your leg", that's not a threat. If I say "jump up and down on the bed and I will break your leg"...that's a threat.

[Destruktion]

It's not a typo, he just wrote more than he meant. I've done it, I'm sure you've done it, everyone's done it. There's just nothing else in that letter to support the argument you're putting forth.

SO. Facts. Personal taxes aside, if new taxes are levied against his firm, the firm will reach a new production equilibrium. Is this not accurate?

A statement of fact where there is a harmful contingent future action based upon the actions of the audience may be indeed a statement of fact AND a threat at the same time. "Move and I will I kill you". That could be a statement of fact. But it is also undeniably a threat becaue I make it clear that if you partake in a certain action, I will impose a harmful consequence upon you.

The question about whether it is actually a threat is really based on whether or not it appears to be a statement designed to influence the other party's course of action, factual or not.

The only way really that it could be a statement of fact and not a threat is if the consequences will come outside of the control of the person making the statement. if I say "Jump off the cliff and you will fall to your death"...that's not a threat. That's a warning. If I say "jump up and down on the bed and you might break your leg", that's not a threat. If I say "jump up and down on the bed and I will break your leg"...that's a threat.

Based on this model, the CEO's statement reads "if new taxes are levied against me, I will do the economically sensible thing and downsize, which means letting some of you go." So this statement could be considered a threat. But blackmail?
But whether or not this IS the economically sensible thing to do is far out of my level of expertise.