login
Would you work here? (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-10-10 3:59 PM in reply to: #4448801 |
Veteran  1019  St. Louis |  Subject: RE: Would you work here?Left Brain - 2012-10-10 3:19 PM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-10 2:43 PM Left Brain - 2012-10-10 9:23 AM pitt83 - 2012-10-10 9:20 AM Left Brain - 2012-10-10 9:56 AM Eh.....who cares? I didn't see any "veiled threats"....just his views on what he sees ahead for HIS company. If the guy can grow a business to 7000 employees I'm sure he can do the math on Obama's promised tax increase, see what it means to his bottom line, and let his employees know that he will cut jobs. I'd only be looking for another job if Obama gets elected. This is a veiled threat followed by some passive / aggresive CYA language: "What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best"That sounds more like veiled encouragement than a veiled threat. The law is clear, you cannot attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce anyone in the decision for how to vote for president {42 US 1971(b)}. The man tells his employees "So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job." It's a matter of opinion on whether you'd consider this intimidation or not, but I bet there's a line of lawyers willing to represent any Democrat employed at Westgate. Dude, there's a line of lawyers willing to represent my dog if I forget to feed it one day. Again, this is some of the best entertainment around....there's no way to make this stuff up. Can you imagine some lawyer trying to prove that a boss knew how their employee voted so that's why they fired them......maybe the best course for an employee of that company would be to run into the boss's office if Obama wins screaming, "I VOTED FOR OBAMA!!!!!"....then at least they can say he knew. LMAO You're missing the point. All an employee needs to do is claim that they felt threatened by this email, show the email to the jury, and sit back and see if a majority agree. And it only takes on of some 7000 employees to feel "threatened". Some places, it'll get tossed right out. But if there's a Westgate in Illinois, my money is on the plaintiff. If you read through the entire email he sent, 95% of it is perfectly legal. He can explain what Obama's tax policies would do to his company, he can say that additional taxes will force him to downsize, he can flat out endorse Mitt if he wants. But he went that extra step of throwing in some tough guy language to drive home his point. And in doing so, he opened himself up to lawsuits in our sissy society where no one is allowed to be offended. So he's an idiot. |
| 2012-10-10 4:12 PM in reply to: #4448857 |
Pro 15655    | Subject: RE: Would you work here? kevin_trapp - 2012-10-10 3:59 PM Left Brain - 2012-10-10 3:19 PM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-10 2:43 PM Left Brain - 2012-10-10 9:23 AM pitt83 - 2012-10-10 9:20 AM Left Brain - 2012-10-10 9:56 AM Eh.....who cares? I didn't see any "veiled threats"....just his views on what he sees ahead for HIS company. If the guy can grow a business to 7000 employees I'm sure he can do the math on Obama's promised tax increase, see what it means to his bottom line, and let his employees know that he will cut jobs. I'd only be looking for another job if Obama gets elected. This is a veiled threat followed by some passive / aggresive CYA language: "What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best"That sounds more like veiled encouragement than a veiled threat. The law is clear, you cannot attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce anyone in the decision for how to vote for president {42 US 1971(b)}. The man tells his employees "So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job." It's a matter of opinion on whether you'd consider this intimidation or not, but I bet there's a line of lawyers willing to represent any Democrat employed at Westgate. Dude, there's a line of lawyers willing to represent my dog if I forget to feed it one day. Again, this is some of the best entertainment around....there's no way to make this stuff up. Can you imagine some lawyer trying to prove that a boss knew how their employee voted so that's why they fired them......maybe the best course for an employee of that company would be to run into the boss's office if Obama wins screaming, "I VOTED FOR OBAMA!!!!!"....then at least they can say he knew. LMAO You're missing the point. All an employee needs to do is claim that they felt threatened by this email, show the email to the jury, and sit back and see if a majority agree. And it only takes on of some 7000 employees to feel "threatened". Some places, it'll get tossed right out. But if there's a Westgate in Illinois, my money is on the plaintiff. If you read through the entire email he sent, 95% of it is perfectly legal. He can explain what Obama's tax policies would do to his company, he can say that additional taxes will force him to downsize, he can flat out endorse Mitt if he wants. But he went that extra step of throwing in some tough guy language to drive home his point. And in doing so, he opened himself up to lawsuits in our sissy society where no one is allowed to be offended. So he's an idiot. Even if your point is valid....which I can't see...my money says the guy couldn't care less if he's sued or not, I know wouldn't. He said, "whose policies will endanger your job" and you call that tough guy language?? We must be from different neighborhoods. Besides, if Obama is elected their jobs WILL be endangered in he downsizes to cut costs.......go ahead and show where he was just being a bully. Hell, he's trying to help them. |
| 2012-10-10 5:03 PM in reply to: #4448740 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Would you work here? Goosedog - 2012-10-10 2:48 PM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-10 3:43 PM The law is clear, you cannot attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce anyone in the decision for how to vote for president {42 US 1971(b)}. I'm going to start posting this on every single idiotic election post on Facebook. lol, i'm so suing Gearboy |
| 2012-10-10 5:11 PM in reply to: #4448580 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Would you work here? Meulen - 2012-10-10 1:35 PM So..........
It's ok when the Unions pressure members to vote for their candidate, but not a CEO? No it's not OK when a union does it either. But at least you're conceding he's pressuring his employees to vote for his candidate. Personally I don't think he is. If he wants a bunch of people will SAY they voted for Romney or are afraid to express their political views in the workplace then that's his choice as the head of the company. If they don't like it, they can quit. In this job market it's unlikely they will. It's just like Chick Fil A -- if people don't like what the CEO said, they're more than welcome to go work somewhere else. I dont care what my boss's politics are, as long as the paycheck doesn't bounce. That said, I'm not going to vote based on conjecture about what will happen to their company. |
| 2012-10-10 5:36 PM in reply to: #4447760 |
Master 1795 Boynton Beach, FL | Subject: RE: Would you work here? This is what happens when you attempt transparency today. Whichever side you are on, fact is this election will have consequences. This guy just let his people know of the potential consequences. He never asked them to change their vote or vote for Romney. If I am an employee, I would at least be glad to know what could happen if Obama was re-elected. Fact is, it wouldnt change a lot of votes in my opinion. I work in financial sector and there are plenty of employees who vote for Dems even though they realize additional regulations may limit their employment. Still personal choice. |
| 2012-10-11 10:26 AM in reply to: #4448969 |
Elite 3515 Romeoville, Il | Subject: RE: Would you work here? mr2tony - 2012-10-10 5:11 PM Meulen - 2012-10-10 1:35 PM No it's not OK when a union does it either. But at least you're conceding he's pressuring his employees to vote for his candidate. Personally I don't think he is. If he wants a bunch of people will SAY they voted for Romney or are afraid to express their political views in the workplace then that's his choice as the head of the company. If they don't like it, they can quit. In this job market it's unlikely they will. It's just like Chick Fil A -- if people don't like what the CEO said, they're more than welcome to go work somewhere else. I dont care what my boss's politics are, as long as the paycheck doesn't bounce. That said, I'm not going to vote based on conjecture about what will happen to their company. So..........
It's ok when the Unions pressure members to vote for their candidate, but not a CEO? I completely agree with you. My feeling is that he's not so much pressuring employees to vote a certain way. He's telling them what would happen in a particular outcome of the election. If I worked there, I wouldn't let this decifer my vote. I would view this as a hint I need to start looking for other employment based on the outcome of the election. Quite frankly, I'd be grateful for the heads up rather than the alternative all of a sudden being fired without a clue. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK