Here's one way to buy votes, I guess.

On the one hand, the guy deserves a pretty serious slapdown for that.

On the other, I can recall how little respect we had for most the CEOs I worked under in my private sector days, and I can imagine most employees rolling their eyes in disgust, and then moving on with the intention of ignoring it completely.

It's shady, but I'm more interested in Lack's reasoning. So, Obama being in office for the past nearly four years had nothing to do with the "good times his auto parts company has enjoyed", but Obama's reelection will impact his business model because of health care costs. His business model is solely responsible for the business growth and the bonuses. Oh yeah, and also that minor point of the infusion he's receiving by way of "incentives" from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation which, coincidentally (snerk), received federal economic recovery funds via the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Uh-huh. Okay.

Williebee said:

It certainly doesn't seem very well thought out. "I'm gonna put some money in an envelope, along with some instructions for what I want you to do about the election. That doesn't seem shady, does it?"

Click to expand...

That's mild CEO behavior.

Take the case of Robert Murray. CEO of Murray Energy, a coal mining conglomerate. (Murray is a determined climate change denier; no surprise there.)

He forced his employees to attend a Romney rally, then docked their pay because they missed a day of work. And I love this explanation:

In an interview with a talk radio show host, Murray Energy CFO Rob Moore denied allegations that workers were “forced,” choosing instead to use the word “mandatory.”

“Our managers communicated to our workforce that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend,” Moore said.

Click to expand...

I'm familiar with Murray because I followed this mining disaster very closely at the time.

Murray Energy is perhaps best known for operating the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah that collapsed in 2007, killing six miners and two rescue personnel. After that tragedy, reporters uncovered thousands of violations resulting in millions of dollars in fines at various mines owned by the company.

Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-event-without-pay-we-knew-what-would-happen/

To this day Murray insists the mine collapse was due to an earthquake, and thus his company bears no responsibility, despite seismologists saying that simply was not true.

He's a living caricature, a stock figure of the greedy CEO who puts profits above lives and wields power like a club, no doubt dreaming of the good old days when mine owners could simply shoot striking miners who dared to speak up.

Offering a bonus for something that is in no way under the control of his employees??

Why doesn't he offer them a bonus according to who it is that wins the American World Series in baseball? It'd make about as much sense.

rugcat said:

He's a living caricature, a stock figure of the greedy CEO who puts profits above lives and wields power like a club, no doubt dreaming of the good old days when mine owners could simply shoot striking miners who dared to speak up.

Click to expand...

In that case he's not living in the wrong times, just the wrong country.

It just occurred to me--and I'm not speaking about this guy specifically, not at all really because he does seem to be a jerk--but what's the difference between a CEO urging his employees to vote for a particular candidate and a union doing the same thing?

One difference I can see right off is that the union can donate to specific candidates, that donation coming out of dues the union members must pay. The CEO can't do that.

But forgetting about that for a minute, why is it okay for the union to encourage workers to vote for a specific candidate, but not okay for their employer to do the same thing?

Haggis said:

It just occurred to me--and I'm not speaking about this guy specifically, not at all really because he does seem to be a jerk--but what's the difference between a CEO urging his employees to vote for a particular candidate and a union doing the same thing?

One difference I can see right off is that the union can donate to specific candidates, that donation coming out of dues the union members must pay. The CEO can't do that.

But forgetting about that for a minute, why is it okay for the union to encourage workers to vote for a specific candidate, but not okay for their employer to do the same thing?

Click to expand...

An employer can encourage their employers to vote a way. It's the trotting out of bonuses and other payments based on actions conducted in or the outcomes of the elections that is at the very least slimy or, more appropriately, treading into the realm of inappropriate and reprehensible.

As for the union, the union is a corporation of labourers. The dues may be used for political speech, just like revenues may be used by the corporation.

Haggis said:

But forgetting about that for a minute, why is it okay for the union to encourage workers to vote for a specific candidate, but not okay for their employer to do the same thing?

Click to expand...

An employer is in a power position. The employer can fire you (unless there's a union) block your promotion, assign you to do unpleasant tasks, etc.

It's an inherently unequal position, and the employer should not be pressuring employees to vote in certain ways, whether it's from intimidation or by dangling a carrot.

rugcat said:

An employer is in a power position. The employer can fire you (unless there's a union) block your promotion, assign you to do unpleasant tasks, etc.

It's an inherently unequal position, and the employer should not be pressuring employees to vote in certain ways, whether it's from intimidation or by dangling a carrot.

Click to expand...

...while the union bosses would never use their power to impact one's job if one fails to toe the line, politically or otherwise.

I don't really see where he's done anything wrong. He didn't threaten to reduce paychecks if Obama won. That was a conclusion drawn by the article's author.

He pointed out the results of "Obama Care", which he believes will be a 2% increase in health care cost to the company. If his costs increase by 2%, that's less money to give out in bonuses (ie. "spread around").

Whether or not he would take away money is beside the point. The point is that he was basically paying them off to help Romney.

A boss, or a union, can tell me to do anything they want.

But when I step into that voting booth, it's just me. I vote the way I want.

And when/if they ask, I'll tell them exactly what I know they want me to say because I'm not stupid enough to put my job in danger. And they have no legal way to know whether or not I lied.

Seems to me, problem solved.

Though docking workers for missing a day for a job-mandatory meeting is wrong. Apparently he doesn't understand the implications of "mandatory".

Reminds me of the ladies who got gift cards in exchange for promising their vote in Mexico's last election... and then they protested in masse because the cards were void. Real embarrassing, that was, specially since they got the cards from the winning party.

Williebee said:

That kind of depends on which state you are voting in. Here in Illinois, in my precinct, I could tell, after the fact, if you pulled a Republican or Democrat ticket. You show up on the voter's list as an R or a D. Doesn't prove you actually voted for a specific office, or person, though...

Click to expand...

Nope, doesn't say who you voted for at all. Just says, for most states, what primary you can participate in.

And, frankly, I know of many people who have registered as one party or the other (bouncing as needed) so they can "pick the best opponent" for their preferred party. Really doesn't mean diddle, IME.

Shadow Dragon said:

Whether or not he would take away money is beside the point. The point is that he was basically paying them off to help Romney.

Click to expand...

Where do you see that?

Here's the actual quote from the letter:

“As employees, you will receive no additional direct benefit other than you will have to pay for it,” said Lacks in a letter he sent to hourly employees last Friday.

“The talk of additional tax increases by the administration, if re-elected, will have an additional negative impact on the organization,” he wrote. “ It is always important to remember the more government takes the less there will be available to spread around to the working people of this company.

“It is important that in November you vote to improve your standard of living and that will be through smaller government and less government,” Lacks said in a letter that was leaked to MLive.com.

Click to expand...

Where is the payoff? And where does he mention Romney?

DeleyanLee said:

Though docking workers for missing a day for a job-mandatory meeting is wrong. Apparently he doesn't understand the implications of "mandatory".

Click to expand...

I just want to make sure you realize that this "mandatory meeting" thing was some other CEO that Rugcat mentioned, not the CEO from of the topic.

Looks like he's endorsing Gary Johnson, actually...

It's the classic CEO dilemma: no matter how much wealth he amasses, he may cast only one vote.

As for "unions do it too!" I think there is a huge difference between encouraging workers vote one way, or threatening their livelyhood if they don't. Unions can't fire workers, bosses do it all the time. Unions don't sign paychecks either.

Devil Ledbetter said:

It's the classic CEO dilemma: no matter how much wealth he amasses, he may cast only one vote.

As for "unions do it too!" I think there is a huge difference between encouraging workers vote one way, or threatening their livelyhood if they don't. Unions can't fire workers, bosses do it all the time. Unions don't sign paychecks either.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this at all. Misuse of power is inexcusable. But I'm probably okay with a benign employer offering information to employees. Couple it with any kind of threat though and all bets are off.