Yet Another Case of Voter Intimidation
- Thread starter Turtle
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
If an employer regularly attempts to converse with employees in the workplace about either religion or politics they ain't too frickin' bright .....
It's one thing to talk to an employee at a political rally you are both attending, each on your own individual determinism, in support of a candidate or party ....
Same deal with religion .... if you both are attending (the same) church of your own volition and wanna talk religion in that context, should be no big deal ....
However, to do either in the workplace is just plain stupid ...... and most really professional business people know this ....
The weather, sports, fashion, and movies while being a distraction from the reason one is there (in the workplace), they are relatively innocuous topics for the most part ..... usually ....
The ladies nailed it. Even in casual conversation, the position of power is always there. By the very nature of expressing an opinion, the purpose of expressing it is to influence the thinking of others. Can't be helped. It's fundamental. When you're in a position of power over someone, the weight of that influence is greater. And when you express the opinion, even in casual conversation, and attach to it negative consequences of not agreeing with that opinion, it becomes coercion.
There are two specific laws that can be applied in this case. In one, the election law is very specific in that it requires the opinion and consequences to be in print. That's the law that was violated here.
Ohio Revised Code - 3599.05 Corrupt practices - employer shall not influence political opinions or votes of employees.
No employer or his agent or a corporation shall print or authorize to be printed upon any pay envelopes any statements intended or calculated to influence the political action of his or its employees; or post or exhibit in the establishment or anywhere in or about the establishment any posters, placards, or hand bills containing any threat, notice, or information that if any particular candidate is elected or defeated work in the establishment will cease in whole or in part, or other threats expressed or implied, intended to influence the political opinions or votes of his or its employees.
Whoever violates this section is guilty of corrupt practices, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.
Effective Date: 10-01-1953
The other law that can be applied in casual conversation is the Bribery statute.
Ohio Revised Code - 3599.01 Bribery.
(A) No person shall before, during, or after any primary, convention, or election:
(1) Give, lend, offer, or procure or promise to give, lend, offer, or procure any money, office, position, place or employment, influence, or any other valuable consideration to or for a delegate, elector, or other person;
(2) Attempt by intimidation, coercion, or other unlawful means to induce such delegate or elector to register or refrain from registering or to vote or refrain from voting at a primary, convention, or election for a particular person, question, or issue;
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of bribery, a felony of the fourth degree;
Effective Date: 01-01-1983
Like RLENT said, If an employer regularly attempts to converse with employees in the workplace about either religion or politics they ain't too frickin' bright. So the conversation had better be very, very casual. The employees can read the newspapers and the Internet, and watch the news, so they know the opinions of the possible consequences of their vote, and they must be able to decide on their own how to vote. One an employer interjects his opinion, and names actual consequences for the results, the decision on how to vote is no longer the employee's alone.
"Ultimately nobody knows how any of those specific McDonald's employees vote nor anyone else unless the individual chooses to say how they vote. It could be argued till the cows come home and remain unresolved."
Yes, nobody knows and it could be argued till the cows come home. But the results of coercion does not determine whether coercion exists, bur rather only show how effective the coercion is. Once the well has been poisoned, everything that comes out of it is poisoned, whether you drink it or not.
There are two specific laws that can be applied in this case. In one, the election law is very specific in that it requires the opinion and consequences to be in print. That's the law that was violated here.
Ohio Revised Code - 3599.05 Corrupt practices - employer shall not influence political opinions or votes of employees.
No employer or his agent or a corporation shall print or authorize to be printed upon any pay envelopes any statements intended or calculated to influence the political action of his or its employees; or post or exhibit in the establishment or anywhere in or about the establishment any posters, placards, or hand bills containing any threat, notice, or information that if any particular candidate is elected or defeated work in the establishment will cease in whole or in part, or other threats expressed or implied, intended to influence the political opinions or votes of his or its employees.
Whoever violates this section is guilty of corrupt practices, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.
Effective Date: 10-01-1953
The other law that can be applied in casual conversation is the Bribery statute.
Ohio Revised Code - 3599.01 Bribery.
(A) No person shall before, during, or after any primary, convention, or election:
(1) Give, lend, offer, or procure or promise to give, lend, offer, or procure any money, office, position, place or employment, influence, or any other valuable consideration to or for a delegate, elector, or other person;
(2) Attempt by intimidation, coercion, or other unlawful means to induce such delegate or elector to register or refrain from registering or to vote or refrain from voting at a primary, convention, or election for a particular person, question, or issue;
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of bribery, a felony of the fourth degree;
Effective Date: 01-01-1983
Like RLENT said, If an employer regularly attempts to converse with employees in the workplace about either religion or politics they ain't too frickin' bright. So the conversation had better be very, very casual. The employees can read the newspapers and the Internet, and watch the news, so they know the opinions of the possible consequences of their vote, and they must be able to decide on their own how to vote. One an employer interjects his opinion, and names actual consequences for the results, the decision on how to vote is no longer the employee's alone.
"Ultimately nobody knows how any of those specific McDonald's employees vote nor anyone else unless the individual chooses to say how they vote. It could be argued till the cows come home and remain unresolved."
Yes, nobody knows and it could be argued till the cows come home. But the results of coercion does not determine whether coercion exists, bur rather only show how effective the coercion is. Once the well has been poisoned, everything that comes out of it is poisoned, whether you drink it or not.
Two wrongs NEVER make a right. Having said that, the UAW, Steelworkers unions in Ohio, have been doing stuff like this since Moses was a private. The unions also want to eliminate secret ballots. I was once at a meeting where a "hand vote" was taken on a contract. Talk about intimidation. I voted AGAINST the group anyway. Only one of 3 out of 100 or so who were there. What a joke this is. Outrage over Micky D's and the intimidation of a few pimple faced kids. NOTHING over what unions do. (I know, the article was about hamburgers)
There are plenty of situations where an employer and employee have opportunity for prolonged conversations. Tradesmen such as plumbers, carpenters, electricians and others may often spend extended periods of time working together on a daily basis. Police, firefighters and others also do the same. In some of these situations especially there's a tendency to become as close as family if not closer. Although there may be differences in rank those are basically ignored in many situations as the people go about their day. Conversations ebb and flow and evolve as the day flows and thoughts of rank etc. don't enter in at all. Only in "official" situations does rank come into play. I have no problem restricting free speech though and telling specific people what they aren't allowed to talk about with other specific people.
Sorry, Leo, but free speech doesn't allow for things like terroristic threatening, intimidation, blackmail, bribery, extortion, harassment, or coercion of any kind. Casual conversation is just that, but if you're an employer you'd better not forget who you are while engaged in even the most casual of casual conversations with an employee, because no matter the familiarity, it's always an "official" situation, as you are, in fact, the employer and they are, in fact, the employee, and no amount of familiarity and casual conversation can possibly change that. Once you tell someone they could lose their job or some of their benefits if they don't vote a certain way or if the election results don't suit you, even within the scope of friendly casual conversation, that's intimidation and coercion in attempting to influence, and there are well established and firmly upheld laws against it.There are plenty of situations where an employer and employee have opportunity for prolonged conversations. Tradesmen such as plumbers, carpenters, electricians and others may often spend extended periods of time working together on a daily basis. Police, firefighters and others also do the same. In some of these situations especially there's a tendency to become as close as family if not closer. Although there may be differences in rank those are basically ignored in many situations as the people go about their day. Conversations ebb and flow and evolve as the day flows and thoughts of rank etc. don't enter in at all. Only in "official" situations does rank come into play. I have no problem restricting free speech though and telling specific people what they aren't allowed to talk about with other specific people.
And when as an employer after the associate says something about the election the employer says I hope X wins because if (s)he wins I think I'll be able to give a bigger raise next year and I'd like to be able to do that it isn't anything of what you keep posting. Yes, your statements are accurate as far as they go but they aren't all encompassing. There are definite ways it would be wrong but there are ways to have completely legal conversations and express an opinion without violating any rules.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Quite true .....
Also quite true .....
Perhaps ..... but nevertheless, the fact remains: the actual relationship is one of an employer/employee - regardless of how "close" one may feel to someone under their employ ... it is not one of family ....
Someone you employ isn't your wife, son, daughter, or some other family member .... unless they actually are ....
The relationship of employer/employee is one of a commercial nature, which is to some extent legally-regulated ... for good reason ...
With that relationship, and with being in that position of having power over another's livelihood, there is a duty and obligation to act in a manner which fully respects the rights of those under one's employ to both have, and exercise, their own political beliefs ....
Someone with a very high level of ethics would never dream of placing an individual under their employ in a position that might cause the employee to feel in jeopardy of their employment based on their political affiliation or who they planned on voting for ....
That's the kind of crap you should only find in third-world banana republics ....
On the otherhand, someone who is a blatant partisan zealot might not think twice or blink an eye ..... the ends justifying the means, anything for the cause and all ....
Sorta like folks who, having no legitimate or justifiable reason for being there, think that they are entitled to conduct religious worship on someone else's private property .... and that it won't be intimidating or offensive to those who do actually have legitimate reasons for being there .....
Being a business owner and employer is pretty much a 24/7/365 job ... if one employes others, one does not immediately cease to be that (an employer), when the employee clocks out or goes home ... or at any other time, on or off the job .....
Any time one interacts with someone that you employ - and particularly when that interaction occurs in the workplace - it could be construed to be "official" ....
Roll your eyes all you want - but the fact remains - these laws are there for a very valid reason - to prevent intimidation and coercion.I have no problem restricting free speech though and telling specific people what they aren't allowed to talk about with other specific people.
That you can't see, nor apparently have any inkling whatsoever, of the potential problem they were designed to address immediately tells me one thing very clearly:
You are the very person that they were designed for ...
Can't say I'm really surprised tho' ....
Last edited:
As long as the person expressing a wish, desire, or whatever, is speaking to a subordinate, it is against the law, no matter how casual the conversation [or how 'casual' it's pretended to be].
The principle that makes it illegal is the relationship: superior to subordinate - such statements as you posit would be perfectly ok between 'equals', but not in an employer/employee scenario. Because whether the threat is actual or perceived, it remains a valid concern for the employee, and that's coercion.
Like sexual harassment, it's against the law, no matter how hard one pretends to be kidding, or hypothesizing, or whatever justification is used.
I'm pretty sure the boss in question just made a mistake, didn't realize that it's against the law - but it makes me wonder how tolerant he was of his employees' mistakes, before, and whether he became more so after making a big one himself.....
The principle that makes it illegal is the relationship: superior to subordinate - such statements as you posit would be perfectly ok between 'equals', but not in an employer/employee scenario. Because whether the threat is actual or perceived, it remains a valid concern for the employee, and that's coercion.
Like sexual harassment, it's against the law, no matter how hard one pretends to be kidding, or hypothesizing, or whatever justification is used.
I'm pretty sure the boss in question just made a mistake, didn't realize that it's against the law - but it makes me wonder how tolerant he was of his employees' mistakes, before, and whether he became more so after making a big one himself.....
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
First off, there is no guarantee that one would be able to give a bigger raise (or any raise at all for that matter) based on who wins an election ....
Business, for the most part, doesn't work that way .... unless you're talking about someone getting elected who's going to steer a bunch of business your way (which is another matter altogether) ..... and a wise employer would refrain from making any such suggestions.
Further, a truly wise employer would keep his yap shut regarding any potential pay raises until such time as he was prepared to actually deliver and hand out raises .... there is nothing worse than to feel as though your were promised something ... and then to not get it ...
Talk about poisoning the well .....
You sound like a _______ (politican, lawyer, government bureaucrat, Wall Street banker, etc ... take your choice and fill in the blank) ....... trying to figure out ways to skirt the intent of the law ...
Last edited:
Well, duh, that's because this thread is about voter intimidation and you keep posting ways to squirm through some imaginary loophole where it doesn't exist. The example you just gave might have the employee thinking, "Hey, if I vote for X, then I might get a bigger raise next year. Yay!," and the employer is guilty of bribery for influencing a vote with the carrot of a raise. Not that it will have the employee thinking that, but it might, and that's the poisoned well.
If you read the laws, you'll see that my statements are, in fact, all encompassing with respect to the examples you keep trying to come up with.
Absolutely true. You can, as an employer, express your opinion to an employee about a candidate for office, and there's nothing wrong with it... right up to, and until, you attach consequences (good or bad) for the employee to your opinion.
For example, an employer could say, "I hope X wins," period, and leave off the "because" and anything after it, and it's not a problem. Because, whatever comes after "because" becomes a problem if it means something of tangible value to the employee, be it something that might be taken away, or something that might otherwise be given. An employer cannot give, lend, offer, or procure or promise to give, lend, offer, or procure any money, office, position, place or employment, influence, or any other valuable consideration to or for a delegate, elector, or other person. The, "I think I'll be able to give a bigger raise next year," is the problem. While not an explicit promise, it's an implicit one, directly implied and inferred as such.
If the employer wants to add a "because", then it needs to be a very generic "because," like, "...because X is probably going to be better for business." There's nothing tangible there for the employee, no carrot of coercion, no influence beyond the influence of the person making the statement, same as in any casual conversation.
But if the employer's opinion comes attached with a "better for you" or "worse for you" qualifier, then it's coercion, plain and simple, regardless of the conversational setting.
Last edited:
