Companies who are sending political emails to their employess

[CF DolFan]

I had been talking with an executive of Darden restaurants a couple of weeks ago and he was telling us how the election was going to affect their employees and businesses and they already have somewhat of a plan in place because of their predictions. Since that time I have seen several other companies go public with their plans by emailing their employees. I'm curious as to what people think about this.  It's common for politicians to argue talking points but do you think it's appropriate for employers to tell their employees what can or will happen if elections go one way or the other?

[Buddhagirl]

I had been talking with an executive of Darden restaurants a couple of weeks ago and he was telling us how the election was going to affect their employees and businesses and they already have somewhat of a plan in place because of their predictions. Since that time I have seen several other companies go public with their plans by emailing their employees. I'm curious as to what people think about this.  It's common for politicians to argue talking points but do you think it's appropriate for employers to tell their employees what can or will happen if elections go one way or the other?

Nope. I think it's completely inappropriate. No matter who they're pulling for or on specific issues, etc. That is not what an employer should be doing.

[Spider-Dan]

I wonder if these same businesses sent out e-mails in 2004 warning about the danger of deregulation blowing up the economy, and informing their employees that they would be laid off by the thousands if they elected politicians that continued these dangerous policies?

News flash: any company that decides to make less money because some of that money is taxed more is a company that would have no problems laying off (or outsourcing) scores of workers to increase the compensation of their top executives, no matter who is elected.  It would be unfortunate if this ruse worked, but it's not unexpected.

[Landshark]

Nope. I think it's completely inappropriate. No matter who they're pulling for or on specific issues, etc. That is not what an employer should be doing.

There's a difference between "Vote for candidate A or I'll fire you"  vs  "If candidate B gets elected, we will have to cut back on expenses because we can't afford to operate at our current levels under candidate B's tax plans.  This could mean laying off employees."

[Buddhagirl]

There's a difference between "Vote for candidate A or I'll fire you"  vs  "If candidate B gets elected, we will have to cut back on expenses because we can't afford to operate at our current levels under candidate B's tax plans.  This could mean laying off employees."

I don't think either scenario is appropriate. Companies / bosses should not be pushing their agenda onto their employees.

[bsfins]

I don't like it when Companies do it,nor Churches....

My mom works for the county,and election time is an edgy time...It's odd being able to vote for or against your boss,and bosses....Her boss is running un-opposed this election.Essentially you could vote to fire yourself.

[Phishfan]

Completely inappropriate behavior. Anyone who sees it as anything other than a veiled threat is kidding theirselves.

[Dave Gray]

It's bad, in general.

I also think it's bad for churches, too. -- I'm actually more concerned about this, since I think it crosses over into illegal.  If churches are going to get openly involved in politics, they cease to fit the bill for tax exemption.

[badger6]

If a company has to lay people off because a certain parties tax policy has a negative economic impact on that business. Shouldn't let their employees know what may happen to them ahead of time ? I'm not sure how it could be a threat from the employer since they would have no way of knowing who the employee voted for. The companies are not telling the employees are going to lose their jobs if they vote a certain way. They are saying the they will lose their jobs if the party pushing the policies that will have a negative impact on their business wins the election. How could a group of employees determine the outcome ? Regardless of who I supported in the election, I would want to know if my job was at stake ahead of time. Nothing but a heads up for the employees.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I think it is in appropreate, in large part b/c it is a compounded prediction.  I don't have a problem with employers mention how specific legislation will affect the employees.

E.g. I would not agree with the following.

"Dear Big Bird. If Romney is elected you along with Bert and the Cookie Moster will have to be laid off"

But I have no problem with "Dear Big Bird. If HRXXXX which cuts off funding for PBS is passed you along with Bert and the Cookie Moster will have to be laid off."

The reason I have a problem with the first is it is mere speculation.  Romney could win the election and then in order to pass other bills need to compromise on funding for PBS.  In general those types of letters are more scare tatics to promote one canidate or another rather than grounded in reality anyway. 

[Phishfan]

If a company has to lay people off because a certain parties tax policy has a negative economic impact on that business. Shouldn't let their employees know what may happen to them ahead of time ?

Because there has been no change to the tax structure at this time and because the winner of the election will not set any changes into action on their own. This is nothing but a threat and scare tactic based on speculation. They are saying in effect if my guy does not win some of you will lose jobs. They have no way of knowing what their future tax status is at this point. Their only stance is to scare voters. This is no different than the Black Panthers standing outside polling places a few years ago. It is a scare tactic and that is all.

[Fins4ever]

I think it is in appropreate, in large part b/c it is a compounded prediction.  I don't have a problem with employers mention how specific legislation will affect the employees.

E.g. I would not agree with the following.

"Dear Big Bird. If Romney is elected you along with Bert and the Cookie Moster will have to be laid off"

But I have no problem with "Dear Big Bird. If HRXXXX which cuts off funding for PBS is passed you along with Bert and the Cookie Moster will have to be laid off."

The reason I have a problem with the first is it is mere speculation.  Romney could win the election and then in order to pass other bills need to compromise on funding for PBS.  In general those types of letters are more scare tatics to promote one canidate or another rather than grounded in reality anyway. 

Big Bird will not lose his 314,000 dollar annual salary regardless who is elected. A bigger threat than losing taxpayer funding (2% of annual budget) to Big Bird is all of the competition for the younger audience. If you are over 30, Big Bird and Sesame Street was all you knew. Not like that today.

http://www.ibtimes.com/big-birds-salary-314k-dont-call-him-1-percenter-844171

http://articles.boston.com/2012-10-14/opinion/34427398_1_pbs-big-bird-sesame-workshop

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

^^^ That is why I find sending out those types of emails to be wrong.  Along with the scare tatics used by CEOs that don't get the scruity of the press.  "E.g. Unless we elect canidate XXXX you will lose your job"

[badger6]

Because there has been no change to the tax structure at this time and because the winner of the election will not set any changes into action on their own. This is nothing but a threat and scare tactic based on speculation. They are saying in effect if my guy does not win some of you will lose jobs. They have no way of knowing what their future tax status is at this point. Their only stance is to scare voters. This is no different than the Black Panthers standing outside polling places a few years ago. It is a scare tactic and that is all.

Just a scare tactic ? You 100% know that or you just think that ? Are you saying that there won't be layoffs if Obamacare is allowed to continue or businesses are taxed more. You are correct, based on speculation that their guy doesn't win that they will lay off employees. As opposed to, if you don't vote for my guy you will lose your jobs. I don't see why it matters. If you were going to be laid off either way, would you want to know or not. I would and I am sure that most would.  It's their company, it is their responsibility to inform the employees that there may be layoffs in certain circumstances. If you personally don't like it, go do something about it, good luck to you in your hopeless efforts.

[Dave Gray]

I heard an interesting point of view about PBS being pretty much the only place for poor people to get early childhood development -- without it, you severely affect kids' ability to grow up smart and educated.  They don't have Disney channel and Nickelodeon.

So, though we all pay for it, it saves money and it's making fewer people who are going to be breaking into your car in 20 years.