Soren wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Soren wrote:

I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope — I hope you pass those along to your employees. Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/ ... employers/

nothing inappropriate about this.

Correct

right because when your boss "asks" you to consider your future there's absolutely no weight behind that.

TomatoPie wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Yeh, I figured, but given the effect on the economy and all the dirty oil they are producing with the tar sands, you'd think they (the politicians) would find a way to keep the prices down. High oil prices push the cost of everything up and it's unnecessary in this case. Are the oil companies going to clean up the mess made by making oil from tar sands or will their people have to pay for that too?

Like I said, that would make me push for nationalizing the oil, if I were canadian. And, yes, I know I'm not making much sense. It just seems like so much of the cost is put on the people, even though there's no need for it, just so the companies can sell their product at insane profits. Maybe there needs to be a cap on the profit % or something, not on most things, but on things like this that are basically national resources. It's not like the oil companies are making oil. They are just pumping it from the ground and refining it, probably in refineries also paid for by the people.

1) politicians don't set the price of oil, markets do
2) to maximize production and minimize prices, the less government, the better
3) competition sets the cap on profits

It's not really useful to regard oil companies as the enemy. They provide to our homes and businesses and neighborhoods the essential energy that allows us to maintain a high standard of living. A gallon of fuel costs less than a gallon of Pepsi; it's an astonishing bargain.

If oil company profits really bother you, buy some Exxon stock as a hedge.

jerseyhoya wrote:If one's boss thinks Romney's policies will be more beneficial for the company due to tax/regulation policy or whatever, and that's likely to mean better work opportunities for the employee, the employer should make those things known to company workers if s/he wants to do so.

It's a secret ballot. You don't have to obey. There isn't any weight behind it.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If one's boss thinks Romney's policies will be more beneficial for the company due to tax/regulation policy or whatever, and that's likely to mean better work opportunities for the employee, the employer should make those things known to company workers if s/he wants to do so.

It's a secret ballot. You don't have to obey. There isn't any weight behind it.

I don't think it's that big of a deal, nor do I think it's a grand conspiracy, but I don't like the idea of a boss putting pressure on his/her employees to vote a certain way. But that's mostly because (a) generally, I don't think that politics should be discussed in the workplace, and (b) the creation of an environment where an employee feels ostracized for his/her personal beliefs is not beneficial to an efficient workplace.

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If one's boss thinks Romney's policies will be more beneficial for the company due to tax/regulation policy or whatever, and that's likely to mean better work opportunities for the employee, the employer should make those things known to company workers if s/he wants to do so.

It's a secret ballot. You don't have to obey. There isn't any weight behind it.

I don't think it's that big of a deal, nor do I think it's a grand conspiracy, but I don't like the idea of a boss putting pressure on his/her employees to vote a certain way. But that's mostly because (a) generally, I don't think that politics should be discussed in the workplace, and (b) the creation of an environment where an employee feels ostracized for his/her personal beliefs is not beneficial to an efficient workplace.

How do you feel about unions endorsing candidates and making suggestions to their members how to vote.

JFLNYC wrote:Only marginally political, but hilarious:

Link

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If one's boss thinks Romney's policies will be more beneficial for the company due to tax/regulation policy or whatever, and that's likely to mean better work opportunities for the employee, the employer should make those things known to company workers if s/he wants to do so.

It's a secret ballot. You don't have to obey. There isn't any weight behind it.

I don't think it's that big of a deal, nor do I think it's a grand conspiracy, but I don't like the idea of a boss putting pressure on his/her employees to vote a certain way. But that's mostly because (a) generally, I don't think that politics should be discussed in the workplace, and (b) the creation of an environment where an employee feels ostracized for his/her personal beliefs is not beneficial to an efficient workplace.

How do you feel about unions endorsing candidates and making suggestions to their members how to vote.

Mitt Romney (during the debate) wrote:How in the world the president said no to that pipeline, I will never know.

mozartpc27 wrote:Also, unions can't fire the people to whom they are making "suggestions." Only one of these two situations carries with it an air of intimidation.

npr.com wrote:
Football Or Baseball?

Meanwhile, analysts at the ticket-resale behemoth StubHub have found that sports fans in Republican-favoring states buy a lot more football tickets, while fans in Democratic-leaning states buy more baseball tickets. Is it possible that flipping that information around may help us know which candidate will win which state?

In September 2008, both New York and Massachusetts — strong Obama states — had very high "BFRs" (baseball-to-football ratios). Massachusetts had the second highest ratio out of all the states in the nation, according to StubHub data, and New York had the seventh highest. Now, in 2012, the BFRs continue to be high in both states: Massachusetts was ranked fifth in September and New York was eighth.

On the other hand, Texas — a strong Romney state — has one of the lowest BFRs in the nation: More folks are buying football tickets and, presumably, voting Republican. In September 2008, Texas had the 39th highest BFR, and in September 2012, it was 38th.

According to Andy Sevastopoulos of StubHub, back in 2008, the states that bought baseball tickets over football tickets by nearly a 2-to-1 ratio — including Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire and New York — all went for Obama. And the states that purchased football tickets in a vast majority over baseball — including Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Idaho — favored McCain by at least a 10-point advantage.

This time around, sports fans in the swing states of Colorado, Iowa and North Carolina have been buying more football tickets on StubHub than they did in 2008, and those in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia are buying more baseball tickets.

TomatoPie wrote:

1) politicians don't set the price of oil, markets do

governments play a role in shaping markets. politicians are governmental actors. markets are, if anything more reactive in nature than politicians. your bromide contains a speck of truth only if you insist that markets are impervious to human action

2) to maximize production and minimize prices, the less government, the better

if you insist on the most cartoonish of economic models, yes

3) competition sets the cap on profits

see #2

It's not really useful to regard oil companies as the enemy. They provide to our homes and businesses and neighborhoods the essential energy that allows us to maintain a high standard of living. A gallon of fuel costs less than a gallon of Pepsi; it's an astonishing bargain.

mozartpc27 wrote:Time was, unions - particularly trade unions, which used to have a much stronger control over access to certain professions - could intimidate members into voting a particular way. But with union membership where it is now, I am here to tell you those days are over. Unions are like any other service in most respects now - that is, the "customer" (member) is always right.