As we have said on this blog multiple times, voter intimidation is part part of the overall Republican voter suppression efforts. As part my closing argument, I ask that you watch this video which reiterates the key elements of this Republican strategy. I think this makes a pretty clear statement about Mitt Romney and his rich buddies but you need to decide for yourself. That my friend is the American way!
Managers should communicate the economic repercussions that federal policies have on the business, and which policies are likely to be in place depending which candidates are elected. Elections have consequences, and reelecting Obama will be bad for the economy and businesses, which will hit the working class the hardest.
Thanks for posting your comment. I think your position is very naive and misguided but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don’t have time to go into details right now but I will make a post later today highlighting your comment and explaining why I believe it to be naive and misguided.
I assure you I am not naive. This is one topic of which I can speak with authority. When you attempt to make your point, make sure you understand that I don’t believe that managers should coerce or intimidate workers to vote a certain way. That would breed distrust and resentment – both of which are anathema to the workplace. Nor do I suggest a company should retaliate against employees they feel voted a certain way, for the very same reasons. But, I do believe managers have an obligation to be transparent with their workforce as much as possible. Transparency includes discussing how government policies effect the markets and the decisions businesses make. Workers often ask, “What will happen to our healthcare insurance once ObamaCare is fully implemented?” A well-run company should have a frank discussion about the repercussions of the legislation. You seem to suggest the opposite approach where the workers are kept in the dark until the consequences simply happen. To me, that is naive and misguided.