Milwaukee CEO Communicates with Employees About Election
Since this is an election phenomenon that has become local, let’s talk about it a little.
Mike White, the chairman and owner of Rite-Hite, a major Milwaukee manufacturer of industrial equipment, told employees in an email this week that all employees “should understand the personal consequences to them of having our tax rates increase dramatically if President Obama is re-elected, forcing taxpayers to fund President Obama’s future deficits and social programs (including Obamacare), which require bigger government.”
[...]
“The tax rate we pay is not 17%, as Warren Buffett would have you believe; with state taxes it is roughly 45%. President Obama has announced that our planned tax rate would increase to roughly 65%, reducing our after tax income by 36% and dramatically reducing, if not eliminating, your and my RSP contributions.”
As a result, White said the company’s profits would not be reinvested. Instead, he wrote, “the money will be sent into the abyss that is Washington, D.C. So, on top of the burden of having your personal taxes increase dramatically, which they will, your RSP contributions and healthy retirement are also at risk, all for the sake of maintaining an over-sized government that borrows 42% of every dollar it spends.”
First, it should be understood that government policies have real consequences on people and businesses. If business taxes go up, that’s real cash leaving a business that they can’t use on other things. This isn’t Monopoly. It’s real life.
Second, the Left seems to be in an uproar about the relatively new phenomenon of business owners telling their employees what the ramifications of an election may be on the business, but the same Left has been silent for a generation when union bosses do the exact same thing.
Third, isn’t it the duty of a business owner to be honest with their employees about things like this? If the owner seriously thinks that the election results will really impact folks’ jobs,shouldn’t they say so? If a business owner fired a bunch of people after an election because of his anticipation of the market, wouldn’t that owner rightly be criticized for not giving any warning? Here again we see the Left putting business owners in a box in which they can’t win. They can’t be honest about how the election results might affect their business and they can’t respond accordingly when those results are known.
IMHO he did nothing wrong. MJS quoted a WI law that may be a problem for him depending on if and where he has to be tried. The initial reaction from the left was, once again, by any means necessary shut down free speech.
An example is this liberal opinion on the billboards designed to educate voters on the consequences of cheating.
Ostensibly they’re designed to scare illegal voters, but if there’s even a slight possibility that such a sign would also scare a legal voter, it’s not okay.
And the liberal that wrote this would adamantly claim that he believes in our constitution and supports our right to free speech.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 2153 hrs
When something threatens a business, whether it’s competitors, business operating procedures, or an external threat, its a duty of the boss to enlist the help of the employees to meet the threat.
Oppressive liberalism is one of the biggest threats to business today.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 2158 hrs
In 1896, Jay Gould, was confronted with strike action by his railway workforce of overworked, underpaid and desperate workers. “I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half”, he said.
It’s nice to see freshening it up a bit.
Nice work Owen:)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 0723 hrs
So, if an employer stated that Romney is invested in China in an oil company that makes money off Iran in defiance of the sanctions our government put into place and this shows Mitt only cares about his money would conservatives still be saying this is a free speech issue?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 0738 hrs
Cute story, fu, but Jay Gould died in 1892, and the alleged quote came from opposing unionists.
You can leave now.
Posted by Badger on October 26, 2012 at 0747 hrs
It seems rather amazing to me that you cannot tell your employees the eceonomic impact of a Government action or intended action. Who made that law? It is not like anyone knows who you vote for. I guess if you value your job, it might inhibit your use of bumper stickers and yard signs, but as Sen Kedzie’s son recently found out, using them has its own dangers outside of work too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 0749 hrs
During the Great Southwest Railroad Strike of 1886, he hired strikebreakers. According to labor unionists, he said at the time, “I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half.”
Gee Badger sorry for the typo ( 9 rather than 8):(
Thanks for catching it:)
Here’s my reference.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jay_Gould
Where are you finding any denial of the attribution?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 0821 hrs
While I doubt the employer has bad intentions, we should also remember that in many similar instances, such conduct is illegal.
The law does not often smile upon arrangements that break down as “employer encourages employee, directly or indirectly, to engage/not engage in (insert conduct here) which is unrelated to their job duties, with the implication that engaging/not engaging in (insert conduct here) will be met with implied reward/punishment.”
If we were talking about sex, this would be considered harassment. But the same logic fueled much of the caucus scandal, in which it was abundantly clear to employees that those who helped legislators with their personal business were often rewarded with bonuses and promotions. Or take the countless instances of politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, who’ve gotten busted in the press for effectively demanding their employees run personal errands for them.
The fact that there’s a clear imbalance of power in the employer/employee relationship makes this kind of messaging a bit unseemly, even if we stipulate that everything the employer is saying is correct.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 26, 2012 at 0859 hrs
A) There is no such thing as a “union boss”, and anybody who thinks there is doesn’t understand at all how unions are organized.
B) It has been said that unions have been doing this “exact same thing” for about 20 years, but I have never seen an letter/email from my union saying I will lose my benefits if “blank” is elected. Can any such examples be shown?
C) As someone else pointed out, these type of actions by the employer are banned by Wisconsin law. While it is fair to discuss if such a law is a good idea or not, fact of the matter is here&now; the employer is breaking the law and it should have been mentioned in the original post.
Posted by purplepenquin on October 26, 2012 at 0940 hrs
Well said Recess.
Kevin ( auto correct typed in ...Lenin
can fire all his minimum wage folks because its just too much for person to make but he can’t tie their job to whom thy vote for.Not even in the pro business oasis that is K town.
For Owen and Kevin , the good old days of employee rights Are the 50’s.
The 1850’s
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1004 hrs
Regarding Purple’s comments about him never seeing a letter saying if “x” is elected these benefits will be cut….
I recall Sykes and Belling reading letters of that type from practically every single union in the state (public and private) regarding Scott Walker. Both from the 2010 election and the recall.
The best was the one where the union bosses were telling the rank and file that Walker if re-elected was going to cut previously earned pension benefits (which is against the law)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1056 hrs
Actually Steve those pension benefit laws are being challenged with encouragement from a variety of conservative funded groups. It is possible given the current make up of some State Supreme courts and certainly SCOTUS that someone’s earned pension benefits could be taken away. Anyone who doesn’t think that there are plans to mess with the WRS is a fool. Whether those plans come forward or not is a different story, but I’d bet my house they exist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1217 hrs
Mark,
Not even in the pro business oasis that is K town
I know you meant this as criticism, but I take it as a supreme compliment. I’ve wroked hard to slice and dice regulation when I could.
Any Germantown businesses are welcome to K-town. Free yourself from the local, big government, anti-private property, dictates.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1311 hrs
Most employers are not dumb enough to try and pull this because they know that one way to get employees to do something off hours is to suggest they don’t. Mr. White is apparently under the impression his employees believe what he says, and think he is being honest when he suggests their interests are aligned with him. This of course means Mr. White is an idiot (or in the parlance of the right wing, retarded) and probably has gained exactly zero votes for Romney. Of course, he is now causing problems with Democrats for his company, and Summerfest as well. This is why brighter people will not follow his lead.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1323 hrs
Most employers are also not dumb enough to do it because it treads on illegality:
12.07 (3) No employer or agent of an employer may distribute to any employee printed matter containing any threat, notice or information that if a particular ticket of a political party or organization or candidate is elected or any referendum question is adopted or rejected, work in the employer’s place or establishment will cease, in whole or in part, or the place or establishment will be closed, or the salaries or wages of the employees will be reduced, or other threats intended to influence the political opinions or actions of the employees.
And no, the disclaimer at the front end of his letter that basically reads “I don’t intend this to be a threat, but here are all the negative things that could happen to you if you don’t vote a certain way” is probably not going to hold water, any more than “I’m not about to rob you, I’m just going to wave this gun and you will agree to voluntarily give me your wallet” would be a defense against armed robbery.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 26, 2012 at 1330 hrs
I agree, it was well said RS, and I see that threats veiled or otherwise, are wrong. However, it does leave business owners with one option. 100% opacity. “We’re going strong, we’re doing well, silence…silence. We are closing next week. Shoulda voted for so and so.” I know I have read legoins of union believers rant about how unfair it was to not let workers know there are problems(whether referring to a union business or not).
PP:A) PC is unimportant to conservative and Republican bloggers in general. Union bosses, elected and/or unelected heads of the unions, whatever. When you PCize the word ‘killer’, there will be no more killings, only murders, right?
PP:B) Technically I think you are right. Public unions, at least, just fight for more, more, more, and when they do lose, they lay people off from their own union and cry about how overworked they are.
PP:C) Please don’t run for judge Purple Penguin. If you can have this potential case already tried and convicted this quickly, let’s just say I question your rational judgment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1341 hrs
I believe Libel is illegal in campaigning, that walking across a city street outside painted areas is against the law, and that drivng 26 in a 25mph zone is violation of the law. There are 2 unenforced laws still on the books for every enforced one. Just sayin’, it’s all in what is prosecuted. If obama is re-elected and Rite Hite never changes insurance and profits seem consistent, I say prosecute the threatening bastard. I don’t think any law is just if it restricts the truth and whether it should be followed should run on even ground with whether it will be enforced.
I would be a heck of a lot more interested in tax payments being enforced. I have heard of a handful of IRS heavy handedness stories in my life, but every week I see some new lawyer on TV telling me I have the right to get of debt and that they can get us to pay 15 cents on the dollar to the IRS…as long as we owe $10,000 or more. And politicians know about these laws. Why do you think so many owe so much in unpaid taxes? They don’t ever plan on paying them, though they will settle at some point. What do we enforce? I have no problem with honesty being a part of that decision.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1411 hrs
Regardless of the legality of Mike White’s email I’m sure there are many Democrats working hard to put Rite-Hite out of business because of it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1537 hrs
Owen—“Third, isn’t it the duty of a business owner to be honest with their employees about things like this? If the owner seriously thinks that the election results will really impact folks’ jobs,shouldn’t they say so?”
An ASSUMPTION and an OPINION of the employer regarding such legislation. The employer is being “honest”...from their perspective.
Now, what if the employee responds with an email to everyone in the company disagreeing with the premises of his boss. If the boss is insisting that his/her position is accurate and is providing “heads-up” on the matter, cannot his workers then make counter arguments without fear of any retaliation?
I don’t know if White’s conduct is a violation of the law as given by RS. I would think he is expressing a political opinion, but there could be some people who think this interpretation given by a superior in the company can be considered “intimidation”.
Here is a similar story (yes, I know it’s the Koch Brothers, and I realize that the source has a particular slant, but facts are facts. The interpretation of those facts may vary).
http://inthesetimes.org/article/14017/koch_industries_sends_45000_employees_pro_romney_mailing
This conduct appears to be legal, but is it ethical? Does it create an atmosphere of intimidation given the clout of these company owners?
“If a business owner fired a bunch of people after an election because of his anticipation of the market, wouldn’t that owner rightly be criticized for not giving any warning?”
Criticized? Why? Isn’t he or she making a financial decision based on available information? It may appear to those laid-off workers as “unfair”, but I would think that those individuals had some idea about their job status and how their company was performing over a period of time.
Interesting to note White’s firm received a $26,471 grant in stimulus funding from the Obama Administration.
Hypocritical? You decide.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1555 hrs
TerryN—“Regardless of the legality of Mike White’s email I’m sure there are many Democrats working hard to put Rite-Hite out of business because of it.”
Funny, because if the company head was a (D) and was accused of violating the statute, you would be calling for his head. The law is the law, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1600 hrs
greencarman—shhhhhhh—do not point out the elephant in the room. I made the same point and no one has suggested you are wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1612 hrs
As a general rule, I think an employer should probably leave the politics out of communications to employees, because it can be viewed as condescending.
I don’t, however, have a huge problem with this guy saying something like “If taxes go up there may be layoffs”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1638 hrs
Cynical,
Just what the heck is not political these days?
When you sell a 32 oz. Pepsi and there is oppressive liberal talk about banning it…you cannot help but have constant political conversation in the workplace on whether or not it can be sold to help pay the employee’s wages.
Liberalism invades everything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1643 hrs
Kevin,
What are you talking about? I work for a company and they never talk about politics. My friends work for companies and they dont talk politics. Rite Hite doesnt sell soda that doesnt even pertain to them.
You act like talking politics cannot be avoided at any measure.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1707 hrs
12.07 (3) No employer or agent of an employer may distribute to any employee printed matter containing any threat, notice or information that if a particular ticket of a political party or organization or candidate is elected or any referendum question is adopted or rejected, work in the employer’s place or establishment will cease, in whole or in part, or the place or establishment will be closed, or the salaries or wages of the employees will be reduced, or other threats intended to influence the political opinions or actions of the employees.
Milwaukee DA “might” investigate if complaints are made. Would expect that any attempt to enforce this WI state statute will get bitch-slapped as unconstitutional in accordance with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This sounds like a law that was enacted before that decision? Or maybe there is a Dane County judge that can file an injunction against the US Supreme Court?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1800 hrs
“Second, the Left seems to be in an uproar about the relatively new phenomenon of business owners telling their employees what the ramifications of an election may be on the business, but the same Left has been silent for a generation when union bosses do the exact same thing. “
Unions “bosses” are elected through democratic meetings. They can be removed from power by the people that they serve and represent, like Grothman or Obama.
You misinform, website creator.
Recess Supervisor is correct.
“First, it should be understood that government policies have real consequences on people and businesses. If business taxes go up, that’s real cash leaving a business that they can’t use on other things. This isn’t Monopoly. It’s real life.” Yes, but the government serves the businesses, bringing them things like roads and. for example, traffic regulations and police, which help ensure that their business can be conducted with more predictability and efficiency. Besides, website creator. we have a big national debt that needs to be paid off and a military to feed.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 1835 hrs
Thanks Dismas, although I will gladly acknowledge that being right is easier when you bother to look things up before you write.
And to Strolling Bones, you’d best brush up on your law if you think that Citizens United applies here. Citizens United pertains to independent expenditures made by corporations and unions. A boss sending an email to his employees on the equivalent of company letterhead threatening his employees with negative consequences if they fail to vote a certain way is not an independent political expenditure. It’s also not protected speech under the first amendment.
It’s extortion.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 26, 2012 at 2025 hrs
Recess Supervisor,
I failed to delineate that you were right and what you were right about from the rest of my post.
Please accept my apologies.
I need to slow down and smell the roses or I am going to step on the thorny things.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 2057 hrs
Would rather find a better source than Wikepedia, but for now I will go with this:
majority opinion[29] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The majority wrote, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”[30]
Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the majority also noted that since the First Amendment (and the Court) do not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.[2] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.<b> The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA’s restriction of corporate spending on “electioneering communications”. The Court’s ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on “electioneering communications” <b>and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).
The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation’s ability to spend money unconstitutionally limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.
The majority overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity. Additionally, the majority argued that Austin was based on an “equality” rationale - trying to equalize speech between different speakers - that the Court had previously rejected as illegitimate under the First Amendment in Buckley. The Michigan statute at issue in Austin had distinguished between corporate and union spending, prohibiting the former while allowing the latter. The “Austin” Court, over vigorous dissent by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sandra Day O’Connor, had held that such distinctions were within the legislature’s prerogative. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the “marketplace of ideas” and “rationing” speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of “fairness” by restricting speech.
It seems to me that Citizens United was about more than “expenditures” - I think there is a First Amendment issue that would overrule state law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 2120 hrs
I quote directly from a UFCW mailer delivered a week ago:
[International UFCW President Joe Hansen] ...“You see, the 2012 presidential election is about more than the economy. It’s about more than foreign policy. It’s about the right of our union to exist. It’s about your right to have a voice on the job…..One candidate—President Obama—supports these rights…The other—Mitt Romney—is out to destroy them….”
Nothing to see there. Move along.
Posted by dad29 on October 26, 2012 at 2152 hrs
Dad, you don’t belong to a union. You received what’s commonly called political junk mail. Quite a difference from a company email to employees….yes, please do move along.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 2211 hrs
Like you know what Dad29 does or does not belong to, fuckface.
Posted by Badger on October 26, 2012 at 2327 hrs
Do YOU know what Dad29 does, Badger? I do. (Don’t) read his blog.
Strollingbones, the heart of Citizens United was that companies as an ARTIFICIAL ENTITY may express their political opinions through financial means via donations and advertising. White was expressing his INDIVIDUAL and PERSONAL political opinion through an email to his workers. I don’t see how Citizens United applies here. Moreover, I don’t recall the Constitution explicitly stating that companies as a whole have political freedoms.
The crux of the matter is whether that correspondence has a direct or indirect threat. It may or may not be, depending upon one’s political stripes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2012 at 0509 hrs
Badger,
I hope everyone scrolls over your name to read what your link says. You are a piece of trash.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2012 at 0859 hrs
Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment.
There’s the money quote, Bones. A CEO isn’t a “corporation.” The “corporation” wasn’t communicating with the employees in this case, an individual was. If you want to argue that the 1st Amend protects his speech in this case, that’s fine, but Citizens United wouldn’t apply. A corporation is a specific entity that SCOTUS has decided is functionally the same as an individual. The CEO in his case IS an individual. Big difference.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2012 at 0902 hrs
I don’t see how Citizens United applies here.
Look at the case precedents that I bolded - those would be applicable to future cases like these. Appears that Citizens United clarified that Free Speech rights are not impacted by whether or not it was “paid for” & not by “who” paid for it (corporation vs. individual). Also, that you can’t apply based on the type of entity (i.e,, corporation vs. union).
The crux of the matter is whether that correspondence has a direct or indirect threat
I would agree there, as far as if the State law could be applied. The statements seem rather inarticulate - not sure that he was saying if A) (Obama reelected) then B) (“you” will be laid off). Personally, to me the guy sounds like a moron - not sure what is to be gained by taking the risk of offending your employees or customers. But, that is the “free marketplace” at work - if it hurts him, that is his problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2012 at 0907 hrs
The “corporation” wasn’t communicating with the employees in this case, an individual was
So, I guess he has nothing to worry about, as long as everyone agrees that he wasn’t acting as the corporate employer or agent of his corporation.
Re: State law:
No employer or agent of an employer may distribute to any employee printed matter....
If he didn’t print the emails I guess he is off the hook too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2012 at 0924 hrs
Lefties predominately like to speak for other people to make their point, like greencarman and dodgecountydem.
Let me state a fact about my opinion. I don’t give a rip who the CEO is or what his political affiliation is. I will always support the business owner who runs a profitable, ethical business. Especially one that gives back to the community like Rite-Hite.
I do not support a law that prevents an employer from offering his opinion about anything they feel is in their employees best interests. Especially in a state where a union has the legal ability to do the same.
If the DA gives Mike White any grief over this he should find a more prosperous right to work stat to move to. Thus more job loss on the hands of those who claim they support job growth. You know who you are. Why don’t you support your argument with out projecting your own shortcomings onto those you disagree with?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2012 at 0924 hrs
So let’s see. If he had instead mailed out a notice of future 50+ job layoffs with an excuse given as the re-election of Obama, that would be OK? He is required by law to notify them of layoffs above a certain level. Not sure if the law requires an excuse to be given or not but it seems like you can provide one. Is he at that point required to lay off anyone? Or can he just say “Never mind” if the election goes Right.
And my daughter is a Teamster unfortunately, for all the good that has done for her. She just received a newsletter from the union that basically says “Obama good/Romney bad”. And it also lists a number of House and Senate elections and the preferred candidate. It also covers the California and Michigan referendums.
http://www.teamster.org/sites/teamster.org/files/Fall 2012 Teamster Mag.pdf
Not sure how that differs from what Mr White wrote.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2012 at 1019 hrs
Word to the wise - you might want to avoid Badger’s company on election night. He’s apt to be highly volatile.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2012 at 1106 hrs
TerryN—I don’t give a rip who the CEO is or what his political affiliation is.
Would that include the head of an alternative energy company who insinuates to his/her employees that voting against a “desired” candidate will bring forth possible retribution?
TerryN—I do not support a law that prevents an employer from offering his opinion about anything they feel is in their employees best interests. Especially in a state where a union has the legal ability to do the same.RichK—“Not sure how that differs from what Mr White wrote.”
You both clearly do not understand the law, which focuses on whether the political communication by the company head to his employees will have direct implications on their future employment should that “advice” not be heeded, i.e. their job status is in jeopardy. The law is NOT applicable to unions because they are disseminating information about a particular issue within its own ranks who share those sentiments as “equals”, not as a “superior” to a “subordinate”.
RichK, your link does not work.
TerryN—“Why don’t you support your argument with out projecting your own shortcomings onto those you disagree with?”Sounds like a personal problem on your part. I suggest you seek help.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2012 at 1550 hrs
Strollingbones—Please tell me where in the Constitution that corporations or unions are people who have the same POLITICAL rights as citizens. Please tell me how even the legal foundation for Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), which is the basis for Citizens United, is even legitimate in the first place.
Preceding every case entry is a headnote, or summary. The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, a former railroad executive (!!!), stated, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids the State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”
In other words, corporations are natural persons who are entitled to Constitutional protections such as free speech. This issue, however, is absent from the court’s ACTUAL opinion. The Supreme Court NEVER decided whether corporations are “people”, it has been wrongly assumed ever since 1886!!!
Conservative justice William Rehnquist even mentioned the dubious headnote in the Santa Clara case when he wrote a compelling dissent in a 1978 Supreme Court ruling that expanded corporate personhood. Rehnquist reiterated Chief Justice John Marshall’s views in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) that a corporation is an ARTIFICIAL BEING possessing the properties which the charter of creation confers upon it—meaning a government granted a business with the ECONOMIC right—not POLITICAL rights—to operate within its borders. Moreover, Rehnquist warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is to “confuse metaphor with reality”.
The Supreme Court has recognized two, distinct forms of free speech—economic and political. It seems now there is but one. The ruling in Citizens United centered on the POLITICAL content of their good (i.e. film) in relation to the McCain-Feingold Act, not the ECONOMIC right of Citizens United (a nonprofit corporation) to produce a good. Certainly companies have been allowed to “speak” about their product, but this “free speech” has had ECONOMIC overtones.
Previous Supreme Court decisions regarding corporate personhood specifically stated that companies were able to produce what they want and were held liable for that production, and were allowed to “voice” their concerns in public and in a court of law.
But when it came to influencing government policies through POLITICAL free speech, the Supreme Court, Congress, and state legislatures had made it a general policy for decades that those rights squarely belonged to living things, not artificially created entities, until decisions in the late 1970’s and 1980’s provided the opening for Citizens United.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2012 at 1553 hrs
No, I’m not a union member.
But it’s not hard to find one who got that mailing.
You call it ‘trash.’ I call it a direct-mail newsletter, from the union boss to the membership, because that is what it IS.
Focus on the point: whassa diff between Mike White’s rant and the Union boss’ rant?
Posted by dad29 on October 27, 2012 at 2005 hrs
Dad29 cannot read for comprehension.
Here’s the law again—12.07 (3) No employer or agent of an employer may distribute to any employee printed matter containing any threat, notice or information that if a particular ticket of a political party or organization or candidate is elected or any referendum question is adopted or rejected, work in the employer’s place or establishment will cease, in whole or in part, or the place or establishment will be closed, or the salaries or wages of the employees will be reduced, or other threats intended to influence the political opinions or actions of the employees.
The law focuses on whether the political communication by the company head to his employees will have direct implications on their future employment should that “advice” not be heeded, i.e. their job status is in jeopardy. The law is NOT applicable to unions because they are disseminating information about a particular issue within its own ranks who share those sentiments as “equals”, not as a “superior” to a “subordinate”.
So, Dad29, please show me where in the Constitution that corporations or unions are people who have the same POLITICAL rights as citizens.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2012 at 2130 hrs
Umnnhhh….‘where in the Constitution….do unions have the right….?’ is an EXCELLENT question.
Since unions have been threatening their members with “vote this way” mailings (and personal visits) for years, perhaps you could show me the Constitutional foundation which does NOT apply likewise to employers.
(FWIW, I think that White’s letter is over the top by a couple of degrees; I would have written it differently.)
It’s a given that Wisconsin law will not prevail against SCOTUS’ reasoning in Citizens United, and as Strol/Bones pointed out, there’s plenty of room for doubt about the WI law.
Posted by dad29 on October 28, 2012 at 0722 hrs
“Umnnhhh….‘where in the Constitution….do unions have the right….?’ is an EXCELLENT question.”
Can’t read and comprehend, eh, Dad29? I said, “please show me where in the Constitution that corporations or unions are people who have the same POLITICAL rights as citizens.”
Not surprisingly, you change the topic and refused to address the inquiry. The issue is about the actions of a BUSINESS EXECUTIVE, not a UNION OFFICIAL. And the law in question pertains specifically to those actions. Get with the program.
“It’s a given that Wisconsin law will not prevail against SCOTUS’ reasoning in Citizens United, and as Strol/Bones pointed out, there’s plenty of room for doubt about the WI law.”
I didn’t know there was a court case already in the SCOTUS hopper about the statute in question and that a decision was rendered. Putting the cart before the horse?
“Since unions have been threatening their members with “vote this way” mailings (and personal visits) for years, perhaps you could show me the Constitutional foundation which does NOT apply likewise to employers.”
I don’t have to show you constitutional foundation, I can show you Wisconsin law regarding the actions of the employer.
And you call yourself “intelligent”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2012 at 2023 hrs
“union boss”
Definition: A slang term used by (anonymous) persons or (anonymous) (legal) groups who dislike unions in the workplace for a variety of reasons. These person(s) or entities do not believe the right to freedom of speech or the right to assemble applies to labor groups but the rights do apply to businesses, corporations, nonprofit groups, (some) political groups and (some) governments. Union leaders are predominately elected in democratic elections as has been for at least millenniums such as when unions formed to build cathedrals in Europe; thus, the title of “boss” is by definition incorrect.
A more apt term might be “union president”, “spokesperson” or “battering ram” as the head rep of the union often is the person to deliver bad news to either the employing agency’s representatives or the union members.
True workplaces bosses tend to be owners of small businesses and not to be elected by workers; in larger organizations, bosses or managers may receive filtered feedback from worker multiple choice feedback forms. This information is considered for utilization by corporate management for said boss’s advancement, human capitol reallocation, budget re-allocations, site changes, compensation adjustments or employment retention review(s).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2012 at 2221 hrs
The law focuses on whether the political communication by the company head to his employees will have direct implications on their future employment should that “advice” not be heeded, i.e. their job status is in jeopardy. The law is NOT applicable to unions because they are disseminating information about a particular issue within its own ranks who share those sentiments as “equals”, not as a “superior” to a “subordinate”.
So, GCM, you are saying that unions have no say in hiring and firing? That is news to me.
So PC cry baby, is it okay to just say union rather than union bosses? BTW, why don’t you just change your name from Dismas and Gestas to PC cry baby. It is more apt. Then we can change the terms driveway to parkway and parkways to driveways, too. I know, let’s legislate all aptism…Genius.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 0822 hrs
Please refer to # 27 above.
It doesn’t matter if the boss is pro right, pro left or pro leprechaun.
(As a ND fan and Irishman,I am)Recess is correct and the rest of the conversation had been about why others can or can’t do something similar.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 0834 hrs
A boss sending an email to his employees on the equivalent of company letterhead threatening his employees with negative consequences if they fail to vote a certain way is not an independent political expenditure. It’s also not protected speech under the first amendment.
It’s extortion.
This part of #27, right? Sure, it is correct, I agreed with RS from the start.
A union boss sending an email to his coworkers [whom he has seniority over] on the equivalent of company letterhead threatening his [coworkers] with negative consequences if they fail to vote a certain way is not an independent political expenditure. It’s also not protected speech under the first amendment.
It’s extortion.
But the above statement is totally wrong. It is not extortion. It is not a threat to the 50 newest hires. Because interpretation of the law says so. Gotcha. Like I said, literally millions of laws are ignored every day. If truth or reality counts for anything, nothing will happen to this man.
Heh, maybe that is why PC cry baby is so adamant…It may sound a tiny bit less like a cheap discriminatory double standard if you have to change more than one word.
From the quoted reg. 12.07(3) in #15, it seems one could argue that union leaders/negotiators are agents of the employer as deciders of just who is fired/laid off. In this regard Citizens United has nothing to do with it. Unions in the persons of their duly elected reps are part of reg 12.07(3) in the first place as part of the firing/laying off process. It is one legal line I would pursue, anyway.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 1307 hrs
TerryN—I don’t give a rip who the CEO is or what his political affiliation is.
Would that include the head of an alternative energy company who insinuates to his/her employees that voting against a “desired” candidate will bring forth possible retribution?
Yes - It’s his prerogative. He will end up with the workforce he deserves and the company he deserves.
TerryN—I do not support a law that prevents an employer from offering his opinion about anything they feel is in their employees best interests. Especially in a state where a union has the legal ability to do the same.
RichK—“Not sure how that differs from what Mr White wrote.”
You both clearly do not understand the law, which focuses on whether the political communication by the company head to his employees will have direct implications on their future employment should that “advice” not be heeded, i.e. their job status is in jeopardy. The law is NOT applicable to unions because they are disseminating information about a particular issue within its own ranks who share those sentiments as “equals”, not as a “superior” to a “subordinate”.
You clearly don’t understand my statement. “I do not support” does not mean I do not understand.
TerryN—“Why don’t you support your argument with out projecting your own shortcomings onto those you disagree with?”
Sounds like a personal problem on your part. I suggest you seek help.
Cop-out.
Everything I wrote stems from a deep personal belief in the first amendment.
What kind of help should I seek for that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 1310 hrs
Tuerqas—So, GCM, you are saying that unions have no say in hiring and firing? That is news to me.
What are you even talking about? How in the world does your conclusion that I seemingly made—which I did not arrive at—even remotely germane to the topic at hand?
In reference to #48, I said that the law that RC provided does NOT apply to unions because there are separate laws to deal with the issue in question. How did unions even become part of the conversation when it was the head of a company who made this statement to his employees, NOT a union leader to its members. Recall that I stated earlier that I do not know if White’s comments even meet the standard set forth by the statute (the one that Recess Supervisor provided).
Teurqas—“From the quoted reg. 12.07(3) in #15, it seems one could argue that union leaders/negotiators are agents of the employer as deciders of just who is fired/laid off.”
Perhaps, but would not this interpretation be deemed as “reading” into the statute—rather than taking it at face value—which I thought flies in the face of conservative principles. If the law meant to specific “agents of the employer” as unions, would not those who crafted the law provided that distinction? I think the “agents of the employer” refer to his/her underlings like managers, NOT members of a labor group.
TerryN—“Everything I wrote stems from a deep personal belief in the first amendment.”Then please show me where in the Constitution that corporations or unions are people who have the same POLITICAL rights as citizens. I reference my position in Comment 42. Besides, the issue is NOT about a union offering its position to its members, the issue is about an employer offering its position to its employees. Moreover, if you do say you are defending the First Amendment, then you should not have issues with labor groups giving advice to its members or its bosses, nor should you have a problem with a worker who would write a rebuttal to White and email or distribute that refutation to everyone in the company.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 1809 hrs
Some of you would do well to read the law correctly.
See, e.g.: http://sharkandshepherd.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-first-amendment-applies-to-employees.html
Too bad that our ex-leggie-aide is the least competent interpreter of the law, eh?
The Union Bosses—who DO control hires and fires—along with the Big Bosses—actually have 1st Amendment rights.
Who’da thunk?
Posted by dad29 on October 29, 2012 at 2117 hrs
Ah yes, Dad29, go to the shill, I’m mean “expert”. Confirmation bias is alive and well, I see.
“The Union Bosses—who DO control hires and fires—along with the Big Bosses—actually have 1st Amendment rights.”
Actually, no. You, nor him, failed to address the fundamental issues I presented in Comment 42. Whod’a thunk?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2012 at 2247 hrs
Gee, big shock that a guy who’s a buddy of the boss and the former general counsel of the company would have an opinion that would be supportive of the action?
Also just in, the sun will rise tomorrow. Probably in the east.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 30, 2012 at 0025 hrs
Also, for what it’s worth, there’s a lengthy but well written response in Esenberg’s comments that would be equally worth considering for the sake of context. Certainly Esenberg’s own personal biases (disclosed early in his post) don’t disqualify his opinion, but rightly should cause anyone to question whether he’s simply looking to give his friend some ex post facto justification.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 30, 2012 at 0033 hrs
GCM: you call it a ‘fundamental’ issue. It is obviously peripheral. But keep on dreaming….
Esenberg is correct: “MAY” is not the same as “WILL.” Outlining the potential effects of an Obozo re-election (not likely, anyhow) is merely informational.
What employees decide to do with the information is up to them. Some things MAY happen as a result.
That’s not a “threat.”
Posted by dad29 on October 30, 2012 at 0526 hrs
What are you even talking about? How in the world does your conclusion that I seemingly made—which I did not arrive at—even remotely germane to the topic at hand?
Simple, there are multiple topics at hand. There are topics here I have ignored because I am ignorant of them. (See how those words are related? I am interested, though, and I think this has been an intresting comment thread) One topic I was following was how the law 12.07(3) was interpreted by people here and how it is different for owners than unions, who actually have the control over hiring and firing in most instances when present. Early you were asking others where the constitution states that corps or unions have the same rights as citizens, I followed you. Then you said this:
You both clearly do not understand the law, which focuses on whether the political communication by the company head to his employees will have direct implications on their future employment should that “advice” not be heeded, i.e. their job status is in jeopardy. The law is NOT applicable to unions because they are disseminating information about a particular issue within its own ranks who share those sentiments as “equals”, not as a “superior” to a “subordinate”.
That is where I disagreed with you so I questioned it. I see unions as firing agents so a union newsletter warning to vote for blah or layoffs will come is the same as the Rite Hite letter. It was a perceived inconsistency I wanted you to explain or acknowledge. If Rite Hite had a union, they would have significant say over hiring and firing. Likely more than the executive on a threat level of who could be fired/laid off. To me, that would take away the individual threat level of the e-mail and place threat onus on the union and its written materials. I don’t think I am reading anything in to that statute at all. The union controls who gets fired. All of the people with high seniority would have no fear at all from a letter like this. Ironically, if Rite Hite had a union, the union would be threatening the newest hires directly to vote against their best chance of keeping a job while the executive couldn’t save their best workers, if they happened to be some of the newest hires.
So all I am saying is, if the letter is considered illegal, all similar threats in union writings should also be considered illegal. While you lumped CEOs and unions together I thought I understood and I agreed with you. When you separated them (or seemed to), I needed you to explain why.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2012 at 0737 hrs
The Union Bosses—who DO control hires and fires
Unless you are talking about their own internal staff, whoever told you this about unions lied to you. These organizations don’t act as the employer for the workers they represent, and thus don’t do the hire/fires.
Of course, if you have a specific union(s) in mind that does behave as such then please share that information. I’d be interested in learning more…especially how these so-called “bosses” are hired in the first place. From I understand the leadership positions are elected, but perhaps things were/are different for the union you belonged to/have in mind.
Posted by purplepenquin on October 30, 2012 at 1711 hrs
Dad29—“GCM: you call it a ‘fundamental’ issue. It is obviously peripheral. But keep on dreaming….”
Hey, the dear professor made it a fundamental issue by declaring that companies have First Amendment rights. Not peripheral in the least—keep on dreaming! So your avoidance in providing a rebuttal to Comment 42 is telling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2012 at 1717 hrs
Thank you for clarifying, Tuerqas.
Tuerqas—“One topic I was following was how the law 12.07(3) was interpreted by people here and how it is different for owners than unions, who actually have the control over hiring and firing in most instances when present.”
The decision to hire and fire rests FIRST AND FOREMOST on the employer; ergo, the law is applicable to the company, NOT the union. White is stating that HIS company will have to make economic decisions based on Obamacare, whether that means layoffs. reducing wages, moving the company, etc. As a RESULT of White’s actions, then the union will become involved.
Assume that Obama wins and Obamacare is left intact. A BIG assumption, indeed. White orders layoffs. The COMPANY , not the union, ultimately made the decision. In response to the actions of the company, the union may or may not become involved. What its response would be is irrelevant and immaterial since the law as written specifically addresses the INITIAL conduct of the employer, who CHOSE to take a course of action.
Tuerqas—“I don’t think I am reading anything in to that statute at all. The union controls who gets fired. All of the people with high seniority would have no fear at all from a letter like this.”Again, who ultimately made the decision to “layoff” or “fire” the employees…the COMPANY. And why wouldn’t those with higher seniority fear this letter? Certainly if Obamacare is fully implemented and not overturned, the COMPANY can take additional steps like further reducing its workforce and/or moving out of state. Moreover, those employees with more experience COULD be at risk if there is nothing in the union bylaws that protects them from being removed from their position. I am merely speculating here, I do not have access to the operations and procedures of Rite Hite’s union.
And, just to make sure, I am unsure that there is anything in the letter that meets the statutory language, but I would say it is up to the discretion of the DA to make the judgment call.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2012 at 1719 hrs
Continued…
Tuerqas—“Ironically, if Rite Hite had a union, the union would be threatening the newest hires directly to vote against their best chance of keeping a job while the executive couldn’t save their best workers, if they happened to be some of the newest hires.”
Perhaps, but you and others are veering away from the intent f the law, which exclusively focuses on the actions of the COMPANY.
Tuerqas—“I see unions as firing agents so a union newsletter warning to vote for blah or layoffs will come is the same as the Rite Hite letter.”
Tuerqas—“So all I am saying is, if the letter is considered illegal, all similar threats in union writings should also be considered illegal.”
Under a different law that addresses these UNION “threats”, sure. But the statute in question, if one STRICTLY reads it, directly covers the conduct of the employer. What constitutes “agents” is indeed open for judgement, but is it not up to the legislature to clarify as to what that term means?
Furthermore, in looking at the entire context of the statute, it does not state anything about unions! The law clearly states that those actions conducted by the employer will be EXCLUSIVELY addressed. What happens AFTERWARD, i.e. how the union responds to the actions taken by the company, is NOT under the purview of the statute as it was intended by the legislature.
I find it ironic that those conservatives who claim to narrowly interpret the law are “reading into it” to promote a particular cause by inferring unions ought to be under the jurisdiction of this law. How “liberal” of them!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2012 at 1722 hrs
Wrong, GCM!!
I don’t think that either a Union NOR an employer should be un-Constitutionally deprived of free speech.
But if the Company is so restrained, then the union(s) should likewise be restrained.
Sauce, gander, etc.
And the Wisconsin law is peripheral to the controversy, as it will be found un-Constitutional.
Posted by dad29 on October 30, 2012 at 2000 hrs
Dad29—“I don’t think that either a Union NOR an employer should be un-Constitutionally deprived of free speech.”
Then you would be taking an expansive view of the Constitution, which is a BIG no-no for conservatives. Enjoy your liberalism!
Dad29—“And the Wisconsin law is peripheral to the controversy, as it will be found un-Constitutional.”
Um, at the heart of the matter is a Wisconsin statute. And IF it is found unconstitutional—even though there is no one at this time questioning its legitimacy through a lawsuit (!)—then the Supreme Court may decide the merits of this case using Citizen United as the basis, although this decision may not be applicable.
So, contrary to your claim, the Wisconsin law in question and Citizens United are NOT peripheral!
Keep flailing away, it makes for great entertainment!
Again, please tell me where in the Constitution that corporations or unions are people who have the same POLITICAL rights as citizens.
Please tell me how even the legal foundation for Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), which is the basis for Citizens United, is even legitimate in the first place.Preceding every case entry is a headnote, or summary. The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, a former railroad executive (!!!), stated, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids the State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”
In other words, corporations are natural persons who are entitled to Constitutional protections such as free speech. This issue, however, is absent from the court’s ACTUAL opinion. The Supreme Court NEVER decided whether corporations are “people”, it has been wrongly assumed ever since 1886!!!
Conservative justice William Rehnquist even mentioned the dubious headnote in the Santa Clara case when he wrote a compelling dissent in a 1978 Supreme Court ruling that expanded corporate personhood. Rehnquist reiterated Chief Justice John Marshall’s views in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) that a corporation is an ARTIFICIAL BEING possessing the properties which the charter of creation confers upon it—meaning a government granted a business with the ECONOMIC right—not POLITICAL rights—to operate within its borders. Moreover, Rehnquist warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is to “confuse metaphor with reality”.
The Supreme Court has recognized two, distinct forms of free speech—economic and political. It seems now there is but one. The ruling in Citizens United centered on the POLITICAL content of their good (i.e. film) in relation to the McCain-Feingold Act, not the ECONOMIC right of Citizens United (a nonprofit corporation) to produce a good. Certainly companies have been allowed to “speak” about their product, but this “free speech” has had ECONOMIC overtones.
Previous Supreme Court decisions regarding corporate personhood specifically stated that companies were able to produce what they want and were held liable for that production, and were allowed to “voice” their concerns in public and in a court of law.
But when it came to influencing government policies through POLITICAL free speech, the Supreme Court, Congress, and state legislatures had made it a general policy for decades that those rights squarely belonged to living things, not artificially created entities, until decisions in the late 1970’s and 1980’s provided the opening for Citizens United.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2012 at 2038 hrs
Thanks for the explanation, GCM. In general, I do believe that (Harley was like this) most negotiations begin with ‘owners’ limiting the money pool in some way. Unions often negotiate the terms of those reductions and they choose whether layoffs are part of the option they go with. I can see how the unions are not in charge of layoffs, but they can often decide whether there will be any or not and I believe that most union contracts today specify that the newest workers must be laid off first. That is specifically the angle I had been thinking of.
How does that relate to a public union, then? We expect Government employees to do no campaigning on company time. If unions are made up of its members, they are all public workers. I knoiw reps keep their current jobs, but do officers in the teacher’s union quit their old job? Then they would not technically be ‘public workers’. Is that why do they not fall under illegal campaigning? Also, MPS for instance, had the choice to give up benefits or lay off people. To say that the Government is ultimately and only responsible for the layoffs is questionable to me, unless you pre-assume an endlessly increasing cash flow.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2012 at 0726 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 42
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/20/2013 12:57 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).