Florida company warns employees they may lose jobs if Biden is elected.

No, you're the one who doesn't get it. Nothing causes inflation more than the HUGE deficit sponsored by Trump's tax cuts as it weakens the dollar, and nothing destroys an economy more than a pandemic that is UNCONTROLLED. By the way, while you're not directing this to me, the stereotype that anybody who is against Trump is flipping burgers or handing out mail is ridiculous. My net worth and my income both place my household in the top 2% of America. Chances are (98%) that I'm wealthier and make more money than you do.

 

How can it be. Voting is private. Nobody can confirm how you voted. Voter intimidation is attempting to stop people from voting altogether.

 

Actually inflation is caused by increasing the money supply. Printing money dilutes the value of the existing money. Deficit spending is certainly bad. It affects national debt but not the value of the dollar.

 

So don't inform your employees of business???

If I was a stock holder I would like to know.

 

https://abc7.com/donald-trump-layoffs-pay-stub-election/7154014/

 

Every time I read that I think how badly that you screwed it up.

It does not say that he will fire his employees if they vote for Biden. He is saying that if Biden wins, economic conditions may require that the business will lay people off or they will close completely. That is not a threat of any kind by the business owners. That is their concern if Biden wins.

 

This thread has proven something I've suspected all along - if a PF lefty says 'up', the PF righties will say 'down'. It doesn't matter what the subject is or the point being made. I can't imagine that anyone reading this story wouldn't be offended by an employer using these political tactics.

 

Sure but that's if the situation remains manageable. Currently the Fed is against printing money to meet deficit spending and debt obligations, but until when?
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2019/11/01/making-sense-of-the-national-debt

 

Is this the first time you've noticed this?
It's been a feature of our political polarization forever.
Here is what it is for a rightist, and it's exactly the opposite of it for a leftist (and neither side is correct; they are both wrong in this black-and-white thinking because there are nuances):

A Republican governor came up with the ideas that at one point became Obamacare. While it was a Republican proposing it, GOOD. Once Obama proposed it, BAD.
Obama's stimulus, BAD. Trump's stimulus, GOOD.
Obama's deficit, BAD. Trump's deficit, GOOD.
Obama deporting illegals and opening detention centers at the border, BAD. Trump deporting illegals and opening detention centers at the border, GOOD.
Obama using drones to go after terrorists, BAD. Trump using drones to go after terrorists, GOOD.
Obama ordering Osama bin Laden killed, BAD (in the sense that "it wasn't Obama who did it."). Trump ordering Soleimani killed, GOOD.
Hillary having a private email server, BAD. Ivanka having a private email server, GOOD.
Obama/Biden putting pressure on foreign officials to accomplish some objectives, BAD. Trump putting pressure on foreign officials to accomplish some objectives, GOOD.
Obama engaging in international trade treaties, BAD. Trump engaging in international trade treaties, GOOD.
Obama willing to dialogue diplomatically with Iran, BAD. Trump willing to dialogue diplomatically with North Korea, GOOD.
Obama warming up to Putin (the famous live mike thing), BAD. Trump warming up to Putin, GOOD.
Obama proposing some sort of job-creating initiative, BAD (Mitchell blocked it). Trump proposing some sort of job-creating initiative, GOOD.
Obama nominating a justice during the last year of his term, BAD. Trump nominating a justice during the last year of his term, GOOD.
Protection for pre-existing medical conditions under Obamacare, BAD. Protection for pre-existing medical conditions under Trump's executive order, GOOD.
Obama dealing with the H1N1 pandemic, BAD. Trump dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, GOOD.

In summary:

Black man, BAD. Orange man, GOOD.

Now, get to a leftist, and all of the above reverses, and in summary we have:

Black man, GOOD. Orange man, BAD.

Well, of course, the truth is that Black man is not all good and not all bad, and orange man is not all good and not all bad.

Other than the endless bickering, the above actually is VERY detrimental to our country because we are in a situation of endless political paralysis. What one party proposes or does, the other party blocks or undoes, at the first opportunity. The result is that we don't go anywhere.

Meanwhile much wiser and smarter countries like Singapore, Germany, and China continue to progress, while we're stalled. These countries are improving more and more in economic terms, in scientific terms, and in overall power.

I just recently read an article saying that the next superpowers will be Germany and China (Singapore would be one too if they were bigger; they are content in being an extremely proficient small country).

The problem with that, is the lesson that History has taught us (and we apparently haven't learned). When Germany becomes too powerful, there is trouble. When China becomes too powerful, there was regional imperialistic trouble which at the time was confined to the region but now China is acquiring global reach. There will be trouble. To a smaller degree, Russia will also benefit from the decline of the American empire and may as well become again a superpower (later, if they diversify more their economy and modernize their military); it is very significant that just this past week, Putin said that a military alliance between Russia and China is not excluded. We went into a 70-year effort to make of Germany an ally and to integrate it into Europe to neutralize its penchant for extending themselves beyond their borders and threatening world peace. That was a huge success. But now we're alienating Germany and we're watching while the European Union falls apart and NATO weakens (we should have engaged in a huge diplomatic effort to keep them together although I don't know if we'd succeed or just be seen as interfering).

So what have we been doing is that we're focused on bickering domestic policies while we're ignoring geopolitics. As the previous leaders of the free world, we took our eyes off the ball. That is a recipe for disaster.

The world will only get tougher as the decades go buy and natural resources become scarcer to sustain a growing population. Soon enough drinking water, non-polluted farm land, sources of energy will become huge assets that power blocs will vie for, and compete for. At one point something will break.

To ensure our safety and our sustainable assets, we should be politically agile, we should be doing stuff, we should be moving forward instead of paralyzed, and we should be enhancing and solidifying our alliance with Canada and Western Europe (plus the Eastern part of Europe that has already joined the EU and NATO). An extremely solid, even better integrated and more powerful and better funded NATO from the military standpoint, and economic/energy integration with Canada and the European Union would be extremely desirable goals to have to be able to continue to keep Germany in the flock and to counter China and Russia. Might as well include Mexico in this. Unlike all the racist ideas against brown people, actually bigger integration with Mexico would add to our advantages; they are economically very important to us, and they do supply the unskilled labor that is also essential to developed countries that end up having their own citizens unwilling to take those jobs - it would be lovely if we could do this legally with a true integration of resources instead of having to deal with illegal immigration and not a lot of power from our end to deal with drug cartels. If we saw Mexico as allies and important partners and mutually beneficial both countries would be doing better.

So, I'd favor a defensive and economic integration between all of North America and all of Western Europe (plus part of Eastern Europe), making a solid and hugely powerful block; Russia and China would be unable to mess with us for the next century or so (hard to plan beyond that, who knows if we'll even be around or manage to destroy ourselves as a species?).

I wouldn't include South America in this (too much dilution, too large a territory, too many disadvantage populations) but would then encourage extensive economic and military cooperation with them from our powerful bloc, so that they wouldn't be attracted to China's sphere of influence. It looks like it's too late for that; Brazil, the engine of South America, was solidly in our camp then drifted decisively to China (as a member of BRICS); they did swing back once Jair Bolsonaro was elected but I think it's temporary; once he leaves power Brazil will likely swing back to China's camp); Venezuela and Bolivia are pro-Russia.

It's a shame how we allowed our backyard, South America, which should be solidly with us, to drift away. We did that by paying little attention to them and actually by being abusive to them... instead of recognizing their geopolitical value and treating them better. But I think it's too late to reverse that. Not Mexico, though. They are more connected to us than other parts of Latin America. So we should solidify that. And again, should solidify our alliance with our neighbors to the North and our relatives from across the pond.

Instead we're becoming more isolated, more withdrawn, more nationalistic.

I'm sure people here will accuse me of globalism. It's not that. It's because I'm thinking in geopolitical terms. I'm think of what this world will become in 30 years, in 50 years. I'm thinking of my future grandchildren. A North American / Western-part of Eastern Europe military and economic bloc is the way to survive the turbulent times that will surely come.

Instead, we're allowing all of it to fall apart in the name of various nationalisms (ours, the UK's, other future defections from the EU like the separatist movements in Barcelona, Northern Italy, Hungary drifting too far to the right, Turkey all but gone - that's another thing, it was nice to have secular, enlightened, powerful Turkey as European and Western-friendly in the Muslim world; that is gone, now - etc.).

We've been VERY stupid. We are playing a huge price for it, in all levels - economic, scientific, public health-wise, influence-wise, and even if we remain the most military powerful nation, that is changing).

I pity my grandchildren...

 

I never apologize or make excuses for having a global view. We can learn so much from other countries' successes and failures. Plus, we all share this planet. You can't look to the future with your eyes only in your own yard.

 

Thats not intimidation. If the company believes Biden's liklihood to increase regulations will cost them jobs, its in the employees interest know that when they cast their vote.

 

that is a crime, the owner should be investigated, businesses can not tell employees they will be fired if they don't vote for who the want

that said, if Trump doesn't get a stimulus plan soon, many are gonna be without jobs

 

if he told the employees but not the shareholders, that is another crime

and firing the whistle blower, he pretty much proves the whistle blowers case right there

 

Bottom line is your boss or your company cannot link your employment to your vote, it is illegal.

 

A business decision?

How can they stay in business if the government bankrupts them?

 

He is not, he is just informing them, didn't your ever go to employee meetings?

 

No that's YOUR job when you post a thread here.

 

No, even if the boss thinks so, the ACT of telling his employees about it is CLEARLY meant to influence how they vote and can be EASILY understood as a threat, thus, it is a federal crime. Sure, THIS administration won't do anything about it... but if the administration changes hands, this boss is risking federal prosecution.

 

It's voter INFORMATION.

 

howsat?

Would you want someone working for you who interprets your advice regarding their job security as 'intimidation' and goes to the press?

 

Here's why you got no link.......

It’s not against the law for business owners to talk politics with their employees, but some Daniels Manufacturing workers said the letter went a step too far.

Poor babies it hurt their feelings. They can always quit, there are a lot of people out of work and the jobs will be filled quickly.

 

What crime? It's not against the law for an employer to talk to his employees about politics. I looked up the company, it looks to be privately owned....read that no stockholders.

 

So the boss can't advise employees about things that are likely to effect their job security? Thats simply ridiculous.

 

No it isn't. You have to specifically tell someone to do something. The letter did not demand any form of action.

As for the termination, there is not enough information available to determine if the employee was exempt or non-exempt, as well as a participant in a collective bargaining agreement or even held some form of tenure.

If the company is privately owned, the employee has no standing whatsoever.

 

If Biden wins a whole lot of people will lose their jobs.