Hey this sounds like the guy who threatened to fire everyone if they didn't vote Romney.

The report button is available to you and you exercise the right to use it. I have no say

That said, I hardly think this is threadjacking. We're both talking about the abuse of workers by those in the position of power. That is simply wrong.

so its not credible
though it could be true
and you have nothing against it
although you think it criminal

damn you are a beatle lyric

I prefer to call them an alliance of workers exercising their ability to negotiate, which differs from legally sanctioned collusion (Union). Really, a union differs little from the medieval guild.

Simon,

Do you have any basis whatsoever to claim that he made any such statements?

I've seen him state clearly that he wasn't asking who anyone supported, nor would he treat anyone differently based on who they voted for.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/entertainment/wealthy-ceo-threatens-fire-employees-if-president-obama-re-elected

If you have anything that actually happened or was said to talk about, let's hear it!

In regard to the general topic, it's sad that we have laws against this nonsense, but we elect spineless trash who refuse to enforce them.

This is just another sad example of union thuggery. Barely any of America (not counting gov't jobs--they're real producers! haha) is unionized. It's a huge and obvious lie that unions are responsible for the success of many middle-class Americans today.

He explained himself pretty clearly.

So you're not disagreeing with or taking issue with a single thing he said. You're just ignoring his views and statements and presuming intimidation is the goal.

Despite the fact that nobody who works for him or knows him in any way has suggested he was remotely attempting to intimidate employees into voting any way, you're making an assumption with absolutely no basis.

What if... everything he said is true and he spoke honestly without intent to intimidate? He's rich. He'll be rich no matter who wins. His closing makes clear that he'll be quite comfortable either way. But, he's saying, layoffs are much more likely under a 2nd Obama term. If true, isn't that worth sharing?

Not only are you ignoring the thread's topic, but your "they're as bad as THIS GUY" claim has absolutely no basis in fact or evidence.

Yes, I do know what will happen if there is a 2nd Obama term. He'll push more of his policies w/o holding back because he'll have no reelection to worry about. If the other guy wins, he'll push different policies.

Maybe he's attempting to use his influence toward a political agenda. Maybe he's just informing his employees. Either way, informing his employees of the effects of 2nd term Obama policies is hardly forcing people to pay dues and forcing them to show support in order to avoid a fine.

That you're pretending they're parallel is just bizarre. A guy saying "Obama's policies may force us to lay off employees" is hardly analogous to "show up and show support or we'll forcibly take your money."

I just discovered that code system exists here too.

For people unsure of how to use it, type code, surrounded in [], at the beginning of the quoted material, and end with /code, surrounded in brackets.  Also, try to add enters so we don't end up with the giant scroll bar... because this code thing doesn't translate well for paragraphs. 

For people unsure of how to use it, type code, surrounded in [], at the beginning of the quoted material, and end with /code, surrounded in brackets.  Also, try to add enters so we don't end up with the giant scroll bar... because this code thing doesn't translate well for paragraphs.  tongue

It also doesn't take smiles!

[CODE] replied [/CODE]

[code]

> Einstein wrote:

> [code] test [/code]

test2

[/code]