Simply put, ignore it, and realize that if he decides to fulfill his Galt dreams, plenty of folks will take his place. He’s not a special snowflake.
Union members are forced to donate to political causes that are against their beliefs through required payroll deductions. There is no opt out. Just ask any California union teacher or prison guard.
What party gets what percentage of union political money?
Yup. Which is why I’d like it if he DID go. Whoever replaces him is likely to be more worker-friendly.
Zak - Which safety nets are those? Sorry, this isn’t the 1970’s any more, the rules on relief for mortgages have been severely pruned back, housing benefit has been cut by a third and more in most areas and JSA is a quarter of the minimum wage. America does more for people.
Scuzz, that’s all an interesting topic of its own, but I don’t see why it’s relevant here. What’s the relation?
Just turned the equation around. An owner expressing his political opinion to the employees differs in what way from a union expressing it’s political opinion to the owner.
The owner can fire the worker. A union can’t bar an employee from working.
Bingo.
Where do the donations that unions give political parties come from? Do those donations come from members’ dues?
As far as I know they do and you cannot opt out from them, regardless of your agreement/dis-agreement with the candidate or issue. California has a proposition on the ballot trying to end that but it is written to slanted the other way and should fail.
And there’s several examples of why I agree there’s an interesting discussion to be had about all that stuff. I just think it’s a bad analogy for the email this guy sent out.
This has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the continued pussification of the uber rich in America. No longer content with solid gold toilets and private jets, their appetites must now be sated with the undying respect and adoration due to those who have accumulated or inherited vast amounts of wealth. What they’re whining about is a perceived tone on behalf of the Obama administration which seems to echo the complaints of the Occupy movement.
By his own calculations, Siegal’s company has had its most profitable period during Obama’s first term.
True that both the last labour party and now the current tory-lib party have been hammering at welfare. But if you lose your job you still get something, and if you get into such dire straights that that is not enough, you move onto other entitlements to ensure you get housed. We don’t just throw people out on the streets (some chose that) to live in tents, for example.
If i had to be poor anywhere, america would be right down the bottom of my list of desirable places to be!!(you can google all around this subject of the american underclass, disenfranchised etc, it’s the flip side to the american dream, the product of ‘ultra capitalism’ etc).
Aww, he thinks he’s an early 20th century robber baron. How cute.
What “entitlements”? There is NOTHING beyond HB and JSA, for people in private rented accomodation. Most people on JSA are paying at least 25% of the JSA on housing costs now (since HB doesn’t cover it all, and that’s before bills), and that’s going to rise at 10-15% per year*! Worse, if you leave because you can’t pay in most cases you’re “intentionally homeless”, and even if you have kids the council won’t house you! (You have to hang on, wreck your credit rating and get thrown out by bailiffs! Then the landlord sets debt collectors onto you…)
(*HB will be now increased by a measure of inflation, once per year, which is a good 10% below actual rent rises (i.e. HB uprated 2.5%, rents rise 12.5%)! It’s no longer linked to actual rents - and if your math says there’s a problem within a very few years, where people can’t afford to live anywhere on HB…there IS!)
I’d rather be in America, where I could get a % salary for a period if I lost my job. (And no, it’s ILLEGAL to pitch tents like that in the UK - we had nearly exterminated rough sleeping, but it’s soaring again - we’re about 3 months away from homeless shelters being at 100% capacity, then it’ll overflow) Where there are food stamps. Where there are two orders of magnitudes more charities, and all kinds of assistance programs which closed in the UK through the 60’s and 70’s because they were no longer needed.
You’re grossly overestimating the British safety net, which was already threadbare before the Coalition came in.
Romney steps up and puts a stern wall between employers and employees, protecting the latter’s voting rights based on conservative principles of individual freedom.
Oops, I mean, Romney gives business owners his endorsement for this kinda shit.
He stops short of telling them, “tell your employees to vote for me!” but given that he’s talking to a highly conservative business group, the odds of them being packed with Obama supporters is…slim. Nice of him to tell them there’s nothing illegal about trying to influence your employees’ votes through fear, though!
Having your boss tell you who he thinks you should vote for isn’t really some kind of problem.
Again, since he has no idea who you vote for… who cares?
Many businesses hold strategic meetings to discuss the future of their company based upon possiible scenarios. These scenarios include the effects of political change, as they can influence taxes, the labor market, and regulations. Some scenarios will be financially better for the company than others. Making that known to your employees is by no means illegal or unethical. In fact, it should be appreciated as it can provide a better understanding of the challenges faced for those who normally keep their noses to the grindstone and attention elsewhere.
However, saying that your employees should vote based upon what is financially better for the company, the rest of the issues be damned, is unethical as it’s leveraging your position of power against those under you in order to create a hostile environment for those who would speak against such a notion. It’s still not illegal.
Saying that you’re going to lay people off if candidate X is elected is downright hideous, and still not illegal.
Seriously? Since he has no idea who you vote for, he keeps badgering you nonstop.
Having a boss who wants to talk about politics is, actually, a problem.
Easy - lie.