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

Frick'in School Systems in conjunction with Teacher/Education Unions do it all the time and often lie. This employer has a right to inform its employees of anything that could possibly impact their employment.

 

Absolutely.... And it won't be pretty !!!

 

Lowering taxes does not cause deficits; overspending causes deficits, you Democrat. Spending more than you take in can be exemplified on the microeconomic level in which a person has a variable a income with which they use to cover variable b expenses. As b becomes greater than a, their buying power becomes less. This is simple economics.

What we need to do is to greatly contract the scope of the American federal government to where it was at the inception of the republic, not implement a multi-trillion dollar government healthcare system, which Biden wants to do, which will greatly catalyze inflation. We take in less than we spend; and this was the case before the Trump tax cuts, when taxes were higher under Obama. Biden increasing taxes will not come close to covering his healthcare implementation; inflation will still skyrocket, and people will have less buying power to cover the cost.

I never said that anyone who is against Trump is flipping burgers or handing out mail. I was, and speaking about someone "who doesn't get it," referencing a scene in the movie 25th Hour.



Continuing that theme, I guess you are a trust fund baby with chronic bad breath?

You'll never know. But to give you some food for thought, I am a software engineer who helps build system software, plus I have side projects building apps, so the chances are unlikely. Either way, the point is moot. Lebron James makes more money than I do, but I am smarter than he is, as I don't pretend to read books, for example.

 

The word you want is affect, not effect.
What is ridiculous is you not seeing that this is voter intimidation.
We all know you'd be screaming bloody murder if someone did the exact same thing, just, telling the employees that if they didn't vote for Biden, etc.

 

it's a crime to tell them they will be fired if their choice of candidate loses and then fire any employee that tells on them

"The president of the company at Daniels Manufacturing Corporation in Florida gave each of his employees a letter"

looked like a corporation to me, maybe they are private, not sure - so they may not have to worry about that crime then

 

That not what he said.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dan...ECAUQBA&biw=1536&bih=733#imgrc=kD2HIB4ICK4AuM

Go there and read it for yourself.

 

Merely linking ones job to how they vote is an intimidation technique and in this case was definitely an attempt to influence how the employees voted in the upcoming election.

 

A business decision should be made based upon facts. What facts have been made available to the employer about the future of his company? What, exactly, about a Biden presidency makes him KNOW that his business will be shuttered? It is fear mongering and voter intimidation.

 

No, you don't have to tell someone to do something. As you can see from this snip from Florida's code, it's sufficient that there's an
attempt to induce people to vote a certain way, directly or indirectly.

Remember too that in law, evidence is often evaluated in light of a "reasonable person's understanding". One of the first thoughts a reasonable person might have is that if the owner was genuinely concerned about the outcome of the election, he could have waited until after the results were in. Instead, he chose to communicate the possibility of job losses should the results go a certain way, as a pay stub enclosure, a week or so before his employees would be voting. A reasonable person will have no doubt as to his intent.

104.0515 Voting rights; deprivation of, or interference with, prohibited; penalty.—

(3) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate,
threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or not to vote as
that person may choose, or for the purpose of causing such other person to vote for, or not vote for, any candidate for any
office at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

104.0615 Voter intimidation or suppression prohibited; criminal penalties.—

(2) A person may not directly or indirectly use or threaten to use force, violence, or intimidation or any tactic of coercion
or intimidation to induce or compel an individual to:
(b) Vote or refrain from voting for any particular individual or ballot measure;​

 

Linking the employees job security to the outcome of the election was a direct threat to their future job security and a definite attempt to influence their voting decision. COERCION.

 

Go to the link I posted and read the whole letter. He said with the reduced travel due to Covid-19 and with the Democrats typically defunding the military could cause a drop in business, hence the layoffs. Daniels is an Aerospace Manufacturing company.

 

Was the letter ever posted?, like I said I read the article a few days ago and it wasn't in the it. There are many reasons why a small business owner could feel the company could be endanger with a Democrat president, 1,000"s of new rules and regulations like we seen with the Obama presidency, or the threat of $15 an hour are some examples.

 

Biden wants to implement a multi-trillion dollar healthcare plan, and increase taxes to pay for it. The taxes will not cover the cost, which will increase inflation. Plus, he wants to force all businesses, no matter their income, to pay all their employees at least $15 an hour. To think this would have no negative effect on businesses is living in la-la land.

 

So the wrong president wins, the company goes out of business due to what ever new rules or regulations..

The employee goes home to his wife and kids and says I don't know what happened, they lose the house the kids end up in foster care, the wife leaves the guy and he is now living under a bridge blaming everyone except the truth because no one told him the consequences?

 

Hell no. My boss in Canada blames Trump for the problems we have in the US side of the company, that causes him to consider closing it entirely. Its not Trumps fault that they can't/won't draw up a contract that adequately protects us from the predictably unpredictable of course, but thats neither here nor there. The point is that its not voter intimidation for him to tell me that he believes Trump is a danger to my continued employment, which is not meaningfully different from what the boss in the OP did.

 

Yes and don't you think that $600,000 contribution to the presidents campaign is not an attempt to gain more aerospace business for his company. We see what a major contribution got Dirty Donalds puppet postmaster general, and his now departed former U.N. ambassador who was a star witness at his impeachment trial.

 

Well the solution is listen to your boss and don't vote for Trump, on a side note just curious why does your boss says that?

 

Maybe. Actually I'm not very knowledgeable about economics. My wife is, and she's always the one who takes care of our investments, and is the interface between us and our financial advisors, our accountant, our real state agent, etc. She brings papers to me and says "sign here." She is self-taught, having read numerous books in micro and macro-economics and investing. Amazing woman. This being the case, I've always taken care of other aspects of our life, so I've never felt like educating myself in these matters. If you are more knowledgeable on this than I am, then I'll defer to your superior expertise and say that I stand corrected. More on this below, though.

Oh, I'm not a Democrat, at all. Not a leftist either. How easy it is to make assumptions about others here. LOL...

Again, I'm no economist. Certain economists, though, see Biden's plan more favorably than Trump's. I just recently read an article saying so. Sorry, I didn't retain the link but it's out there. Not excluded, though, that the article is biased. As we know, there are rightist economists and leftist economists out there, and they say different things about the same stuff, depending on what think tank is the source of what is being said, and its ideological inclination.

You are right that you never SAID it; I concede this point; but you implied it. Even if you did it through a movie quote, it's still implied as you picked this specific movie scene.

By the way, on the matter of quoting a movie, how cute, and how juvenile. People who love to quote movies, I find them to be usually very silly, and intellectual lightweights (they need to borrow from the insights of other people, namely directors and playwrights). I am in no obligation to "get it" because you're a fan of some movie. You may feel like a brilliant insider for being a fan of this particular movie which I've never watched (interesting, a rightist who likes Spike Lee; how ironic), but if we were to talk about cinematic culture and some masterpieces of domestic independent and international cinema, I'd hold my own (including due to my ability to understand the original sound track of movies in the five major languages I'm fully fluent in). Maybe it's not your case, though (the silly lightweight part), as I don't like to issue personal attacks. But I can comment on the post itself (which is not a personal attack): silly post.

No, I'm not. A good chunk of my wealth comes from 40 years of professional activity in a very very very highly paid profession, and my wife's who shares the same profession with me (39 years in her case), plus, wise investments over those years, and smart real state transactions and valuation. It is true, though, that another very significant chunk (actually, predominant) comes from a very substantial inheritance I got when my father passed away, including several rental properties, a factory, and a farm. However, I was already independently wealthy when he passed, out of my hard work and my wife's hard work, day in, day out for decades.

Oh, and my breath is very sweet. What a silly stereotype (and actually THIS is a personal attack, LOL). The intellectual lightweight theme remains, though. Many who adopt this style of "debating" - accusing an opponent of something as silly as having bad breath - do so out of inability to take it to a deeper level. Again, maybe it's not your case. And again, I can say that this *is* a silly statement.

No, they aren't. Software engineer? Sorry, not impressed. My profession is WAAAAAY better paid than yours; plus, I doubt that whatever you own, matches what my father left me, which is extremely substantial. The only way you're wealthier than me, is if you belong to the top 1%. I'm close, but not there yet. I guess in some regards (as of now, more in potential than already accomplished, but getting close every month), I actually am in the low end of the top 1% after all, and this should materialize once we finish modernizing the factory and the farm, which under my father in his late and more frail years, were productive but falling behind; we're slowly bringing them up to speed. Once they are fully competitive again, that will place me solidly in the top 1%.

Oh, how impressive, you're smarter than Lebron James! You actually read books! LOL. Or maybe you don't read books, but at least you don't pretend that you do. Great! Honesty is a plus. If that's the case, I'm happy for you that you are aware of your shortcomings. It's always the first step. I do recommend book reading, though. Try it. It's fun and conducive of personal growth (as long as you can understand what you read).

Maybe you're smarter than Lebron James, buddy, but I doubt you're smarter than me. My IQ has been professionally measured, as in, not the crap you find in the Internet, but a battery of validated real IQ tests applied and scored by a professional psychologist in a controlled and timed environment, and my score is sky high. Again, if you don't score in a very very very high percentile, then chances are that you aren't smarter than me.

But anyway, I can't know for sure because I don't know you and this is an anonymous forum, and claims made here can't be proven (yours can't, and mine can't either), so I can only talk about statistical probabilities. I find it profoundly unlikely that you are wealthier and/or smarter than I am. Statistically unlikely, given that only a very small fraction of the population is wealthier than I am, and only an even smaller fraction of the population is smarter than I am. But hey, maybe you ARE one of those rare individuals. I'd say, though, that especially for the "smart" claim, the silly aspect in your posts makes it even less likely. I'd say that someone who quotes movies to make a point, feels proud of it, compares himself to Lebron James, accuses a debate opponent of having bad breath (what is this, elementary school recess???), and says he's smart, is definitely not very impressive regarding intellectual gravitas.

Do observe that I only talked about MY intelligence in response to your claims of being smart. You know, people who are really smart usually don't spontaneously claim to be. Do you know what's the most common self-assessment statement issued by intellectually disabled people (a.k.a. in the past, the mentally r........; the terminology changed as the old one was considered to be politically incorrect)? You ask them, "what do you like about yourself?" and almost invariably the answer is, "I'm smart."

Again, before I run into trouble with the moderators, I'm not implying that it's necessarily your case. I'm just saying, people who are really smart usually don't spontaneously advertise it (unless they are RESPONDING to implied attacks from others).

Do you want to prevail over me in the matter of macro-economics? You can. It's relatively easy as I'm no authority, and I don't shy away from saying "I stand corrected" when the topic is not among those that I know well. I would be better informed in micro-economics (and to some degree, macro, although not necessarily), if my wife's skills weren't such that she took control of this in our household much before we became seriously wealthy. Almost everything else? It will be harder for you to prevail over me, unless you abandon the silly approach and issue something of actual substance. Talk is cheap. Actually impressing someone by posting strong argumentation is not as cheap.

 

He mostly just says it because he's a die hard establishmentarianist and doesn't like Trump, but also because according to him, American cities are a lot more stingy with their money than Canadian cities since Trump got elected and he has to be a lot more careful when reviewing contracts for jobs down here.

Which is great in the long run. Its not great for me personally because it makes my job harder as I have to meet tighter deadlines with more oversight... but ultimately it means our municipalities are being more careful in how they spend my hard earned money. Finally!

 

Sorry, just read post #85 above; the law will apply to a "reasonable person" standard, and this boss went really out of his way in writing a letter to each employee warning the person merely weeks before the election. The other example I quoted is even more impressive, with the landlord warning each of his tenants that he will increase the rent if Biden wins or freeze it if Trump wins. Why in the hell does he need to say so before the fact? AFTER the election, depending of the outcome, he might address his tenants saying "given the circumstances of the current economic outlook I'm regretfully forced to increase the rent" etc. BEFORE the election, any reasonable person will see it as voter intimidation, and the law will see it the same way.

Besides, we don't even know what an eventual Biden economy will be. For all we know, maybe it will be better than Trump's, for example, in case this big economy destroyer called the Covid-19 pandemic gets under control, or, any eventual over-spending or tax regulation or business regulation Biden might want to implement, doesn't materialize due to a Senate still in Republican hands. Trump may win the election and some other economic disaster may fall on us, given his erratic administration. So, no, the statement is an exercise in futurology, and is clearly related to the election, and is clearly able to be understood by the law as voter intimidation.

Again, what would you have said if the boss had made the exact same statement but recommending a vote for Biden (saying, for example, that his economic sector will continue to suffer badly from an out-of-control Covid-19 pandemic and he trusts Biden more to correct the situation therefore his business will thrive more under Biden)? Honestly, what would you have said, in this case?

 

Daniels didn’t threaten to fire anyone. Not sure where that came from but somebody said it and others just ran with it. Read the article.

https://abc13.com/donald-trump-layoffs-pay-stub-election/7154014/
Quote from Daniels -
"I have been doing this for years. I have an obligation to let workers know what could happen, based on the outcome of an election. They certainly should vote for the candidate they want."

Quote from Smith -

"I don't feel like it was correct, to do something like that," Smith said. "That's like me coming to work--because we had all these black killings--and I should come in here and I should wear a Black Lives Matter shirt and bring out hats and pass them out to everyone. I felt like it was unfair.”

Smith is hurt because he’s a Biden voter and he doesn’t want to face the fact that he could potentially be laid off. He needs to put on his big boy pants and face the reality...but by all means vote for the candidate you choose!

 

So you don't want educated voters? Also how can you compare a virus with no known vaccine to a political policy ?

 

That he's trying to protect his business and his employees by telling them what he thinks will happen.

Lets examine the other extreme- if this was a company that manufactured ARs for the civilian market and they said 'there will probably be layoffs if Biden/Harris win and pass an AWB'- would that be 'intimidation' or can we just call it an honest prediction?

 

Look, even if these predictions were valid (again, they are an exercise in futurology, forgetting that it's not just the White House but actually to get bills to be laws, there is something called Congress) there is no point in warning the employees right before the election. What will happen, will happen, business-wise. The attempt to address each employee about it days before the election is what is easily understood by any reasonable person as an attempt at intimidation. If you read the law (posted by another poster in #85 above), it is EXTREMELY clear that it does fall under the intimidation threshold, and sorry, considering the bulk of your posting here, I don't believe for a minute that you wouldn't be screaming bloody murder if this boss and this landlord had warned the employees/tenants that voting for Biden would be a job security / rent stability move.

 

quote what you are talking about