Employers Are Right To Endorse Candidates

By Daniel Tetzlaff, 10/26/2012
 

With less than two weeks to go before Americans choose between re-electing Barack Obama and electing Mitt Romney, one Milwaukee-area business has come under fire for sending an e-mail to its employees warning them of the negative tax consequences that another Obama term would guarantee. The attacks on this business are unwarranted, hypocritical, and designed to intimidate other businesses from voicing similar concerns.

Note: In the text below, when I refer to "employer", I am referring to the business owner. And when I refer to the employer (or business owner) as "he", "she" is also implied.

Here are some excerpts from the email in question: "Every Rite-Hite employee in America should understand the personal consequences to them of having our tax rates increase dramatically if President Obama is re-elected... The tax rate we pay is not 17%, as Warren Buffet 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 (retirement) contributions... The other big impact on Rite-Hite employees, if President Obama is re-elected, is the good chance of losing Rite-Hite insurance and being put into Obamacare"

It closes by saying, "Neither Rite-Hite nor I will ever prejudice any employee for their political views, and, totally respect your right to vote as you choose. I simply am trying to present the facts as I know them and to protect the business you have helped build! Please think very carefully about your vote on November 6th."

As you can clearly read, while the employer advocates against re-electing president Obama, he does not tell his employees how they must vote, nor does he say that their vote is a condition of their employment. Nobody is advocating for that, so any argument against it is nothing but a straw man. Everyone agrees that a person's decision to vote and whom to vote for is a private decision that cannot be held against them.

With that said, this employer did absolutely nothing wrong. Let me explain:

1) If it is okay for union leaders to openly-advocate for and against certain politicians, usually much more forcibly and relentlessly than in this example, why is not okay for the employers to do the same? Again, the employer was not threatening any employee, so that argument is invalid. The truth is that there is no reason why one side of the table should be able to engage in this activity (on a daily basis) and the other side should not (even once).

2) Employers have the constitutional right to express their political views just as does anyone else, including the employees, unions, and newspapers. If I remember correctly, this is covered under amendment number one. Some argue that this employer's actions run afoul of state election law. Whether or not his e-mail violated the letter and/or spirit of the law could be debated by experienced lawyers, constitutional scholars, and even Supreme Court justices.

Suffice it to say that a law that prevents an employer from expressing his political views is a terrible (if not unconstitutional) law. Especially when you consider that the free-speech component of the first amendment was crafted to protect political speech above all others. This law strikes me like something that would come out of Atlas Shrugged or 1984: Thou must not speak out against the state! (All for the greater good, of course!)

If an employer feels threatened by the political landscape, he should have the ability to advocate against that landscape, even if it comes in the form of advocating between candidates in an election. For if the employer is not allowed to defend and protect his business, what is left of free enterprise?

3) From an employee's perspective, there is no harm in receiving this e-mail. The worst that could happen is that the employee disagrees with its content. End of story. If I received an email from my employer warning me that the election of Romney would be bad for my company (bear with me), I would either consider the arguments, or disagree and delete the email. I most certainly would not forward it to the newspaper in effort to shame my employer and intimidate other employers.

There is nobody more invested in the long term success of a business than its owner. So if these employees are at all concerned about the success of their company, its future growth, and the compensation (both in salary and benefits) that it can offer, they should welcome the thoughts of the entity most interested in its success. Instead, they publicly criticize their employer.

Instead of simply deleting the email and moving on with life, these easily-offended employees are trying to deprive employees in other companies from hearing the opinion of their employer. These actions are selfish, petty, bullying, and politically motivated -- the same thing they are complaining about in the first place.

4) In the case of this employer, one of his specific concerns was that the re-election of Obama would guarantee the implementation of Obamacare, which would in turn mean a high likelihood that he would have to drop the health insurance plan for his employees. In this case, not only does the employer have the right to speak his mind, he also has the duty to do so. Especially if speaking his mind could help prevent the loss of healthcare coverage in the first place! The fact that these employees are complaining about learning about the real-world effects of this election are proof that they are nothing but politically-motivated phonies.

Furthermore, there is a law (the WARN act) that says companies must notify employees months before certain layoffs occur. How ironic is it, therefore, that the same employers who are subject to the WARN act are at the same time being told that they cannot advocate for political positions that would help prevent layoffs in the first place!

5) Let's do a thought experiment. It is well known that the vast majority of business owners are conservative. It is also well known that the vast majority of college professors are liberal. Let's reverse the rolls! Let's pretend that business owners were predominantly liberal (pardon the suspension of disbelief). There is no doubt in my mind that these liberal business owners would be far more likely to engage in political advocacy and tell their employees who they should vote for. Perfect example? Union leaders!

And you know what? It would be their right... their freedom of expression. And no one would really care. No one would protest. No one would complain to the newspaper and get all bent out of shape. Back in the real world, I am saddened, but not surprised, at yet another example of the left complaining about free speech when they don't like its content.

6) What does it say about the left that getting a non-threatening email that methodically details the consequences of an election is received with such anger? As mentioned above, unions constantly send out far more threatening material to employees, funded with often-involuntary dues payments. And yet I rarely ever hear any complaints. Proof that the left cannot stand taking even 1% of their own medicine.

This situation does serve as a perfect example of how the left needs to control the flow of ideas in order for their ideology to survive. They are horrified at the existence of Fox News, the only major non-liberal news channel. They despise right-wing talk radio to the point that many of them support the so-called "fairness doctrine", which would effectively kill talk radio. They fully support, without exception, the right of college professors to spew left-wing vitriol and hate. They do everything in their power (legally, regulatory, and judicially) to increase the power of unions to confiscate money and spend it politically. And now they have a full-court press out to intimidate employers not to advocate political views (for they disagree with those views). If liberalism was such a successful ideology, why do they need to be so protective and defensive of it?

How about instead of constantly criticizing employers, we all start thanking them. These employers risk lots, often everything they own, and in doing so, provide livings for their employees. God forbid they try to protect the businesses that they built and look out for the same employees that love to criticize them. The government's laws and regulations are already stacked against business to a magnitude never before seen in this country. Just in the past few years they have come under fire for being profitable, and now they are coming under fire for trying to save their companies and improve the compensation of their employees.

With everyone so anti-business, is it really a surprise that there are so many people that can't find a job?

Contact: dantcv@hotmail.com

Further Reading:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/175797801.html
http://media.jsonline.com/documents/RiteHiteMemo.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203897404578078583845366670.html