Go look at your own example. Nothing in the example evidenced coercion regarding a political view. The problem was the employees thought it unfair they lost a day of pay when the plan was closed for a Romney political event, and the employees were encouraged to attend the event. I can see their point of view, and would be pretty unhappy if I was in their shoes (especially if I did not support Romney), but the example has nothing do with coercion of a political view. Nobody was fired for not attending.
I skimmed the TNR article regarding the company, and I agree that the company has created a "pay to play" environment that would make me uncomfortable. They are approaching a line that is very easy to cross. But I think where we disagree is our use of the word "coercion." Some hypotheticals: 1. "I am Hugo Chavez. After the election, I will be reviewing the voter rolls. If you voted for my opponent, you will be fired from your job at the state-owned energy plant." 2. " I am the President of owner of Century Mine. I only hire Republicans, so if you do not make a contribution to my favorite PAC, you won't be working for me." 3. "I am the President of Century Mine. If you do not make a contribution to my favorite PAC, I will not contract with your company so supply my business." 4. "I am David Koch. Employees, I think Obama is ruining the country. Here is a pamphlet. I encourage you to vote for candidates who support my principles. 5. "I am a Catholic bishop. If you support abortion on demand, I will not hire you to work at our local school. 6. "I am a movie producer. I will never work with Mel Gibson." Are all of these "coercive?" Should all be illegal? Should the coercive power of the state be involved in all of these decisions? David Shemano -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of raghu Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 10:09 AM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] the Master speaks On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:37 AM, David Shemano <[email protected]> wrote: > Raghu asks: >> Surely there is a point where "free speech" by employers crosses the >> line and becomes coercive, no?" > > 2. As a practical matter, in democratic capitalist countries rooted > in enlightenment values, where is the evidence that private employers > fire employees for refusing to tow a political line? So if I may summarize, you recognize that it is possible in principle for an employment relationship to become unacceptably coercive, but you believe that there are sufficient social safeguards in modern democratic societies that this is not a problem in practice. This is where I think you are being really, really naive. So instead of a hypothetical, let us look at a real-life example of something that seems very coercive to me. Do you agree that the below is a coercive act? And if so, what remedy would you recommend? http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/08/coal_miners_lost_pay_when_mitt.html ----------------------snip The Pepper Pike company that owns the Century Mine told workers that attending the Aug. 14 Romney event would be both mandatory and unpaid, a top company official said Monday morning in a West Virginia radio interview. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
