On 10/23/12 2:06 PM, David Shemano wrote: > 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? >
This could not be more bogus. When the FBI sent a Cointelpro postcard to Met Life basically fingering me as a commie, my boss told me that if I received another, they would find out who sent it and fire them. In big corporations, they really don't give a crap what you think about capitalism one way or the other. I have no idea why people are wasting their time arguing this. The real issue is the power of big money to control ideas. Assuming that the TRN above is a reference to The New Republic, you have a case of some dickwad millionaire using his money to take a liberal magazine and turn it into a pro-imperialist, Likudnik rag. Murdoch did the same thing with the NY Post. PBS and NPR censor all ideas to the left of Mother Jones. Who cares if Koch tells his employees how to vote. When you go into a ballot box, you are more likely to vote on the basis of whether you are a Democrat or a Republican to start with. If you are a "swing voter", you are not going to be swayed by your boss. Here's the real reason to get upset with the Kochs: http://www.juancole.com/2011/05/the-koch-brothers-and-the-end-of-state-universities.html The Koch Brothers and the End of State Universities The real scandal around the endowment by the Koch brothers of two chairs at Florida State University is that state universities now have to seek such outside money and accept strings. The reason they have to do so is that many state legislatures have chosen not to have state universities any more. At many ‘state universities’ the state contribution to the general operating fund is less than 20 percent, falling toward 10 percent. This abandonment of their responsibilities to higher education on the part of the states hurts students in the first instance. Institutions that used to be affordable to students from working and lower middle class backgrounds are now increasingly out of reach for them. State universities are becoming the new Ivies, a good bargain still for the upper middle class and the wealthy, but a distant dream for the daughter or son of a worker in a fast food restaurant. This development is also scary because it promotes the corruption of academia. In fact, as Charles Ferguson showed in his film, “Inside Job,” some academic economists are already hopelessly corrupt. The barracuda capitalist system in contemporary America provides many incentives for economists to promote laissez-faire, anti-regulatory ideas of the sort that led to the 2008 collapse of our economy. Endowments with strings attached are just one more. (clip) _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
