House of Eratosthenes

Mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, no matter which way they march, I get a little queasy when employers simply hint to their workforce which way is the “right” way to vote on something. To act out on it, this really crosses a line with me.

On the other hand, comments like “elections have consequences” strike a chord with me that is positive overall. It will come as no news at all to regular reader of The Blog That Nobody Reads, that I equate the name “Obama” with an ignorant and bullheaded denial of the relationship between effects and causes. The name represents, to me, a mistaken and persistent belief that the right emotional vibe can solve just about any ol’ problem under the sun. I haven’t thought of this as harmless, ever, even back in the days when it was cool to think this was harmless. It’s actually quite dangerous. A guy with a microphone and a soothing voice, a few planted fainting whores in the audience, and “Yes We Can” — there, now it’s all good. But no it isn’t.

Sucks to be out of a job of course. But over the long term, assuming this really happened, the lesson can’t hurt and might help. You could always look at it this way: She voted for “change” and her boss gave it to ‘er.

Business is all about cause and effect. People who don’t believe in cause-and-effect, shouldn’t be doing anything that affects businesses. Including voting. In my world, that’s just common sense. Should employers really look the other way when their employees, in their off hours, champion political causes that actively seek to destroy the businesses?

What if the boss happens to be black, and his employees are going off after hours to attend Klan rallies? Naw…that’s a poor analogy. That’s wildly overstating the situation.

Or is it. What’s the last thing President Obama has had to say, in all those speeches of his, that is pro-business? Outside of something like “you better support My policies or economic disaster will ensue” — not counting that. Hmmmm…

I disagree.

Bottom line: The employer/employee relationship should be just another example of the right to free association. Either party should be free to contract the relationship under any terms which are mutually agreeable, and terminate it at any time for ANY reason whatsoever, with the sole exception of a contract that included a term of engagement or a certain accomplishment as a specifically agreed contract stipulation. Even then it can be terminated and damages sorted out by a court, as a neutral 3rd party. Anything else is slavery.

If I want to fire an at-will employee for wearing green on St. Paddy’s day, believing in astrology, or praying towards Mecca 5 times a day, I should be able to do so.

I think it’s only fair and just that if an employee were agitating in their free time for the suppression of my industry, I should fire them. If they’re supporting a candidate I don’t like, then they’re harming my interest, and I have no obligation to provide them the wherewithal to continue harming me. Freedom of speech applies to government limits, not to private entitites. I’m free to criticize, yell over the top of you, or or otherwise stigmatize your speech any way I want that is not a lie or physical force.
- thebastidge | 04/09/2010 @ 10:50
You’ll get no argument from me on the “should be legal” side of it. My question is more one of “should be encouraged.”

I kind of wish the boss was an Obamacron and the employee was a McCain voter. Then I could keep my eyes peeled for the parade of Obama zealots screaming “HEY now! I agree with the way the boss voted, but I quite frown on screwing with a guy’s livelihood over it!”

Yeah…it’d be like watching paint dry, huh?
- mkfreeberg | 04/09/2010 @ 11:11
Yeah, I was going to say what thebastidge said. But he said it for me.

I’d heard people suggest that this kind of thing would be a logical response to the dilemna, “well, I can’t afford all these employees with the new Obamacare requirements. Who should I let go first?”

Makes sense to me. Pay for the consequenses of your actions.
- philmon | 04/09/2010 @ 11:56
So, I’m not sure I understand what thebastige is disagreeing with in Morgan’s original post.

If I understand correctly, Morgan is saying, “A doctor fired someone who voted for Obama. Serves him right. I don’t think those kind of people should be anywhere near businesses, and furthermore it’s just desserts for that employee voting for a job killing presidential candidate.”

Thebastige, again if I understand correctly, is saying, “Employers should be free to terminate anyone at any time, for any reason.”

What exactly is the disagreement? Am I missing something obvious?
- cylarz | 04/09/2010 @ 14:44
Morgan is squarely undecided about whether this is an acceptable thing to do. On whether it should be legal, it seems The Bastidge and I actually agree but Bastidge doesn’t realize it. On whether it really is legal…I dunno, and I suspect the answer varies state by state.

Making it illegal to fire people you want to fire, is going to be remembered by future generations as one of the most spectacularly stupid things the human race has ever done. It’ll be right down there with threatening to torture Galileo, and outlawing liquor. Who in the hell wants to work for a boss who’s looking for reasons to get rid of you? Just another dumbass labor union idea.

The reason I’m reticent about encouraging it, is it adds fuel to the fire of the “don’t ever discuss politics at work” argument. Uh oh, here comes the boss! Let’s all pretend not to have any opinions about anything! Our workplaces are stultified, stuffy and phony enough as it is. When you’re required to attend sexual harassment training and the first thing they tell you there is “intent doesn’t matter, it’s the perception of the person who feels like bitching that is important” — immediately followed by — “these rules are put in place to make the workplace more friendly and non-threatening for everyone” — well you know what? Up there what I said about dumbass moves by the human race going back to Galileo? Suddenly we have another item to add to the list.

Other than that, I really don’t have an opinion.
- mkfreeberg | 04/09/2010 @ 15:36
Well… I’m with Morgan that 1) it should be legal, but 2) it is not behavior one ought to engage in in general (though in this case I do have a bit more sympathy because … if he has to lay people off anyway and needs help with the criteria ….. you voted for it, you caused it, you go first!).

But see, if you get a reputation as a boss or firm that fires people who don’t agree with you politically … BECAUSE you don’t agree with them politically … you’re going to lose out on some talent. Recruiting will be tougher.

On the other hand, if you get to be known to be a company that hires people with one worldview over another, people with that worldview might gravitate toward your company and people who didn’t share that worldview would be repelled…. and maybe that would make it a nicer place to work for the people who choose to work there.

This has other implcations, too, as it might create companies that conservatives might patronize because of their character, or progressives may patronize because of their character…. that may not be such a bad thing.
- philmon | 04/09/2010 @ 17:41
This has other implcations, too, as it might create companies that conservatives might patronize because of their character, or progressives may patronize because of their character…. that may not be such a bad thing.

“Might?” What do you mean, “might,” Philmon?

Companies like that already exist, at least in terms of their governing philosophies. Remember how you and I agreed awhile back that neither of us would be purchasing car insurance from Progressive? It was following a discussion thread on this blog, Daphne’s, and at least one other and was primarily about the uuber-annoying chick that appears in all their ads. However, during the conversation, it came to light that the founder/president/whatever of the company has a decidedly left-leaning political philosophy and contributes heavily to left-wing causes, hence the name “Progressive.” Ben and Jerry’s ice cream also strikes me as a company which is pretty liberal in its thinking.

There are others who are friendlier to our beliefs, but I’m too lazy to look them up. I believe Wal-Mart may qualify, as would likely pretty much any manufacturer of guns and ammunition. If we are so inclined, we can patronize those businesses which reflect our beliefs, and avoid those which do not.

Still and all, you’re right – it would be interesting if this got talked about more, if all companies were more open about this, etc etc…but all of them are too afraid of driving away customers who belong to the other side. There are simply too many consumers out there who don’t come down all that hard on either end of the political spectrum.
- cylarz | 04/09/2010 @ 20:12
The doctor is about to have his life’s work changed in ways that disgust him. He does not need to pay people out of his own pocket that support that effort.
“It is impossible to abuse me without insisting that I agree.”
- jamzw | 04/11/2010 @ 09:01
I only disagree about the desirability of firing people who disagree with one’s politics.

It’s one thing to disagree over minor points, but an employee who agitates for the wholesale destruction of your industry has no place working in your business.

I knew we were on the same page about the legality, but I don’t have any personal problem with the Doc’s actions either. If he’s truly harming himself by shutting out talent, he’ll figure it out. I suspect that most Obama supporters are not the most productive of people. I also suspect that most people who support the health care boondoggle are also people who are generally or at least slightly more unlikely to pay their bills, definitely more likely to be using a program which has lower margins for the Doc. It’s no different than refusing to take medicare/medicaid patients, which many doctors find themselves doing these days because they literally cannot cover their expenses. Some people criticize this too, but again, if you can’t freely choose who to transact business with, it amounts to slavery, whether you’re talking about employer/employee or vendor/custtomer, there’s no real difference.
- thebastidge | 04/13/2010 @ 11:34
Thanks for the clarification.

With regard to whether it is legal, I would refer the curious to this lefty blog page — but with the caution that, as always seems to be the case with lefties, if you simply read the stuff they’ve knocked together and believe it all you’re left with a very, very different impression from what you get if you actually click through the links and find out why they feel justified in saying it.

I’m still really bothered by this practice. Yes I’ve found Obama voters to be dimmer on the average; they fell for a high school slogan, so how in the world could they not be? But one thing I think should be remembered is that if you’re really in favor of a nationalized health care plan, you’re probably a bit timid and cowardly at heart and therefore less susceptible to the Peter Principle. My experience with them bears this out; they can perform at the jobs they are given, because the jobs they are given involve little or no decision-making, personal risk or creative drive. Generally, on the rare occasion one of them holds a job that requires a decision to be made, it’s a decision that nobody is ever gonna care about, or it’s an individual rubber-stamping something a committee has already decided.

I just don’t like seeing peoples’ livelihoods getting screwed around with. Although I acknowledge that the typical Obamacron has no such qualms. Filtration, selection, late-term-abortion, dysgenics and death panels do seem to represent an important aspect of whatever kind of Utopian society they’re trying to build here. Well, gotta go get my life crystal implanted in my right palm. Happy Lastday.
- mkfreeberg | 04/13/2010 @ 12:39

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Doctor Lays Off Employee Who Voted for Obama?Friday, April 9th, 2010

Doctor Lays Off Employee Who Voted for Obama?
Friday, April 9th, 2010