You are here
Employers Seeking to Affect Employees' Political Participation
Friday, October 19th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
Intimidation is, I believe, the worst kind of ethical misconduct in
government, because (1) it limits or changes participation of
people in the democratic
process, (2) it is emotionally damaging, and (3) it enables all
sorts of ethical misconduct. Intimidation is a fundamental form of
misuse of power and position. (For more about
intimidation, see the
section of my book on this topic.)
Intimidation is a clear sign of a poor ethics environment. When I first became involved, as a citizen, in my town's politics (we have a Town Meeting form of government, so the town's citizens are its legislators), I immediately met with intimidation from most of the top elected and appointed officials. And I saw how town employees were expected to go to Town Meetings and vote with the town's executive body. Were they personally intimidated? Most likely not. But did they feel as if they had no other choice? Most likely.
Is this sort of intimidation any less damaging when it is indirect, that is, when it is done not by officials but rather by those who seek benefits from these officials? I ask this question because, according to an article Wednesday in In These Times, presidential candidate Mitt Romney has told employers, "I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections." And some employers have listened by telling their employees that, if President Obama is re-elected, their employer will be hurt and there will be layoffs.
There is no direct, personal intimidation here. Romney isn't even telling employers which candidate they should tell their employees to vote for. That is understood. Nor is Romney telling employers to pressure their employees. But employers have a lot of power over their employees' lives, and any statement regarding how they vote, especially when layoffs are mentioned, makes it hard for employees to feel they have any other choice. And it certainly makes them feel unable to make a contribution to an opponent of the candidate(s) suggested by the employer, since these are public.
Romney's argument for employers communicating with their employees about the upcoming elections is purely consequentialist: "Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision." In other words, it's legal because it will work. The fact that it is intimidating to be told by an employer that you should vote in the interests of your employer, and that you may pay the price of unemployment if you contribute to the election of the wrong candidate, does not seem to matter. The idea of misusing power is nowhere to be found.
The fact is that it is usually not so clear which candidate in any election will be better for a business, unless that business expects to get a payback from its support for a candidate. Take the situation, at the local level, where a major city contractor or county developer suggests to its employees that they vote for the candidate it is financially supporting (or, in jurisdictions that prohibit contributions from a contractor, cannot directly support). At the local level, it becomes more clear that getting employee support for a candidate is one means of enabling the ethical misconduct involved in giving contracts to certain companies (or giving them more beneficial specs) or allowing projects to go ahead. It is part of the payoff for preferential treatment.
Recommending to employees how to vote is ordinarily beyond the jurisdiction of ethics commissions. But should it be? Is there any important difference between a mayor telling city employees how to vote or who to make contributions to, and a city contractor telling its employees how to vote or who to make contributions to (and who not to)? The first situation is often prohibited, because government officials are under an ethics commission's jurisdiction, and they have special obligations not to misuse the power of their office. Do government contractors and others who seek special government benefits have any special obligation not to misuse their power and position, not to try to affect their employees' participation in the political process?
Whether or not an ethics commission has the power to prohibit such conduct, if the employee of a government contractor, permittee, or grantee comes to it with a complaint or information regarding employer intimidation related to political participation, it would be valuable for the EC both to discuss this matter in public, hearing from employees and employers alike, and to ask employers to refrain from such conduct. Such a discussion would provide a good opportunity to show how such conduct could be, or be seen to be, part of a system of preferential treatment and misuse of office, even if officials are not directly involved. Such a discussion would also provide an opportunity to show officials why it is important not to suggest that employers be in any way involved in their employees' political participation.
Abuse of power to affect political participation is no better when it comes from business leaders than when it comes from government leaders. The only difference is the power to enforce against this misconduct.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Intimidation is a clear sign of a poor ethics environment. When I first became involved, as a citizen, in my town's politics (we have a Town Meeting form of government, so the town's citizens are its legislators), I immediately met with intimidation from most of the top elected and appointed officials. And I saw how town employees were expected to go to Town Meetings and vote with the town's executive body. Were they personally intimidated? Most likely not. But did they feel as if they had no other choice? Most likely.
Is this sort of intimidation any less damaging when it is indirect, that is, when it is done not by officials but rather by those who seek benefits from these officials? I ask this question because, according to an article Wednesday in In These Times, presidential candidate Mitt Romney has told employers, "I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections." And some employers have listened by telling their employees that, if President Obama is re-elected, their employer will be hurt and there will be layoffs.
There is no direct, personal intimidation here. Romney isn't even telling employers which candidate they should tell their employees to vote for. That is understood. Nor is Romney telling employers to pressure their employees. But employers have a lot of power over their employees' lives, and any statement regarding how they vote, especially when layoffs are mentioned, makes it hard for employees to feel they have any other choice. And it certainly makes them feel unable to make a contribution to an opponent of the candidate(s) suggested by the employer, since these are public.
Romney's argument for employers communicating with their employees about the upcoming elections is purely consequentialist: "Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision." In other words, it's legal because it will work. The fact that it is intimidating to be told by an employer that you should vote in the interests of your employer, and that you may pay the price of unemployment if you contribute to the election of the wrong candidate, does not seem to matter. The idea of misusing power is nowhere to be found.
The fact is that it is usually not so clear which candidate in any election will be better for a business, unless that business expects to get a payback from its support for a candidate. Take the situation, at the local level, where a major city contractor or county developer suggests to its employees that they vote for the candidate it is financially supporting (or, in jurisdictions that prohibit contributions from a contractor, cannot directly support). At the local level, it becomes more clear that getting employee support for a candidate is one means of enabling the ethical misconduct involved in giving contracts to certain companies (or giving them more beneficial specs) or allowing projects to go ahead. It is part of the payoff for preferential treatment.
Recommending to employees how to vote is ordinarily beyond the jurisdiction of ethics commissions. But should it be? Is there any important difference between a mayor telling city employees how to vote or who to make contributions to, and a city contractor telling its employees how to vote or who to make contributions to (and who not to)? The first situation is often prohibited, because government officials are under an ethics commission's jurisdiction, and they have special obligations not to misuse the power of their office. Do government contractors and others who seek special government benefits have any special obligation not to misuse their power and position, not to try to affect their employees' participation in the political process?
Whether or not an ethics commission has the power to prohibit such conduct, if the employee of a government contractor, permittee, or grantee comes to it with a complaint or information regarding employer intimidation related to political participation, it would be valuable for the EC both to discuss this matter in public, hearing from employees and employers alike, and to ask employers to refrain from such conduct. Such a discussion would provide a good opportunity to show how such conduct could be, or be seen to be, part of a system of preferential treatment and misuse of office, even if officials are not directly involved. Such a discussion would also provide an opportunity to show officials why it is important not to suggest that employers be in any way involved in their employees' political participation.
Abuse of power to affect political participation is no better when it comes from business leaders than when it comes from government leaders. The only difference is the power to enforce against this misconduct.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
