Monday, October 29, 2012

Romney Encouraged Voter Intimidation at Workplace

Last week, Mike White at Rite Hite Holding, sent out a threatening email telling his employees against voting for President Barack Obama.

I had also pointed out to the gentle reader that this type of behavior was not only grossly hypocritical, but it was also illegal, per state law:
State law states: "No employer or agent of an employer may distribute to any employee printed matter containing any threat, notice or information that if a particular ticket of a political party or organization or candidate is elected or any referendum question is adopted or rejected, work in the employer's place or establishment will cease, in whole or in part, or the place or establishment will be closed, or the salaries or wages of the employees will be reduced, or other threats intended to influence the political opinions or actions of the employees."
Accordingly, Citizen Action of Wisconsin is planning on filing a formal complaint with the GAB Monday against White for his act of voter intimidation.

I don't know, but I'd think they'd be wiser to just cut out the middle man and file a criminal complaint with the DA's Office. But that's just me.

Then I informed the gentle reader that White wasn't the only one who did something like this and speculated that it was some sort of national GOP strategy.

Apparently I was correct, as usual.

An astute reader pointed out this You Tube clip, which is the audio of a telephonic town hall meeting Mitt Romney participated in. Said town hall was sponsored by the National Federation of Independent Businesses and was held on June 6 of this year.

Instead of make the reader listen to a full half hour of Romney's folderol, I would advise that one simply skip to the 26:23 mark. The hostess of the town hall asked Romney if he would like to make a closing statement. This is what Romney said:
Yeah, I sure would.

I (just) wanna say a couple things

One, I wanna to say thanks for the work you do and I know taking the time away from business is not easy and I appreciate your doing that.

Two, 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 whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama or whatever your political view, I hope you pass those along to your employees. 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.
As you can see, Romney once again lied to his supporters, and now one of them is facing legal troubles for listening to him.

That shouldn't surprise anyone though. With all of Romney's lies, hypocrisies and flip flops, any one that would listen to Romney, much less believe anything he says, deserves what they get.

The key is to make sure they don't take the rest of us down with them. And the best way to do that is get off your duff and vote for Obama. And then get your friends and family to do the same.


  1. mmm kay.
    I wrote a long, sincere, and brilliant response that would have changed the world as we know it, but my comment is not being accepted after repeated attempts, and it is not breaking up for me to spam-post the entire treatise in smaller chunks.
    Just know it's out there, somewhere, and it kicks ass.
    The punchline being~
    Meh. I don't put a lot of faith in either CA or Obama changing anything much/at all. But sure, they're the lesser evil, and their slogans and sound bites are so cute.
    rah, rah, sis boom bah.

  2. IDK, there's nothing in the spam net.

  3. Romney will be doing the same in Eau Claire this Tuesday.

    1. Secret Service is harassing workplaces I hear.

  4. The GAB is a joke, better to file your complaint directly in the trash can and cut out the middle man.

  5. I'm wondering if the same rules apply to unions as far as attempting to influence its members votes.
    I know there are other business owners in the area that will not give any notice to their employees of impending consequences of increased taxes and Obamacare. Myself, I would appreciate all the info the companies I work for give me.

    1. Can the unions fire or cut their salaries? Of course not.

      Your point, as usual, is pointless and not even a valid argument.

    2. There's that Imustberacist, still paying your employees under the table and helping to defund your state?

    3. No, but they can prevent the company or agency from doing so. Besides are employees not required to join the union? Do their union dues not go to fund the candidate of the unions choosing? I contend there is still a responsibility for the unions to serve their members instead of the other way around. But then again maybe that is why so many have opted out of paying dues these days.
      I still contend it is better for a company to be honest with their employees rather than politically correct. I wouldn't mind knowing if that state law you cited was ever enforced.

      That's very witty Anonymous, you should write bumper stickers for Obama. And yet, I'll bet your pro illegal immigration. The policies you vote for defund the state more than what to accuse me of.
      I don't do it, but even if a contractor does pay cash that money is still accounted for, and tax would have to be paid by the company or the owner depending on the business structure as profit. So you see, it might even benefit the state in that the worker wouldn't have as high a tax rate as the owner.

    4. A) Membership is not mandatory. Every union that I know of has an opt out option.

      B)No, it is explicitly illegal for dues to be used for political purposes. Unions do have a political arm for this, and donations to this are strictly voluntary.

      C)Unions are made of its members, so they, by definition, serve their members.

      D)White was not being honest with his employees.

    5. Your reply was interesting enough to make me do some research.
      A) Unless they have a security clause. Then you can opt out, but you still pay dues. Most public unions have this in place I would guess. Why? Because the people they bargain with were mostly elected with their blessing. Which helps explain your hate of Walker.

      B) Yes in 1988 "Beck" rights were established. But that changed in 2010. Per citizens united decision of 2010:

      Prior to Citizens United, the funds that unions collected from union dues could not go to political spending that expressly advocated for the election or defeat of a candidate. That funding could, however, still go to other “political activities.” These include informational and educational materials that are distributed to members.

      Under Citizens United, unions can take member dues and spend the money on materials in support or in opposition to a candidate for office. This is problematic because union members are not asked for permission before this money is spent, and it is often difficult to ask for a refund.

      C) true, but membership is also down by more than 50% in the states largest public union. So it would seem, maybe not. I haven't had a chance to research if act 10 affected security clauses, but my guess is yes.

      D) And his motivation for being dishonest? Wait for it......greed, right? This is the same guy that donated a million dollars to the local YMCA a few years back. Not exactly a greedy move.
      If Obama wins we will find out if it was only smoke he was blowing. But if he loses, I suspect you will cling to your beliefs and your prejudices.
      It will be interesting if Obama wins to see if the business owners I have talked with were correct in their concerns. I am assuming they were because they have attorneys and accountants advising them. But we will see. Maybe.

    6. Well, let's see here:

      A) No, it was like fair share, where the goldbricker paid neither dues nor belonged to the union, but still was able to enjoy the benefits the unions won for the collective bargaining unit. You'd like that, all the goods paid for by someone else.

      B)LOL! You might want to do your "research" at a non-biased, honest source. What you did is nothing more than quote Brian Sikma.

      C)Actually, it makes it easier to see. The unions are working for the members that are in good standing. Those that don't pay their dues, don't get the help.

      D)If he indeed make that donation, good for him. But that is also like saying the mass murdered that just killed an entire family is a good guy because he patted the dog on the head.

    7. Veridian homes here donated a million dollars for a new YMCA in Sun Prairie. Does that make them heroes?

      Well lets see, they dictated where it was and how big it could be. It had to within their new subdivision, thus making their houses worth much more in the process, yet the Y needed to finish the rest and ended up kind of skimping on it because they had a hard time raising the funds.

    8. Jeff, I didn't say he was a hero. I just made the case that he isn't the greedy robber barron that Capper wants to portray him as.
      And Capper, I would be interested in knowing where you find your "non biased, honest sources" these days. I quoted an actual court finding and how it affected union spending on politics. Your response is to smear a reporter you don't like? Remember, even a broken clock is right on two times a day. That might be a record you could aspire to. lol.
      All I can do is sift through propaganda and know the truth is somewhere in between. The fact that I read your writings should be enough proof that I am not as close minded as you suggest. And so far, nobody has accused me of being "unhinged".
      If we are so free to not join the union as you both want to suggest, why the fear of right to work legislation?

    9. Well because right - to - work legislation is for free loading republicans....

      you want full all the benefits of the union for free.

      Im not "suggesting" anything. I am telling you that you can get the union decertified if you want just get the signatures. That is a fact not an opinion.

    10. That was not the court results, that was an anti-union website. Don't try to lie, you're not good at it, which is a credit to you.

      RTW legislation means you don't have a chance to join the union if you wanted to. And don't even get me into the laundry list of ills that RTW states have, from lower incomes to poorer schools to higher crime and higher poverty.

      Is that what you want?

    11. Capper, some reading for you. Hopefully this isn't to biased a source for your liking:

      I'm not advocating right to work. Only hoping to define the advantages of union shops as opposed to voluntary union memberships.

      Jeff, maybe so, but then you can't in your next breath come out and say that we need to tax the rich more so that money can be redistributed to "freeloading" democrat supporters that want full benefits of hard work for free.

    12. Lets get real here, taxing the rich more has nothing to do with "redistributing" and everything to do with paying their fair share.

      How is it even remotely fair that hard working americans pay 25-35% of their income in taxes and mitt, who hasnt had a job since 1999 pays a max rate of 14%. He is the one freeloading not the custodiam at your local school.

    13. "Fair share" it's an interesting phrase. makes a good bumper sticker, but its harder to defend as a concept. I'm certain you dont agree that increased taxes discourage economic growth. I'm also sure that you don't agree with the laffer curve. (Which by the way is hard for me to understand, because if explained correctly it is undeniable logic.) But apparently the democrats in charge do, because otherwise they would have pushed up the rate on capital gains when they controlled government. The reason Mitt pays less is because he is re-investing money he has already been taxed on into the economy. Why? because the lower tax rate encourages him to risk that money. Take the profit away and you discourage it.
      The result, less jobs, less revenue. You want real? I talked with a man last week, a client. He made his money already, he's worth tens of millions. He paid the top rate while earning that money. Created hundreds of jobs that still exist today (some of which are clients as well). Sold his company years ago. Like Steve Wynn, he is ready to put that money to work again. But he is waiting to see Tuesdays results first. Raise the tax rates and you change the risk to benefit ratio. But Laffer was dis-proven right?
      I predict an Obama win will spur another recession. But of course, that will be someone elses fault.
      I really do try to see logic in your arguments, and I appreciate you taking time to hear mine.

    14. Which do you think would have the greater economic impact - One person with $100M, 10 people with $10M, 100 people with $1M or 100,000 people with $100,000 each?

      You already answered that, BTW. One guy is sitting on his wealth unless he gets his way. One person doesn't create that much demand, no matter how much money they have. And that is why the state's economy is in the bottom ten of the country for the last 18 months.

      Even if Romney won, the rich would have an excuse for not creating jobs and will want to take something else from the people.

      Lastly, we've had ten years of big tax cuts for the wealthy. All we got to show for it is two recession, record poverty and record unemployment. Your way simply hasn't worked, isn't working now and will never work.

  6. FYI - No one is "required" to join a union anywhere

  7. Really? Then what makes us any different than a right to work state? Seems to me I was required to join and pay dues at every union job I had in the past. Granted it has been mlre than 15 years since I've had a job with unionization. Has it changed since then?

    1. IMBR For the 1,345,648,345 th time. Unions are democracy in the workplace. If you feel that the union is NOT representing you, then you grab a piece of paper, get 50%+1 signatures to decertify and immediately the union is decertified and disappears.

      So no you are absolutely NOT required to join a union just get the thing decertified.

    2. Kind of what I thought. Though it does seem hard for you to admit the union likes to force membership through union shops and security clauses, and then claim to act in all their members best interests.
      Seems ACT 10 will force those votes on certification. So nobody will have to take the intimidating first step of speaking out against the union. Its looking more like democracy everyday.

    3. Well, since ACT 10 is unconstitutional, it is a moot point.

      But then again, it wouldn't be a good gauge, considering that membership dropped after Walker made it damn near impossible for workers to make ends meet, much less pay union dues on top of it.

      I do find it odd that you are unable and/or unwilling to make the correlation between less union workers and lower average incomes. Is that because you're so open-minded?

    4. I didn't realize that you speak for the state supreme court now. For now at least, ACT 10 is the will of the people, reconfirmed by more than a dozen recalls. That is democracy in action.

      This is what I am talking about. While I am sure there is some truth that financial hardship caused some people to opt out of paying dues.
      I don't believe that is the whole truth. The republicans want us to believe average incomes have dropped by $4000 per family in the last 4 years due to the presidents policies. As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle. Unions have their place, maybe not as important as they used to be. But they do serve their members. But by making membership involuntary its not democracy in the workplace anymore. It's people of one mind forcing their views on all employees. And more concerning, using their money to influence politics.
      Just like corporations need to be kept in check, so do unions.
      So where is middle ground? I assume that will keep shifting back and forth, but that is the beauty of democracy.
      I still believe that growing the economy will help all, and that we don't need to rely on socialist policies to save this country. That is why I reject the democrat agenda today.

    5. Funny, I don't remember a referendum on changing the state and federal constitution, so I don't know where you get the will of the people stuff.

      And the Supreme Court has already shown themselves to be jokes with one justice reprimanded and two others under investigation for ethical problems.

      And how will taking money out of the economy improve it? It hasn't been working to well in Wisconsin, has it? We still have less jobs than when Walker's agenda took effect, and that's using his numbers, which are inflated from the real ones.

    6. I recall a direct quote, stating the recall of Walker was exactly that, a referendum on ACT 10.
      I won't defend taking money out of the economy because I don't think that happened. It was simply sharing the burden of a recession by a group who had previously been exempt of those burdens.
      What I will say is that pumping money into the economy as Obama has, hasn't helped much either. But thats another topic.

    7. The Republicans tried to frame it that way, because the artificial hatred of the unions is the only thing they had to run with. But, as we have written here many times, it was also about women's rights, education, voter's rights, veterans rights, the environment, the poor, the elderly and basic human rights.

      You don't "think" that money was taken out of the economy even though that is what has been proven over and over again.

      And if you think public sector workers were exempt, you are only lying to yourself. We recognized the importance of planning for the future. Where is your outrage at the people and corporations and other entities who pay absolutely no taxes? That don't share the burden?

      And let's compare the two systems. Obama's system diverted a depression and has caused 31 straight months of job growth. The Walker/Romney/Ryan plan, which you endorse, as cost Wisconsin more jobs than it created, and the new jobs pay a fraction of the ones lost. Hmm, not a hard one to figure out for which is better.

    8. Ok, if the republicans promoted demonetization of public unions as you suggest, I contend the democrats are doing the same thing but with anybody who dares to be successful these days. You say taking money from the public unions hurts the economy and I say taking it from the upper class hurts the economy. The only difference is how we justify our views. Taxing the rich "takes money out of the economy". So you can save that justification for your class envy.
      If corporations don't pay tax its because they are showing no profit. All money paid in wages or retained profits to owners is taxed. So don't tell me there's some big injustice going on here. You want to complain about the tax laws fine. But the politicians you support had every chance to change that.

      As far as Obamas economy, he pumped 6 trillion of printed money into the economy in 4 years. Thats a bill that your grandkids will be paying unless we change our ways. You can say it was necessary, but when does it end? The largest burden on any country with socialized medicine is health care cost. So now on top of the debt needed to "divert a depression" we add government run health care? Regardless of reasons you will come up with to defend it, it still seems reckless in this economy.
      My vote will be for change on Tuesday, and while there might be too much anger in WI, I think there will be a Reagan democrat voting sector this time around as well in some other swing states.
      I'll look forward to reading your predictions.

    9. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't make predictions. I just state facts.

      Funny thing is that "socialized healthcare" hasn't bankrupted Canada, Norway, Sweden or any of the other countries with it. In fact, Spain and Greece and Ireland didn't have the major problems they currently have until they went the austerity route.

      Considering you never did answer my question about which scenario would yield the most economic clout, it tells me that you know the answer, but won't admit it because it doesn't fit in your tightly wound but inaccurate perception of reality.

    10. Many of your "facts" are questionable.
      Maybe we will get a chance to find out how this path towards single payer works out. I think it will have the same effect that you blame Walkers economy for. But you are correct, that is a prediction. Not a fact.
      As far as your scenerio, Its like asking which family has the better lifestyle, the one who cuts its budget as its income is cut, or the one who begins running up debt on a credit cards. I kind of thought I covered that.

      And, your right, I'm disappointed that you won't predict the outcome Tuesday. Not because I want to gloat, that serves no purpose. Just want to know if you sense the same desperation I am seeing elsewhere.
      I see Obama showing up with entertainers to try to attract more people.
      Thanks for the discussion.

    11. Yup, just like Romney showed up with Kid Rock, Meatloaf and, what's that guy's name? Oh, yeah, Clint Eastwood!

      Nope, not desperate, just worried. IDK that Obama has enough to make up for the voter ID machines that Romney's kid owns.

  8. If you think the recalls were just about ACT 10 then you are wrong on that account as we flipped the senate so it appears to me that the people spoke they don't like it.

    Growing the economy will help all, unfortunately, as has been proven, pulling a billion dollars of disposable income out of the economy.

    Not sure why you keep touting the line that membership is not voluntary in a union. Its been disproven more times than paul ryan lies yet you keep coming back in here with it.

    I also find it funny that as a "conservative" you are appalled that unions would put some pressure on fellow employees to join and support the union yet have no problem with the government regulating unions away. So friends talking to friends not ok but Government telling workers they cant join a union is ok. then when your done with that telling us how you want small government!

    certain parts of ACT10 have been declared Unconstitutional, dont have to be part of the SUpreme court to tell you that its a fact.