http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/david-siegel-email_n_1951801.html?ir=Business
QuoteDavid Siegel Email To Workers Threatens Layoffs If Obama Is Reelected
The super-rich guy who claims he's the one who got George W. Bush elected is doing everything he can to make sure Mitt Romney wins in November too.
David Siegel, the founder and CEO of giant timeshare company Westgate resorts, sent an opus-like email to his workers, railing against one-percent bashing and arguing that the president's reelection would "threaten your job." In the email, obtained by Gawker, Siegel goes on to write:
If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company.
Siegel has a history of injecting himself in to critical political events. In the "The Queen of Versailles," the documentary chronicling Siegel's quest to obnoxiously build the biggest house in America, the Florida real estate mogul claims he was "personally responsible" for George W. Bush's 2000 presidential victory. He also goes on to say that his tactics for helping Bush win "may not necessarily have been legal."
Siegel isn't the first CEO to push his political preferences on his employees. Bob Murray, CEO of coal company Murray Energy, allegedly pressured his workers to donate money to the Romney campaign. Murray energy workers have also accused the company of forcing them to participate in a pro-Romney rally, give up a day's worth of pay and face the possibility of getting fired if they didn't.
And Richard Lacks, CEO of car parts manufacturer Lacks Enterprises, urged his employees to vote for Romney on the basis of the claim that four more years of Obama would mean a boost in taxes and a decrease in pay. Talk about rocking the vote.
UPDATE: After Gawker published its piece, they spoke to Siegel, who confirmed that he sent the email and that he based it off a chain email that went around before the 2008 elections. "It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls," he told Gawker.
I was about to say the bad publicity would cost their candidates more votes than they sway from their employees, but on reflection not too sure. I mean the story sends out two competing messages: one, big bad CEOs want to control your votes; two, Obama's taxes will cost jobs. Hard to say which one will resonate more.
How is that legal? :huh:
People should just accept that when they sign an employment contract, they hand over their right to choose who to vote for; people you know the corporation has your best interest at heart.
Of course if spending is slashed that will also cost lots of jobs. Having to balance a budget is a bitch.
That is not extortion. He just said he was going to lay people off if taxes go up. The people he lays off maybe all voted for Romney.
Frankly what should be illegal is the timeshare racket. This man is already a monster in my book.
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2012, 09:57:00 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2012, 09:55:50 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2012, 09:52:30 AM
How is that legal? :huh:
First Amendment.
That's not first amendment. That's extortion.
Not sure how that is extortion. He doesnt know how people vote. He didnt say "if you vote for Obama you will be fired". What he did say is that if taxes go up he will have to lay people off.
The thing to hammer in him on is the causal relationship he is drawing between his own personal taxes going up and the need to lay people off. As I understand it payroll taxes are not going up as part of Obama's plan.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2012, 10:01:12 AM
Frankly what should be illegal is the timeshare racket.
:yes:
I'm with the anti-Merri crowd on this - it's not illegal to be a douchebag.
What I find funny is that anyone would consider it appropriate to send this kind of an e-mail to employees.
Peter, you really think this will hurt Obama? This dude based his warning off a chain email from four years ago, not the company's actual plight.
Good old HuffPost. :D
Every time tim may posts, I'm laying off 1 employee.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 10, 2012, 04:54:14 PM
Every time tim may posts, I'm laying off 1 employee.
Winding down your corporate interests?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 10, 2012, 02:17:20 PM
Peter, you really think this will hurt Obama? This dude based his warning off a chain email from four years ago, not the company's actual plight.
No, I think it will have an effect that's roughly zero. But it's just as likely some casual uninformed undecided voter reads this story and wonders if he's right and so changes his vote as that same voter deciding that because some random douchebag supports Romney he's going to change his vote.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 10, 2012, 04:54:14 PM
Every time tim may posts, I'm laying off 1 employee.
Guess he'll help the economy, since you're going to have to start hiring employees soon just to fire them.
I guess the only thing worse than owning a timeshare is to work for the company.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2012, 11:09:37 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 10, 2012, 02:17:20 PM
Peter, you really think this will hurt Obama? This dude based his warning off a chain email from four years ago, not the company's actual plight.
No, I think it will have an effect that's roughly zero. But it's just as likely some casual uninformed undecided voter reads this story and wonders if he's right and so changes his vote as that same voter deciding that because some random douchebag supports Romney he's going to change his vote.
I don't know what the level of qualification required to work for the company is, but if it is anything above zero, I would assume the guy loses more qualified workers (who would take the first chance they get to move to a competitor) over that e-mail than he wins votes for Romney. I certainly would start looking for a different job if my employer's corporate standards were so low, he would do stuff like this.
On the flip side, it may gain him customers(though it may just as easily lose him customers). Though I think you're right on that score. I think it will have a much greater adverse effect on his business than on Romney's campaign.
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 05:36:57 AM
I don't know what the level of qualification required to work for the company is, but if it is anything above zero, I would assume the guy loses more qualified workers (who would take the first chance they get to move to a competitor) over that e-mail than he wins votes for Romney. I certainly would start looking for a different job if my employer's corporate standards were so low, he would do stuff like this.
That may have been the case in a better economy. As it is, most people aren't able to look elsewhere for a job because, well, there just aren't a lot out there.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 08:25:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 05:36:57 AM
I don't know what the level of qualification required to work for the company is, but if it is anything above zero, I would assume the guy loses more qualified workers (who would take the first chance they get to move to a competitor) over that e-mail than he wins votes for Romney. I certainly would start looking for a different job if my employer's corporate standards were so low, he would do stuff like this.
That may have been the case in a better economy. As it is, most people aren't able to look elsewhere for a job because, well, there just aren't a lot out there.
That's why I asked about qualified people. I think there is always demand for qualified workers. Unless the US is in a much worse shape than I thought.
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 10:41:19 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 08:25:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 05:36:57 AM
I don't know what the level of qualification required to work for the company is, but if it is anything above zero, I would assume the guy loses more qualified workers (who would take the first chance they get to move to a competitor) over that e-mail than he wins votes for Romney. I certainly would start looking for a different job if my employer's corporate standards were so low, he would do stuff like this.
That may have been the case in a better economy. As it is, most people aren't able to look elsewhere for a job because, well, there just aren't a lot out there.
That's why I asked about qualified people. I think there is always demand for qualified workers. Unless the US is in a much worse shape than I thought.
It was in much worse shape then you thought. But signs are that it might be improving
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 10:41:19 AM
That's why I asked about qualified people. I think there is always demand for qualified workers. Unless the US is in a much worse shape than I thought.
It's hard to say where your thoughts on the US are right now. Which Hollywood movies have you seen and mistaken for documentaries lately?
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 10:41:19 AM
That's why I asked about qualified people. I think there is always demand for qualified workers. Unless the US is in a much worse shape than I thought.
Interestingly, from an annecdotal perspective, it seems like it's the qualified workers who are having a harder time finding work.
Most of the college grads I know are struggling to find placement. If they have a job, they can't get a different/better one. For every job that's advertised, my company is getting ~100-200 applications for positions that require a certain level of education or experience.
On the flip side, my sister's boyfriend's company (he owns a cement finishing company) can't find good workers, period. Anyone could learn the job within a month or two of training and it doesn't even require a high school diploma, but no one is applying. He's always short-handed and complaining about it. His brother, a landscaper, is running into the same problem. And another of his brothers (he has five) runs another cement finishing company and has to hire union only. He can get folks to come in, but they're horrible workers, show up late, don't do the job, and then walk away before it's done. He can fire them, but when he asks the union to send him more people, he'll get the same guys.
If my back could take it, I even considered going into something similar. Good pay, mostly regular work, union insurance, and great training. Unfortunately, I'm too broken to make a good show of it. :(