Skip to main content

View Diary: Koch CEO urges employees to read boss's op-ed (yeah, the one with the pretty orange logo) (81 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not the same (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    olo

    Suggesting that employees read and "share" an editorial by the boss isn't at all in the same category as telling people that might lose their jobs for voting the "wrong way."  Comparing the two minimizes the seriousness of what happened in 2012.

    In fact, I'd encourage the employees to "share" that editorial as much as possible, so that the maximum number of people can read it and see for themselves how clueless and out of touch he is with the real world.

    Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

    by TexasTom on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:45:22 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Both are forms of coercion (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shakludanto, TofG

      "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." -- Pres. Obama (1/20/2009)

      by zizi on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:52:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hay! Let them all read the Kochatribe... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TofG

        Let them all read that neurotic Kochatribe and see for themselves what a self anointed Privileged Fuckstick $ir Charle$ is.

        Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

        by olo on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:37:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes and no. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG

      On its surface, the suggestion that people "read and share" an editorial is not coercion. Example: I might send an email to my friends suggesting the same thing; DKos sends me emails daily doing the same.

      But on a deeper level, there IS an element of coercion involved in the case described in this diary, which cannot be eliminated from the analysis nor overlooked, because there is a POWER relationship involved here where one party has power over another.  The recognition of the sociological and psychological significance of such imbalances of power forms the basis for part of our Title VII law on sexual harassment: an "unwelcome" advance by an employer or supervisor may sexual harassment even if there is no explicit quid pro quo, no explicit threat of job loss, demotion, etc.

      The imbalance of power in the instance described in the diary has the same implications.  Might there be a penalty - even only an implied one - for failing or refusing to "read and share"?  Are supervisors taking notes on who "reads and shares" and who does not?  these things would be constitutive of coercion.

    •  You're right, but it takes the same kind of hubris (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell

      I shudder now each time I think of Charles Koch and how I interviewed for a job with Koch Industries as I was nearing the finish of my MBA. They were one of the largest and best paying companies in the area.  But luckily before their offer came, I was hired by my first choice.

      Even THIS simple request to spread the propaganda for them would have been too much for my Democratic soul to have taken.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site