The recent rash of ultra-wealthy corporate executives and business owners trying to intimidate their employees into voting for Mitt Romney is something that simply can't be tolerated. In the words of The Dude, "This aggression will not stand, man." Some of those arrogant parasites may have broken state or federal laws by doing this (ask a lawyer, I have no idea), and all available legal options should be pursued against them, in both civil and criminal court. But some may actually be acting legally, since a disgracefully large number of states basically give businessmen dictatorial power over the lives of employees who basically have no rights. In those cases, the only acceptable response is an assertive one that lets these assholes know they're playing with fire.
Below is what I've come up with, and anyone who has experienced voter intimidation from their employers is welcome to use it or any derivations thereof you find more useful or appropriate to your particular experiences. Sign it or send it anonymously, whichever you prefer. Or, even if you don't work for any these people, you can still send it to them anonymously pretending to be an employee and have the same impact. In fact, go ahead and send it to all the employees of these companies as well - you know, to give 'em idears:
Dear Mr./Ms./Sirs,See what I did there? I created a seamless blend of legitimate statements that could be interpreted by a jaundiced mind as threatening without providing them even the slightest basis to claim so - basically throwing their own tactics back at them.
I am an employee of (company). In response to your memo/speech/notice/letter to the employees of (company) urging us to vote for Mitt Romney and warning of "dire consequences" if we do not, I must inform you that given the level of power you wield over our financial livelihoods, your behavior is wildly inappropriate, unacceptable, and does not meet the basic standards of civilized behavior in this country. If you wish to discuss your political opinions with any of us, a social occasion where a mutual exchange can take place would be appropriate - not a one-sided directive issued from a superior to subordinates whose livelihoods you have the power to harm with impunity. That is not an appropriate format for political discourse in the United States of America.
The intent of your actions appears plain: To use your position as a weapon to undermine the political freedom of the employees of this company. If this was not in fact your intent, an apology and explanation to all those who received your memo/speech/notice/letter would also be appropriate. Failure to provide an apology and explanation would likely be interpreted as acknowledgement that intimidating voters who work under your supervision was your intention, whether or not that is indeed the case.
So I must inform you that your actions inappropriately tread into a sphere well beyond business - one where people have given life and limb to secure the dignity, respect, and freedom that your thinly-veiled threats cheaply deny. Sailing into those waters under a banner of arrogance and disrespect is neither wise nor responsible, either for employee morale or the future prospects of this company. Hopefully you understand that it is in the best interests of the company that you restore confidence by apologizing and reaffirming your respect for the liberty of employees.
That said, since you have opened up the subject for debate on company time, I would like to explain how reelecting President Obama is crucial to the ongoing success of this business. First of all, reducing healthcare costs greatly enhances the profit margins of businesses that would otherwise have to pay higher premiums for employee healthcare or else suffer the reduced productivity of denying health benefits to their workers. Unhealthy, overworked employees are also more prone to costly mistakes, expensive accidents, and poor impulse control that can compromise safety, teamwork, and the public reputation of the business. The savings realized by this company under a continued and expanded Obamacare regimen will go a long way toward preventing that.
Additionally, the Obama administration has been very supportive of the infrastructure this company depends on to conduct business. Traffic jams from crumbling transportation infrastructure and poor civic management cost this company quite a lot in productivity, causing employees to arrive late or else have to lose sleep to leave early enough in the morning to get here, which also has consequences on their quality of work. Based on what little clear information Mitt Romney has provided about his economic plans, a Romney administration would only accelerate those problems, causing not only difficulty for employees to keep to a schedule, but also cause supply deliveries to be delayed or lost entirely from various supply-chain issues. An administration that supports infrastructure maintenance and development would help keep this company's supply deliveries on schedule.
In addition to traffic, another key service the administration supports is police and firefighters, which are needed to protect company property from natural disasters, accidents, criminal property destruction, and theft. In the absence of such support, while this company might save a little in the short-run by being less regulated, adequately providing for all of our own security and fire suppression needs would be beyond this company's resources and even at low levels represent a large chunk taken out of the profit margin.
Without a diligent and well-trained police force on the local, state, and federal levels, it would be difficult to detect and punish employees who defraud the company, competitors who illegally obtain trade secrets, and other costly crimes. Likewise, without diligent and effective regulators monitoring the fire safety and structural integrity of our facilities, costly damage to company property would be much more likely - damage that wouldn't necessarily be covered by insurance, especially if the exhausted, health-impaired employees mentioned earlier have failed to properly implement the terms of the company's policies.
So, as you can see, the benefits of another term for the Obama administration feed back into each other and create a whole network of support for this company that improves its long-term prospects, while a Romney administration would have dire consequences for the ability of this company to do business.
(Name) or Anonymous Employee
6:31 PM PT: Now that I think about it, if you wanted to send it anonymously, it would probably be even more effective to pretend the letter is from several people - replace "I" with "we" and "me" with "us." That kind of thing makes authoritarian leaders reckless and paranoid - you could touch off a real Caine Mutiny meltdown if the person is already suitably borderline. :D