Can your boss force political pressure?
 

My wife recently began working for a large cooperation in Salt Lake City. Below is a letter she recently received. Note: I have removed some names to protect identities.

The letter continues onto a bunch of talking points which I removed for brevity.

What worries me here is that they are essentially ordering their employees to to take a political stance. Notice it says to BCC your manager. Is this even legal? Is this ethical? Could my wife be fired for taking action?

I'm sure this type of stuff happens all over and this issue is not a left vs right issue. It also probably affects none of us. So hopefully we can get a non-partisan discussion on this topic.

I'd say this is at least unethical. But there is something about it that makes me think it's illegal as well. I don't know enough about this sort of thing.

I suspect that it was alright until they got to the "bcc" part. That where it changes it from a suggestion that would help the business to a job requirement.

Found this, still giving it a read: Michael J. Wilson: Businesses Can Now Legally Pressure Workers on Political Issues?

I think it's the instruction to bcc her manager that is the sticky part.

It's one thing for a boss to advocate an activity outside of work ("Come participate in the Cancer Walk this weekend!" and another to tally who does and does not.

Yeah I wouldn't have a problem with this if they would have phrased it as

Here is an important issue, here is how it will affect us and you, you can contact your rep here.

Don't include the BCC line. To me that just seems wrong and there has to be some sort of law against it. I mean it is just one step away from forcing employees to vote a certain way which I know is illegal.

I would write the letter to the senator and CC the manager, but I would make sure that the email included the fact that "Corporate management instructed all employees to email you about this".

there's no law that says you're boss can't be an asshole.

Firstly I do think its unethical to bring politics into the work place, especially when management does it by strong arming a large group of people to one side of the issue. However I don't think the practice really is or should be illegal...freedom of speech and all that.

What bothers me about this is wording that strongly urges (if not outright orders) employees to not only take a stance but take an active stance (oddly enough with their personal e-mail address). Some employees probably support the bill and should be free to do so as it has no bearing on how they do their job nor are they mindless drones that can be used as a personal army to further a political agenda. I think Management really overstepped their bounds on this one and I think it might be worth bringing forward to...well I don't know what agency or office handles this sort of thing...but yeah I might think about reporting it, if only to end the practice in the future.

I'd hit reply all and tell him to fuck off right in front of everyone if it was something that went against my politics. :)

If it is a bill that directly effects your job, I think they are right for explaining it to the workers.

I don't think I would care if they were just explaining a bill that might effect everyone directly. What bothers me is;

"We need EVERYONE (yes, everyone) to e-mail your Utah state representative AND senator IMMEDIATELY and voice your strong opposition to House Bill 429. We prefer that you use your personal e-mail address. (Blind carbon copy, BCC, your manager when you do this.)"

and this;

"Use these talking points when e-mailing your representative:"

Holy hell not only are they telling their employees to take an active stand on a bill they are telling them HOW to take a stand! Then they have to report to their manager when they've done it...are they kidding? Why for fuck sake are they asking everyone to report to their manager? To decide who gets to keep their job? And how slimy is it to ask employees to use their own personal email address so it doesn't look like the company put them up to it? The whole thing in my opinion is so far over the line its gone back around and crossed it again. I agree with Shauk I'd hit reply all and tell them all to get fucked.

Reading stuff like this makes me so happy that I'm self employed and don't have to deal with this bull shit.

Rekna, I understand why you edited out the information that you did, but what that did is remove the context for the request (or demand). For example, if you work for Philip Morris and the state legislature was going to outlaw smoking, I could understand the boss wanting people whose jobs are on the line to personalize the issue for the legislators. I might not like it but I udnerstand it.

I suspect that what you are encountering is different, simply the boss wanting to use his/her employees to amplify his own voice in support of his/her political preferences. It sucks. I can't imagine it's illegal (though I could be wrong; I'm not knowledgeable in this field), but it certainly stinks. How you deal with is going to depend on how much you care about the issue, waht your alternatives are, and how you feel about your job apart from this. Personally, I think any boss who does this other than to protect his/her business is a jerk and deserves to have his/her employees leave.

Well I edited it because I didn't want to get into any sort of legal trouble or somehow have this tracked back to my wife. The focus of the email was basically that the changes would eliminate some barriers to entry on their business thereby increasing competition and causing them to lose money. Of course they didn't state it that way but that was what it read as.

I have no problem with them suggesting people do this but making you bcc your manager makes it a job requirement which sets a dangerous precedent. What are they going to do next force you to donate part of your paycheck to a certain campaign? Force you to vote for a specific person?

She should find a way to anonymously forward it to a local news organization.

I think that's what bothers me too, the president it sets if everybody goes through with it. The issue really seems harmless enough, something about redefining newspaper publications....sure everybody rolls up their sleeves and pitches in for the company, but what comes next and where should an employee draw the line?

I honestly don't know how you would escalate something like this but it should dealt with now before it becomes abused.

Rekna, I understand exactly why you edited it, and that was the right thing to do (there is, after all, no privacy on the internet). What the boss SHOULD have done is explain the situation to the employees and suggest that they make their views known. That would show basic respect for employees as individuals. As I said, I dont think it's illegal but it certainly is a shitty thing to do.

It also doesn't reflect well on the boss. A good boss should want intelligent employees who can think for themselves, not idiots who do nothing but follow orders.

Read the initial letter closely and laugh at the irony of your statement....

heh. I see.

Political affiliation is not a protected class. It isn't illegal and they could technically fire you in an "at-will" employment state. It's assholish though. I would never do this if I disagreed with the bill. I would compromise with my employer not to support the legislation (send an email in support), but I wouldn't send one opposing it either.

So can your boss force you to give $2000 to candidate X?

I suspect someone familiar with HR policy and employment law would indicate this is wholly out of bounds. In my former life as an exec we could suggest, ask , request and even offer "suggested language" in causes that were of significance to the company, but requirement of copying your supervisor sounds very dangerous from a corporate standpoint. I think they are at risk, but it may not be something an employee would risk losing their job over. I personally would ignore the request if I objected to it. If I was called on the carpet , I'd simply state my reason for ignoring case. If you got fired I'll bet there are lots of lawyers that would take you on a wrongful termination suit.

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 PM ----------

Not a prayer!! That will get them sued in a class action by all those in their employ that support the other side. VERY EXPENSIVE and the lawyers get most of the money. The Supervisor would likely be the one terminated and rightfully so. Many large companies have Political Action Committees that they encourage employees to participate in. They do however have to be pretty careful about supporting specific candidates. Easy to create a hostile work place. Hostile work place situations are not innocent til proven guilty scenarios. It is just the opposite. I'd say this whole thread scenario approaches that situation.

So, Rekna, what did your wife decide to do?

Of course not.

If I were put in this position, I would do the following:

• Use my work e-mail address.
• Address the politicians thusly: Greetings, my name is [full name], and I am a [title] at [company].
• Strongly oppose the bill.
• BCC the manager.

I would not use my personal e-mail for this.

The only other option would be to do nothing, and maybe talk to my manager as to why I refuse to use my personal e-mail for something work-related.

She wrote the letter... She just spent 6 months trying to get a job and she didn't want to risk loosing it.

---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------

So according to you they can force you to support a candidate with effort but not support a candidate with money.

Personally I don't see much of a difference between the two types of support. I think forcing either one is wrong and should be against the law.

What do you think would happen if the circumstances in this email changed. Say for example, AIG sent this letter commanding their employees to stand against health care reform, or GM sent the letter command their employees to support health care reform.

This would be all over the news and there would likely be congressional investigations.

No, I'm saying that, in some states, your wife's boss can fire her for whatever he wants. As you are in Utah, and Utah has a "covenant of good faith and fair dealings" exception to the at-will employment - the courts would most likely rule in your wife's favor should she be terminated for not sending the email. So, if you guys want to refuse, get fired, hire a lawyer, and get tied up in court for years - knock yourselves out. You have every right to pick whatever battle you choose.

I don't think so. When I was working at Viacom they wanted us to support them when CBS was merging and would require a special exemption from the single ownership in cities to multi-station ownership.

While I disagreed with their position since I believe that free press requires more than one owner/operator, CBS would in effect control the two major AM news stations and 1 major broadcast and a minor local broadcast.

Just because you think that it would be news, if you're talking about the newscarrier being news, more than likely it won't be news. Birds of a feather and all that rot.