2 ms·
My amateur take here is, saying that something is a possibility, however remote, is different from "if you vote this way, this will happen to you" said by peopl
by ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
My amateur take here is, saying that something is a possibility, however remote, is different from "if you vote this way, this will happen to you" said by people with the power and motivation to make it happen to you if you vote that way.
Would we expect the same deference given to a mob boss issuing thinly-veiled threats to witnesses? After all, it's not impossible that an accident will totally randomly happen to the witness or their loved ones that prevents them from testifying. The boss is just sayin' there's data that shows accidents sometimes happen to people who testify, that's all.
- freedomben 3y agoYeah that's fair. CEOs being human, it seems unreasonable to expect them to never have opinions, but given the power dynamics/differential they absolutely must be held to a very high standard. This comment didn't feel at all like a threat to me given my personal experience (it felt like a blatant statement of fact), so while I don't agree that this broke the law, I do agree it isn't something he should have said and he needs to do better. Though personally, I'd much rather know my CEOs real opinion on things, because whether they say it out loud or not they still believe it. I'd rather know where people stand than have to guess/assume.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoI wouldn't have minded if he had issued an opinion that the union _might_ do something to members, rather than the leader of the company saying bad stuff will definitely happen to people who side against the company. After all, he has more motivation and opportunity than anyone else to follow through on that credible threat. Otherwise, is the mob boss in my example just expressing an opinion, too?