Comments on The Triple Bottom Line: Tell Your Employees How To Vote, Shoot Yourself In...

Well, it's true that, in a general way, unions hav...

2008-08-16T10:19:00.000-04:00

Well, it's true that, in a general way, unions have influence over the future of employees. But unions don't hire, fire, or promote individual workers. Whereas plenty of people have gotten fired or had their careers stalled for taking political positions that offended their bosses.

"The difference, I think, is that your employer ha...

2008-08-15T11:50:00.000-04:00

"The difference, I think, is that your employer has your career, your livelihood, and your future in his hands. The union doesn't."

I think the presumption is that the union does. It's claim is because of its collective power and political influence help determine your future. And decisions made by the union and its members are binding on all members. Don't like a particular decision or rule? Tough darts, farmer -- toe the union line.

My point is, we've got to get away from this notion that there should be one set of rules for people we like and agree with and another for people we don't.

I remember one time while visiting my aunt and uncle in the DC area, we drove past the NRA HQ building. My aunt starting talking about that the organization has outsized power and influence over government decisions.

I replied, so does the AARP.

She said, that's different.

I said the difference is you agree with one and disagree with the other.

The difference, I think, is that your employer has...

2008-08-15T09:33:00.000-04:00

The difference, I think, is that your employer has your career, your livelihood, and your future in his hands. The union doesn't. So there's an element of coercion involved when your employer pushes a political agenda that doesn't exist when your union does the same thing.

I tend to agree that it's a least bad form, if not...

2008-08-15T08:49:00.000-04:00

I tend to agree that it's a least bad form, if not a bad idea, for companies to tell employees how to vote.

But it's interesting that no one complains when labor organizations do the same thing -- typically in a much more aggressive and even hamhanded fashion. In fact unions are among the largest and most influential political brokers (read: special interests) in the country.

So why is it wrong for a party on one side of the business equation but not for the other side?