Employers Seeking to Affect Employees' Political Participation
Intimidation is, I believe, the worst kind of ethical misconduct in
government, because (1) it limits or changes participation of
people in the democratic
process, (2) it is emotionally damaging, and (3) it enables all
sorts of ethical misconduct. Intimidation is a fundamental form of
misuse of power and position. (For more about
intimidation, see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Int…; target="”_blank”">the
section of my book on this topic</a>.) <br>
<br>
Intimidation is a clear sign of a poor ethics environment. When I
first became involved, as a citizen, in my town's politics (we have
a Town Meeting form of government, so the town's citizens are its
legislators), I immediately met with intimidation from most of the
top elected and appointed officials. And I saw how town employees
were expected to go to Town Meetings and vote with the town's
executive body. Were they personally intimidated? Most likely not.
But did they feel as if they had no other choice? Most likely.<br>
<br>
Is this sort of intimidation any less damaging when it is indirect,
that is, when it is done not by officials but rather by those who
seek benefits from these officials? I ask this question because,
according to <a href="http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/14046/romney_instructed_employers…; target="”_blank”">an
article Wednesday in <i>In These Times</i></a>, presidential candidate
Mitt Romney has told employers, "I hope you make it very clear to
your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your
enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming
elections." And some employers have listened by telling their
employees that, if President Obama is re-elected, their employer
will be hurt and there will be layoffs.<br>
<br>
There is no direct, personal intimidation here. Romney isn't even
telling employers which candidate they should tell their employees
to vote for. That is understood. Nor is Romney telling employers to
pressure their employees. But employers have a lot of power over
their employees' lives, and any statement regarding how they vote,
especially when layoffs are mentioned, makes it hard for employees
to feel they have any other choice. And it certainly makes them feel
unable to make a contribution to an opponent of the candidate(s)
suggested by the employer, since these are public.<br>
<br>
Romney's argument for employers communicating with their employees
about the upcoming elections is purely consequentialist: "Nothing
illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe
is best for the business, because I think that will figure into
their election decision, their voting decision." In other words,
it's legal because it will work. The fact that it is intimidating to
be told by an employer that you should vote in the interests of your
employer, and that you may pay the price of unemployment if you
contribute to the election of the wrong candidate, does not seem to
matter. The idea of misusing power is nowhere to be found.<br>
<br>
The fact is that it is usually not so clear which candidate in any election will
be better for a business, unless that business expects to get a
payback from its support for a candidate. Take the situation, at the local level, where a major city
contractor or county developer suggests to its employees that they vote for the
candidate it is financially supporting (or, in jurisdictions that prohibit contributions from a contractor, cannot directly support). At the local level, it becomes more clear that getting employee support for a candidate is one means of enabling the ethical misconduct involved in giving
contracts to certain companies (or giving them more beneficial
specs) or allowing projects to go ahead. It is part of the payoff
for preferential treatment.<br>
<br>
Recommending to employees how to vote is ordinarily beyond the
jurisdiction of ethics commissions. But should it be? Is there any
important difference between a mayor telling city employees how to
vote or who to make contributions to, and a city contractor telling
its employees how to vote or who to make contributions to (and who
not to)? The first situation is often prohibited, because government
officials are under an ethics commission's jurisdiction, and they
have special obligations not to misuse the power of their office. Do
government contractors and others who seek special government
benefits have any special obligation not to misuse their power and
position, not to try to affect their employees' participation in the
political process?<br>
<br>
Whether or not an ethics commission has the power to prohibit such
conduct, if the employee of a government contractor, permittee, or
grantee comes to it with a complaint or information regarding
employer intimidation related to political participation, it would
be valuable for the EC both to discuss this matter in public, hearing
from employees and employers alike, and to ask employers to refrain
from such conduct. Such a discussion would provide a good
opportunity to show how such conduct could be, or be seen to be,
part of a system of preferential treatment and misuse of office,
even if officials are not directly involved. Such a discussion would
also provide an opportunity to show officials why it is important
not to suggest that employers be in any way involved in their
employees' political participation.<br>
<br>
Abuse of power to affect political participation is no better when
it comes from business leaders than when it comes from government
leaders. The only difference is the power to enforce against this
misconduct.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---