An article seeded on election day by longtime Viner, and NV friend of mine, midgebaker, regarding a prominent CEO including political advise in his employees pay envelopes, insinuates the CEO, Peter Bos, somehow infringed on his employees rights.

Now, those that know me around this forum, know I am considered to be somewhat of a liberal, however every once in a while my propensity to see both sides of a story raises it's ugly head. This is one of those times.

The article states that Bos  included a two page memo, along with the over-the-top touch of a filled out voting ballot, in his employees pay envelopes, just days before the election. Accordingly some employees objected, feeling they were somehow being intimidated.

So, I have a couple of questions;

1 - Were the employees required to follow his advise?

2 - Did the boss have any way of knowing whether the employees followed his advice or not?

IMO, there is nothing wrong with an employer advising his employees regarding the potential impact an election could have on the company they work for, or the industry they work in, and how they might help influence that impact in the voting booth, as long as there is no requirement to pledge their vote one way or another.

However, I think the venue he used to pass on his advice was ill chosen, because as you see, some overly sensitive, highly paranoid employees, construed the memo in the pay envelope as a veiled threat.

I would construe it as the markings of a cheapskate who was trying to save envelopes. More important, by including the memo with the paycheck, it was like, "here's you paycheck .... and, Oh by the way here's a thought about the upcoming election." On the other hand, if the memo was sent to each employee in a separate envelope, it would have been more personal, and would have avoided any perception of  intimidation.

So, here's my question to you.

Are we saying that this CEO is allowed to secretly donate unlimited amounts of money to influence an election, under the guise of freedom of speech, but he in not allowed to exercise actual freedom of speech among his own employees?