Skip to main content
The Workplace

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

8
  • 1
    @Pharap it seemed unusual as I have never had a job do it either in the past. They didn't TELL people how to vote which is where I think makes the distinct difference. They merely stated, "if this bill gets passed it does X for our company, if it gets denied it will do X for our company. Here are some facts and links provided both for the argument and against it. Please try to keep pros and cons in mind when casting your vote (or something like that)." Yea I suppose thinking back on it, they were implying that we should vote a certain way but it was done tactfully and nonconfrontational IMO.
    – ggiaquin16
    Commented Nov 30, 2017 at 23:19
  • 2
    Perhaps they also got away with it because it's a bill rather than a particular party. The distinction between local and national politics sometimes blurs things.
    – Pharap
    Commented Nov 30, 2017 at 23:22
  • 1
    @Pharap yes, it was definitely on a local prop and not a national thing or to vote for a certain politician. Still it was weird even if I shared the same values as the company prior to the mail, I found it slightly off-putting that they were wanting us to vote based on company interest instead of personal interest. I understand a company wants to protect their interests and expect employees to want to as well (cause you know we need a job) but I do hope next time we have a vote that they try not to influence people.
    – ggiaquin16
    Commented Nov 30, 2017 at 23:27
  • 1
    @ggiaquin, "According to the accounting department's analysis, if this bill is passed it will put this branch office in the red unless we triple our revenue. Layoffs would unfortunately be extremely likely." Would you find such an email objectionable (assuming it were factual)? I wouldn't.
    – Wildcard
    Commented Dec 1, 2017 at 3:28
  • 1
    @Wildcard yes, whispers would suggest that many found the email to be unfavorable. As you say, something like this would be hard to write. I can't imagine how many hours the legal team probably spent reviewing it. Not a job I would like. Cheers for a civilized talk! rare to have these days... even on SE.
    – ggiaquin16
    Commented Dec 1, 2017 at 16:30