Unethical Behavior By Coal Producer

You may well have seen an image like the one above. It is being used in campaign commercials for Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie). It is obviously an attempt to counter the impression most people have of Willard -- that he favors the rich. The ad gives the impression that Willard is a champion of working people and that workers, like these coal miners believe Willard has their interests at heart.

The truth is that those miners did not attend that rally for Willard because they all loved him. They were ordered to attend by the executives of Murray Energy -- and they knew if they refused there would be repercussions, possibly even costing them their jobs. Even worse, although they had to take off for part of the day (on company orders) to attend the rally, they were not paid for the time they spent at the rally (meaning they lost several hours of pay to act as campaign props for Willard).

That would have been bad enough, the the executives of Murray Energy have taken their unethical behavior much further. They are "suggesting" that workers should donate a part of their pay to fund the company's political PAC (which is used to fund the campaigns of Republicans -- especially those who deny global climate change and support increased use of fossil fuels). And this, like the rally attendance, is expected (even demanded) by company executives.

Workers know that a failure to contribute to the company's political PAC would result in being overlooked when it came time for raises or promotions -- and could even mean the loss of their job. Here is how Think Progress puts it:

The accounts of two sources who have worked in managerial positions at the firm, and a review of letters and memos to Murray employees, suggest that coercion may also explain Murray staffers’ financial support for Romney. Murray, it turns out, has for years pressured salaried employees to give to the Murray Energy political action committee (PAC) and to Republican candidates chosen by the company. Internal documents show that company officials track who is and is not giving. The sources say that those who do not give are at risk of being demoted or missing out on bonuses, claims Murray denies.

The Murray sources, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution, came forward separately. But they painted similar pictures of the fund-raising operation. “There’s a lot of coercion,” says one of them. “I just wanted to work, but you feel this constant pressure that, if you don’t contribute, your job’s at stake. You’re compelled to do this whether you want to or not.” Says the second: “They will give you a call if you’re not giving. . . . It’s expected you give Mr. Murray what he asks for.”

According to the New Republic, Murray employees have donated $1.4 million to Republican candidates. This year alone, they have provided Willard with at least $120,000. Now I don't have any problem with any employee donating money to a political PAC, whether it is a company, union, or independent PAC. I do however, have a big problem with a company demanding an employee donate to a PAC (and keep track of those who gave and those who didn't give).

This is nothing less than worker abuse. Every penny a worker receives in pay for their hard work should be spent as the worker wants -- and the company has no right to demand or "suggest" any of it should be spent as the company wants. This may not be illegal (although it should be if it is not), but it is certainly both immoral and unethical.