Insight: The new US office politics: funding your boss's political causes

Honeywell Automation India

11/05/2015 12:00

(Repeats with no changes to text, headline) 
    By Michelle Conlin and Lucas Iberico Lozada 
    NEW YORK, May 11 (Reuters) - It wasn't long ago that 
politics, like religious orientation or sexual preference, was a 
taboo topic in the American workplace. Political beliefs were 
considered a private affair - off limits to the boss. 
    But today employers are increasingly approaching workers to 
fundraise, lobby and campaign in ways they never have before, 
according to a Reuters analysis of FEC filings and data compiled 
by the Business Industry Political Action Committee. The 
Washington trade group, which has offices across the street from 
the White House, helps firms such as Wal-Mart WMTST.UL , 
Halliburton  HAL.N  and Lockheed Martin  LMT.N  mobilize 
employees on policy issues important to the companies. 
    For years it was unions and trade associations that were the 
politically powerful workplace players, operating political 
action committees (PACs) that raised millions of dollars to 
support their preferred candidates. But since a 2010 U.S. 
Supreme Court decision that allowed for unlimited political 
spending by corporations, the number of companies engaged in 
this sort of activity - be it nudging employees to write 
letters, donate, campaign or vote - has risen 45 percent to 
7,317, according to BIPAC's internal research, seen by Reuters. 
    The new approach to workplace giving is called "E2E," or 
employer-to-employee outreach. These PACs donate to both 
Democrats and Republicans, depending upon who supports policies 
and issues favorable to the business interests of the 
corporation. 
    "When you compare the amount of money the Wal-Marts and 
McDonald's and their employees have, compared to even the 
largest American unions, it's peanuts and watermelons," said 
Phil Smith, spokesman for the United Mine Workers of America. 
    Employees at the nation's top firms are contributing more 
money than ever before to company PACs controlled by CEOs and 
senior management, according to April 2015 quarterly fundraising 
and spending documents disclosed to the U.S. election regulator, 
the Federal Election Commission.  
    An analysis of FEC filings of 122 of the top company PACs 
shows employees raised a median 25 percent more in the first 
quarter of 2015 versus the same period four years ago. For the 
PACs analyzed, the median amount of contributions collected was 
$130,842.   
     
    PARKING SPACE INCENTIVES 
    To encourage this sort of donation, some companies are 
attaching perks to the giving. 
    BP, for example, says employees who donate at least 2.5 
percent of their salary to the company PAC get choice parking 
spots in the company lot. At Wal-Mart, the company gives 
employees who donate to the company PAC a two-for-one match to 
Wal-Mart's in-house charity for store associates in need. 
    A BP spokesman said federal law permitted "recognition 
gifts" such as preferred parking. Wal-Mart said it only asks 
salaried employees to give, not hourly ones, and that workers 
are free to stipulate whether their contributions go to 
Democratic or Republican candidates. 
    At companies that depend heavily on government contracts, 
the giving is especially high. For example, employees of 
Honeywell International, a major manufacturer of aircraft 
electronics, gave more than $1 million in the first quarter of 
2015 - up 52 percent since the same period in 2011.  
    Honeywell, along with Lockheed Martin, BP and Halliburton, 
says its employee contributions are 100 percent voluntary and 
legal and that no pressure is put on employees to become more 
politically active. 
    "Honeywell's PAC supports those who support policies that 
are good for our business and help to create jobs in the United 
States," company spokesman Rob Ferris said.  
 
    EMPLOYEES' DONATIONS SOARING 
    This sharp increase in political donations by employees is 
fueling concerns among some campaign finance watchdogs, ahead of 
the November 2016 elections, that workers may feel pressure to 
donate to candidates they don't support or to lobby on issues 
they don't agree with.  
    "What I worry about is the inherently coercive nature of 
these workplace situations," Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen 
Weintraub said.  
    "Let's say an employer decides to throw corporate resources 
behind a candidate and sets up a phone bank, asking employees to 
get on the phone to get people to support candidate Jones. It's 
very hard to say no to your employer. It puts the employee, 
especially the low-level employee, in a very difficult 
position."     
    Weintraub and FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel, also a Democrat, 
said they were not allowed to comment on any cases before the 
commission that may be related to this issue. 
    The top Republican on the FEC, Lee Goodman, did not echo his 
Democratic colleagues' concerns and noted in an email that the 
law prohibits employers from coercing employees to make 
political contributions. 
    Supporters of the employer-to-employee outreach say that it 
performs an important civic function by educating workers and 
turning them into active political participants. BIPAC says its 
research shows that many workers rate their employers as more 
credible information sources about politics than political 
parties, labor unions or the news media.  
    "If it's done right, there's nothing illegal about it," said 
Greg Casey, president of BIPAC. Some 89 percent of the 
candidates its PAC supports are Republicans.  
     
    PFIZER EMPLOYEES' EMAIL BLAST 
    The practice drew mixed reviews among a dozen employees at 
five companies interviewed by Reuters.  
    "The legislators that would support the company are 
absolutely the ones I would never support," said one global 
director at Pfizer who spoke on condition of anonymity. 
    An email sent to staff in April noted that Pfizer's 
employees had sent more than 8,000 emails to politicians about 
healthcare and patent legislation favorable to Pfizer. 
    The Chairwoman of Pfizer's employee PAC, Sally Susman, said 
that, "while strictly voluntary, we encourage colleagues to 
raise voices on behalf of the patients we serve on important 
issues." 
    Some companies go further. Before the 2012 presidential 
election, Koch Industries sent its employees a voter packet 
informing them which candidates, including Republican nominee 
Mitt Romney, the company supported, as well as an editorial 
knocking President Barack Obama. Campaign finance reformers said 
at the time that Koch's actions crossed the line, while Koch 
Industries defended its actions as "nothing unusual" and the 
type of thing unions did all the time.  
    Some employees allege they have suffered retribution as a 
result of not supporting a CEO's politics.  
    At Ohio-based Murray Energy, a coal mining company, plant 
shift forewoman Jean Cochenour said in a 2014 lawsuit that she 
was fired in retribution for not responding to letters she 
received from the company's CEO, Robert Murray, that began: 
"Dear Jean: The coal industry and our jobs are being destroyed 
by President Barack Obama. Our only hope to stop them is by 
electing friends of coal."  
    The letters, samples of which were included in the pending 
lawsuit, identified the Republican candidates employees should 
donate to, and vote for, like New Hampshire Senate hopeful Scott 
Brown. Murray requested employees make a $200 donation to each 
candidate and included a self-addressed envelope for the 
donations, according to court documents.  
    Cochenour also alleged that managers were required to donate 
at least 1 percent of their salaries to Murray's candidates. And 
vendors and suppliers were also required to give - lest they 
lose the company's business.  
    In an emailed response to these allegations, Murray Energy 
spokesperson Gary Broadbent said Ro