Harmless banter or something more sinister?

[the other bob wilson]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...inals-election

I think I'd just about come down on the side of the former.

[Eric Cartman]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...inals-election

I think I'd just about come down on the side of the former.

I doubt it was banter but tbh it is highly unlikely anyone would vote for something just because their boss told them to.

I am guessing one of the things he would not 'rethink if Labour got in' would be the obscene 'dividend' him and his wife take out of the company.

[Heathblue]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...inals-election

I think I'd just about come down on the side of the former.

Sinister indirect threat.

[Kris]

My old man was told something similar in 1992. He wasn't planning on voting until he got issued with that threat.

[TH63]

I'd suspect a bit of both. Depending on how communicative CEO's are with their staff, it is not unusual for them to point out the potential impact of an election/referendum on their business.

[Since64]

I'd suspect a bit of both. Depending on how communicative CEO's are with their staff, it is not unusual for them to point out the potential impact of an election/referendum on their business.

Very sinister but pointless,but further proof that if you've got a boss you need a union

[TH63]

Very sinister but pointless,but further proof that if you've got a boss you need a union

I don't think it's particularly sinister tbh, but I agree there's a very fine line there between someone sharing their opinions on the impact on the economy to enable their employees to make a more informed choice and trying to scare people into supporting your own agenda.

[Wales-Bales]

I don't think it's particularly sinister tbh, but I agree there's a very fine line there between someone sharing their opinions on the impact on the economy to enable their employees to make a more informed choice and trying to scare people into supporting your own agenda.

I would agree if it wasn't for this

"Storm Technologies’ last accounts show it made £2.1m profit after tax in 2015 and paid £1.7m in dividends to its only two shareholders, John and Soraya Brooker.

Brooker also has a £2.9m interest-free loan from the company, which recently secured the right to bid for public sector contracts."

The owners are obviously trying to intimidate their workers, with the aim of protecting their lucrative revenue streams. So as usual, it's all down to greed.