“Despite Obama victory, billionaire hasn’t fired anyone yet.” Now there’s a headline for you.

The billionaire in question is David Siegel, who became momentarily famous (again) after sending an email to his employees last month, stating: “The economy doesn’t currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration.”

His letter provoked the usual partisan bickering. Staunchly pro-business groups defended his comments, while many others, both liberal and conservative, criticized him for unduly influencing his employees’ votes.

Were it not for a brief remark commenting on the story, I might have dismissed it as the ramblings of an eccentric egotist. But this remark asked, why do people who care so much about Siegel’s email not care about teachers who try to influence their students’ votes?

The remark was yet more partisan bickering, but at least bickering that provoked some real thought: We do often treat teachers and employers as existing in wholly different political spheres.

In our democratic process, we naturally have an aversion to anyone who threatens, “Vote this way, or else I will make bad things happen to you.” No student should ever feel that they risk being punished if they do not agree with the political views of their teacher. Same goes for employees and their employers. Another’s ability to influence our vote should begin and end at their ability to convince us that their viewpoint is better.

This is not to say that everyone in a position of power needs to strap duct tape over their mouth and go silent through the political season. Back in 2010, after the University proposed draconian rules in 2008 on the political lives of teachers — and provoking jokes of the “Bumper sticker brigade” as a result — I wrote that teachers have the right to be political individuals, but not to take up their students’ valuable time to deliver a partisan rant. Teachers have a necessary role to play in politics, but one that needs to exist outside of the classroom.

Siegel, and employers in general, has a role to play in politics, but one that again needs to exist outside of the workplace.

In fact, had Siegel made his argument almost anywhere else, the furor over his comments would have been minor. He could have written a letter to the editor, given a speech at a Romney rally or done what most people who have too much money and the desire to influence votes do and buy advertisements. But he didn’t. He sent one email expressly targeting his own employees. That turned his argument from persuasive to threatening, from, “If Obama wins, my business is in trouble,” to, “If Obama wins, your jobs are in trouble.”

Some of Siegel’s supporters argued that Siegel, as a businessman, knew the likely impacts of an Obama re-election and had the duty to inform his employees of that. But if there is an argument along those lines to be made, Siegel did not make it. He argued with the capriciousness of a teacher who gives out A’s and F’s depending on whether their student voted D or R: He made it about his own choice. He said if Obama was re-elected and raised the tax rate, then he would choose to fire his employees and retire — not be forced to retire, but choose to retire.

Suppose instead that there were a proposed law on the ballot that would outlaw the time-sharing businesses of the type Siegel runs. There’s no choice; there’s no question: If the law passes, the company is gone. In this case, the company does have a duty to inform its employees of the danger to their livelihood.

After all, businessmen, just as much as educators, have an important viewpoint on politics.

They know, perhaps better than anyone else which laws are getting in the way of expanding their operations, which laws are helping them out and which laws will force them to shut their doors. They should have a voice, and we should listen. But that is we the public, not we the employees.

We the public are not beholden to that particular employer for our livelihood. There is no “or else” to hang menacingly over our heads.

So, to that remark on the Internet that sparked this: No, I do not feel there is a sizable difference between Siegel’s actions and teachers who try to influence their students’ votes.

Except, that is, on one point.

Teachers might sway their students votes toward what they believe is right — a misguided attempt to do what they feel is best for everyone — although rarely would these issues directly impact the teacher. Siegel tried to sway his employees’ votes toward what would be best for him personally.

Joseph is a graduate student in mathematics. He can be reached at [email protected].