> No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees...

So it's not just coercion, it's prohibiting influence (as well as attempts at either). And it also describes the manner of influence that is prohibited:

> through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment.

It is prohibited to influence employees through discharge or loss of employment or through threat of discharge or loss of employment. Both threatening to fire someone and actually firing someone over political activity are prohibited.

And lastly it describes what the employer is prohibited from influencing their employers to or to refrain from doing:

> to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

Using the above to get employees to follow a political action to to refrain from following a political action is prohibited.

> You also dodged the question.

Because the question is inane and you know it. My whole point was that both threatening to fire Eich and actually firing Eich for donations violated these protections, so this distinction is irrelevant. But I'll entertain you: threatening to discharge someone over political activity is when an employer threatens and employee to fire someone for taking or refusing to take a political action. Discharging someone over political activity is when they are actually fired.

And now it's my turn to give you an inane question of my own: When the law prohibits both threatening to discharge someone for political activity and actually discharging someone for political activity, is trying to justify firing someone for political actions by saying, "it's okay they actually discharged him for political activity, they didn't threaten to discharge him" an effective approach?