View Full Version : CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins....
yankeefan98121
10-11-2012, 08:04
This from CNBC [ROFL1]:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-workers-youll-likely-fired-131640914.html
enjoy
it's long but is well put
kidicarus13
10-11-2012, 08:21
I like the idea because it is the truth.
If we the people allow the government to interfere with businesses to such a degree that businesses have to shut down then we the people are getting exactly what we deserve.
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 08:49
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this; whatever.
When you own a company, you decide how much you can afford to pay yourself from its profits. This guy is paying himself enough that he "has enough money for the rest of [his] life and enough to leave a good inheritance for [his] kids," has paid off his debts, including the note on the "largest new house in America," in which he is currently installing new elevators and marble, all of which he refers to as cutting back and being "lean and mean," but his poor, struggling little company will have to lay people off if he has to pay taxes, rather than reduce his salary or his profit margins. Is that the gist of it?
Fvck him. He's a scumbag.
I wonder if John Galt has talked to him yet?
Why shouldn't he pay himself first, isn't that reaping what he's sown?
He's provided opportunities for his emplyees, he's not obligated to take continue care of them.
It's fine to ride along on someone good fortune (being employed by them) but one should not expect more than the opportunity to work for them.
Let go of the shirtails and make your own success.
SuperiorDG
10-11-2012, 09:00
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this; whatever.
When you own a company, you decide how much you can afford to pay yourself from its profits. This guy is paying himself enough that he "has enough money for the rest of [his] life and enough to leave a good inheritance for [his] kids," has paid off his debts, including the note on the "largest new house in America," in which he is currently installing new elevators and marble, all of which he refers to as cutting back and being "lean and mean," but his poor, struggling little company will have to lay people off if he has to pay taxes, rather than reduce his salary or his profit margins. Is that the gist of it?
Fvck him. He's a scumbag.
He never says his company is "struggling."
Why is it that people whom produce a job for others are seen as scumbags? It goes back that mentality that says, "you didn't build that." Take a little time out of your life and read Atlas Shrugged, you will see that what is going on in this country is what is "fvck" up. It's not about not having enough to pay the extra taxes, is about being a slave to those that do not earn the money they get. Fuck them, I might go on strike too.
SuperiorDG
10-11-2012, 09:00
I wonder if John Galt has talked to him yet?
Took me a little time to write mine so you beat me to it. [Beer]
I think it's a scumbag move because he's going to fire these people tomorrow on the possibility that something might impact his business in the next 4 years.
It's bullshit fearmongering tactics that have no basis in our current reality.
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 09:14
Not everyone can own their own company. Capitalism will not work if there are only employers and no employees. But screw them, I guess. Let them eat cake.
SuperiorDG
10-11-2012, 09:19
Not everyone can own their own company. Capitalism will not work if there are only employers and no employees. But screw them, I guess. Let them eat cake.
Not everyone has what it takes to own their own company. Employees will never understand this.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 09:36
As an employer, when Obamacare went through I let all 5 guys working for me go. I cannot and will not pay the insurance costs that are coming down the pipe. I prefer to work alone and use contractors for everything rather than have even a single employee.
I wrote a lot out, but fuck it- bottom line is if you have a job, YOU VOLUNTEERED AND AGREED to the salary etc. and knew what you were getting into. Why is it so many people think their company- the rich fat bastards enjoying the fruits of their success and the rewards of taking the risk to go into business- are screwing them when YOU AGREED TO THE TERMS WHEN HIRED!!!! Why is there are so many employees now who think they "deserve" more when they agreed to do X work for X dollars or chickens or car parts or hookers per week, month, whatever? What happened to being grateful you have a job, doing the best you can at it, taking pride in your work and having a little loyalty to the company that provides you with the opportunity? What happened to "company men"?
ChunkyMonkey
10-11-2012, 09:50
I think it's a scumbag move because he's going to fire these people tomorrow on the possibility that something might impact his business in the next 4 years.
It's bullshit fearmongering tactics that have no basis in our current reality.
Obviously never invested in a business of your own?
I have multiple ventures at the moment - and I agree with this guy. In one case, we will be forced to fire everyone and rehire them as independent contractors.
Many folks don't get it, as business owners, we try to project income/spending as far ahead as possible. If there is an impending risk that is beyond our control, we may decided to pull the plug early to save our investment.
If the business owner is set for life, why would he risk his money to maintain 'jobs' for you while taking all the risk??? Once the risk hit hit the point to outweigh the growth potential, most would rather pull their money and reinvest it else where.
Not everyone has what it takes to own their own company. Employees will never understand this.
Oh yes we do understand this. Some people just do not want that hassle, especially if there are employees involved.
What happened to being grateful you have a job, doing the best you can at it, taking pride in your work and having a little loyalty to the company that provides you with the opportunity? What happened to "company men"?
What happened is the lack of any return for loyalty. Being on the lookout for another job that pays better, is closer, is better in some way is smart. In the same way it is smart for the employer to think through 'well I can hire 3 chinese for the cost of 1 engineer here' and poof there goes your job.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 10:02
Oh yes we do understand this. Some people just do not want that hassle, especially if there are employees involved.
What happened is the lack of any return for loyalty. Being on the lookout for another job that pays better, is closer, is better in some way is smart. In the same way it is smart for the employer to think through 'well I can hire 3 chinesewho will do a better job and be grateful for the opportunity for the cost of 1 engineer here' and poof there goes your job.
FIFY
AND-
No return for loyalty? You get a paycheck when its time to get paid right? Theres your return. You honored your agreement and the employer honored his. Now if for some reason everytime your employer hears about you its that your supervisor saw you on jobs.com.net.tv, or that you had three or four opportunities to pitch in a little extra time, maybe work on something at home or come in on a Saturday, and you didnt and it cost the company time and money, or that owner observes you being consistently (I say consistently because everyone has off days) moody or unhappy and you do and say nothing to explain or improve, then obviously no bonus for you.
HOWEVER, most employers do have bonus plans and every employer I know of would welcome and support actual bonus plan to reward employees for putting in extra effort. What NONE will support is a bonus plan for just doing your damned job. And why should they?
EDIT- My wife is considering several job opportunities in Hong Kong, where she can make a fair amount more money than she does here. However, a TYPICAL workday over there for a manager or even junior executive is 12 to 14 hours. They get work done. She has worked over there before with a previous employer and while the pace is to her I think exciting for the first week, by the second week she was not thrilled about it. However thats just normal doing business. AND these are the executives, you know, the "fat bastards" cruising around in thier limos and partying all night.
You obviously have no clue- the executives and owners NEVER STOP WORKING. Yeah they might be at home, but they are still working on this project or that proposal or setting up this meeting. I leave my shop and spend another three hours usually on the computer doing billing, research, etc. It never ends. There is no overtime, there may not even be an office party at the end of a long project, but its work and it has to get done for the company to succeed. Silly I know, to work that hard to ensure the employees have jobs.
An hourly employee on the other hand finishes their 8 hour shift with an hour lunch and two GOVERNMENT MANDATED 30 minute breaks, clocks out, and goes home to sit on thier couch and complain about how bad they have it because they have to work 8 hours a day for shitty pay for those fat bastards living it up with all their money.
Who, exactly, needs a reality check?
ChunkyMonkey
10-11-2012, 10:03
Oh yes we do understand this. Some people just do not want that hassle, especially if there are employees involved.
No doubt! Why bother risking my retirement on guys who will leave you once better opportunities arise? You pay the good guys in order for your business to compete in the market - Nothing else. Noone in his/her right mind is in the for profit business only for the good sake of hiring others. Your time and sweat earns the bucks.
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 10:04
As an employer, when Obamacare went through I let all 5 guys working for me go. I cannot and will not pay the insurance costs that are coming down the pipe. I prefer to work alone and use contractors for everything rather than have even a single employee.
I wrote a lot out, but fuck it- bottom line is if you have a job, YOU VOLUNTEERED AND AGREED to the salary etc. and knew what you were getting into. Why is it so many people think their company- the rich fat bastards enjoying the fruits of their success and the rewards of taking the risk to go into business- are screwing them when YOU AGREED TO THE TERMS WHEN HIRED!!!! Why is there are so many employees now who think they "deserve" more when they agreed to do X work for X dollars or chickens or car parts or hookers per week, month, whatever? What happened to being grateful you have a job, doing the best you can at it, taking pride in your work and having a little loyalty to the company that provides you with the opportunity? What happened to "company men"?
That's exactly the point. You can't be thankful for a job you don't have because some fat bastard couldn't bear to not put a new elevator in his mansion.
I have a tendency to let my anger force hyperbole in my posts; I need to try to hold that back until I've calmed. Let me rephrase with less emotion: I don't think he should be required, by any means, to retain his workers. I think he displays enormous lack of character to collect a lavish salary from his company's coffers, the state of which, he implies, will force him to lay people off if his taxes increase. If he has the means to keep his company in the black and not lay anyone off, good ethics would suggest he should. If he would prefer to put people out of work in order to maintain his own salary, while that is his prerogative, it displays a lack of moral fiber.
I think a good leader is one who is willing to put his subordinates before himself. The opposite seems to be true in order to be financially successful.
ChunkyMonkey
10-11-2012, 10:08
^^ fantasy. If you were in his position, you will maintain your style of living, your gun collection, or happiness of your children over your employees. [Weight]
^^ fantasy. If you were in his position, you will maintain your style of living, your gun collection, or happiness of your children over your employees. [Weight]
I think you and your family can continue to be happy without getting a marble encrusted biggest house currently being built in the nation.
hghclsswhitetrsh
10-11-2012, 10:11
I blame the unions for sure.
ChunkyMonkey
10-11-2012, 10:26
I think you and your family can continue to be happy without getting a marble encrusted biggest house currently being built in the nation.
I agree, but it's my money to decide whether I want to have the biggest marble encrusted house in the nation or to risk it on a business. Welcome to the free world.
Be honest, would you sacrifice your gun collection, pull your kids off a good university, sell your car, or open your home to a family member who is in need until he/she can pay you back plus interest. She/He promises you much return in interest, even promises to pay for your kids graduate school in the future as long as you can use their college fund on her/him today. Would you trust your own family member to risk your style of living and livelihood?
Most Americans won't even take the risk of helping their own siblings/family members.
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 10:32
I agree, but it's my money to decide whether I want to have the biggest marble encrusted house in the nation or to risk it on a business. Welcome to the free world.
Be honest, would you sacrifice your gun collection, pull your kids off a good university, sell your car, or open your home to a family member who is in need until he/she can pay you back plus interest. She/He promises you much return in interest, even promises to pay for your kids graduate school in the future as long as you can use their college fund on her/him today. Would you trust your own family member to risk your style of living and livelihood?
Most Americans won't even take the risk of helping their own siblings/family members.
I have when I was able, taken in and helped out my family and friends, and I've never expected a thing in return. You may be right that most Americans would not. Such is the sad state of things.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 10:41
I have when I am able, without having to sacrifice anything, taken in and helped out my family and friends, and I've never expected a thing in return. You may be right that most Americans would not. Such is the sad state of things.
BUT if you had to sell all your guns, sell your car and take the bus to work, sell your investment property that was your retirement plan, take out loans against your house that put you steeply at risk and meant that your kids college funds dried up, and have a negative balance on your bank account every month if you paid your bills on time, would you do that?
I have had a business fail, and I did everything to save it while making sure my employees got paid. I sold all but one of my guns, I sold everything I had that was not absolutely necessary to survive, went deep into debt, and the business still failed, but the employees never missed a check. They made money while I was suffering, and they were pissed at me when I had to close the doors.
Until you have some skin in the game, dont bitch about the people who do.
ChunkyMonkey
10-11-2012, 10:42
That was some ninja editing, teufelfund! [Coffee]
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 10:49
BUT if you had to sell all your guns, sell your car and take the bus to work, sell your investment property that was your retirement plan, take out loans against your house that put you steeply at risk and meant that your kids college funds dried up, and have a negative balance on your bank account every month if you paid your bills on time, would you do that?
I have had a business fail, and I did everything to save it while making sure my employees got paid. I sold all but one of my guns, I sold everything I had that was not absolutely necessary to survive, went deep into debt, and the business still failed, but the employees never missed a check. They made money while I was suffering, and they were pissed at me when I had to close the doors.
Until you have some skin in the game, dont bitch about the people who do.
I removed that part from my post before you replied because I thought about it and realized I did have to cut back my lifestyle to help others.
We're not talking about the small business owner who is scraping to make ends meet. We're talking about a millionaire who, by his own admission, already has enough money to last the rest of his life, and is going to lay people off rather than make a reduction in his luxurious lifestyle, regardless of the fact his company is in the black.
Your sacrifice speaks highly of your character, though I never said one should let the business fail before making cuts.
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 10:52
Leif, will you change my handle since no one can spell or pronounce it? [Flower]
Whistler
10-11-2012, 10:54
I agree, but it's my money to decide whether I want to have the biggest marble encrusted house in the nation or to risk it on a business. Welcome to the free world.
Be honest, would you sacrifice your gun collection, pull your kids off a good university, sell your car, or open your home to a family member who is in need until he/she can pay you back plus interest. She/He promises you much return in interest, even promises to pay for your kids graduate school in the future as long as you can use their college fund on her/him today. Would you trust your own family member to risk your style of living and livelihood?
Most Americans won't even take the risk of helping their own siblings/family members.
I think I see why you two disagree, not everything should be construed as a profit opportunity.
I also lost a business and sacrificed much in a vain attempt to keep it going but my employees didn't make that decision regardless of how altruistic my thought process, I did.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 10:56
There is no difference between a small business and a large one. Large business fail just like small ones. The bigger the business, the higher the overhead and the more each tiny thing matters. Sure, 2% increase doesnt sound like much, until you apply that over 2000 employees making an average of 65K a year, then it fucking hurts. Add in the additional costs of having to hire someone in to implement and manage the application and enforcement of the program, the attorney fees paid to review each and every item pertaining to it and soon your profitable business is running at a loss.
So WHAT if he has done well and does not want to risk losing what he has?? Do you not understand how money works? Having it is good. Keeping it is hard. Giving it away to the government because of some dumbass program is bad, mmmkay?? Adding ANY cost to doing business DOES NOTHING but make the decision to close doors easier. It does not create jobs, it does not add taxes (hard to tax a business thats closed) and just adds a drain on the economy because even if these people live off thier savings they will no longer buy higher end goods, which hurts other businesses. Its called the economy, and its not that hard to understand.
yankeefan98121
10-11-2012, 10:59
Agreed ^^
Leif, will you change my handle since no one can spell or pronounce it? [Flower]
I always want to pronounce it tele-fun-hound[ROFL1]
what's it mean and how do you pronounce?
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 11:02
pronounced too- fool- hund - Its German :)
I think it means big dog but Im too lazy to google it
Rucker61
10-11-2012, 11:02
I always want to pronounce it tele-fun-hound[ROFL1]
what's it mean and how do you pronounce?
"toy'-full-hoond", "devil-dog", in German. I suspect a link to the USMC.
ChunkyMonkey
10-11-2012, 11:04
Don't forget that increase in labor cost translates to higher retail price which then may drive more consumers to buy other cheaper chicom products. Then to compete, we are forced to move the operation/production activity to India/China... So what drives outsourcing again?
Rucker61
10-11-2012, 11:10
As an employer, when Obamacare went through I let all 5 guys working for me go. I cannot and will not pay the insurance costs that are coming down the pipe. I prefer to work alone and use contractors for everything rather than have even a single employee.
Kinda curious where in the timeline you expect the costs to go up, and why you added to the unemployed ranks before that happened.
http://fleming.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hc_timeline.pdf
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 11:13
I always want to pronounce it tele-fun-hound[ROFL1]
what's it mean and how do you pronounce?
LOL
A brief etymology and German lesson:
Teufelhund, pronounced (Toyful-hoont), is Devil Dog in German. It is a nickname Marines use for each other, originating from the Battle of Belleau Wood, in which the Marines attacked and drove back a numerically superior German force with such ferocity the Germans referred to the attacking Marines as Teufelshunde, or Hounds of Hell.
Teufel = Devil
Hund = Dog
Similar to English, when forming a compound noun in German, the two words are combined. (e.g. toothpaste).
The plural of Hund is Hunde. When combining plural nouns in German, a connecting "s" is used. Devil Dogs in German is Teufelshunde (pronounced Toyfuls-hoont-eh). Yes, the Marines have been saying it wrong for years; they say it is Teufel Hunden (and they pronounce it Tooful-Hun-den). The "en" suffix is only applied in the conjugation of verbs; it is not used with nouns.
LOL
A brief etymology and German lesson:
Teufelhund, pronounced (Toyful-hoont), is Devil Dog in German. It is a nickname Marines use for each other, originating from the Battle of Belleau Wood, in which the Marines attacked and drove back a numerically superior German force with such ferocity the Germans referred to the attacking Marines as Teufelshunde, or Hounds of Hell.
Teufel = Devil
Hund = Dog
Similar to English, when forming a compound noun in German, the two words are combined. (e.g. toothpaste).
The plural of Hund is Hunde. When combining plural nouns in German, a connecting "s" is used. Devil Dogs in German is Teufelshunde (pronounced Toyfuls-hoont-eh). Yes, the Marines have been saying it wrong for years; they say it is Teufel Hunden (and they pronounce it Tooful-Hun-den). The "en" suffix is only applied in the conjugation of verbs; it is not used with nouns.
Lol lots of work! Was devil dog taken? [Tooth]
Now ill call your toyful hound!
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 11:22
Lol lots of work! Was devil dog taken? [Tooth]
Now ill call your toyful hound!
LOL naw, it's a name I use on another forum and it was just the first thing that came to mind.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 11:23
Kinda curious where in the timeline you expect the costs to go up, and why you added to the unemployed ranks before that happened.
http://fleming.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hc_timeline.pdf
Obamacare passed, go read the document and understand it before you ask stupid questions. I get that your a liberal and there is no use in arguing with someone who has no understanding of business. I chose adding to the unemployment ranks rather go out of business. Its called self-preservation, something you liberals lack.
Also the link is not working for me, but dont bother trying to "educate" me, I am the one who writes the check so no matter how much sunshine you try to blow up my ass, it will never cover the truth of the matter.
I think you and your family can continue to be happy without getting a marble encrusted biggest house currently being built in the nation.
Chunky Monkey is talking about "Maintaining the style of living" they currently enjoy. I have friends who refuse to drive anything less than a $70,000 car. They feel they earned that through their hard work and taking risks. Who the hell is anyone else to tell them they can't reap the fruits of their labor? I thought this was America... You want nice things, you earn them, fvck anyone who wants to take that away from you!
ChunkyMonkey
10-11-2012, 11:29
Kinda curious where in the timeline you expect the costs to go up, and why you added to the unemployed ranks before that happened.
http://fleming.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hc_timeline.pdf
Per my CPA -
Medicare payroll taxes increases in 2013 from 1.45% to 2.35% for $250000 joint income or 200k single. Also the Investment side will be 3.8%.
2014 onward, Small business health insurance tax kicks in, this is where business owners will be hit by the insurance cost increases.
Moreover....
Employer mandate kicks in. Some business owners must provide insurance, pay penalties or even both! If you have 50 or more employees and do not offer insurance, the penalty is $2000 per full time (whoops everyone gonna be working part time then). In addition for >50 employees firm like myself, we must provide voucher to contributes toward employee's premium (employee's GAI is under 400% of federal poverty line)
Then you have to sum up part timers toward full time. In addition there are automatic enrollment for those with 200 workers or more. All these will increase premium.
No offense to those who are in the insurance business, but insurance companies still cannot compete beyond state border, so this will only strengthen their monopoly and price fixing!!!
Now do you know how many businesses who are barely hanging on? Probably as many as folks who live paycheck to paycheck due to the current economy. I suspect mid of 2013 to beginning of 2014, we will see many businesses falling out.
yankeefan98121
10-11-2012, 11:34
Chunky Monkey is talking about "Maintaining the style of living" they currently enjoy. I have friends who refuse to drive anything less than a $70,000 car. They feel they earned that through their hard work and taking risks. Who the hell is anyone else to tell them they can't reap the fruits of their labor? I thought this was America... You want nice things, you earn them, fvck anyone who wants to take that away from you!
Fuck yeah man! I totally agree!!
I'm busting my ass working two gigs, because I want nice things. Not to support the lazy FUCKTARDS that want a hand out
Obamacare passed, go read the document and understand it before you ask stupid questions. I get that your a liberal and there is no use in arguing with someone who has no understanding of business. I chose adding to the unemployment ranks rather go out of business. Its called self-preservation, something you liberals lack.
Also the link is not working for me, but dont bother trying to "educate" me, I am the one who writes the check so no matter how much sunshine you try to blow up my ass, it will never cover the truth of the matter.
you're pretty new. If you haven't figured it out yet, Rucker is a liberal who just likes to stir the pot around here. There is an ignore feature on here that allows to you block any comments he makes, the only time you have to see them is when somebody quotes him.
So let me get this straight -
He took the risk to start his business, it grows, becomes big (no matter big or small). Now .gov wants to force him to spend more $ to stay in business. He says he'll just close shop if more of same .gov comes down the turnpike and you blame him for the decision he makes? I don't care if it's a $10 budget or you add a bunch of zeros at the end of the number. It's HIS freaking business, it's a private company. You don't like it - then go buy him out. It's turnkey as it sits and you can keep the place running.
Are you complaining about the moral standard that you think he has to provide for his employees? What moral standard is that? The Golden Rule?
jhood001
10-11-2012, 12:34
What moral standard is that? The Golden Rule?
It is kind of the same moral standard that makes an employer expect that 'his guys' are going to show up on a business critical day. Or the same moral standard that makes an employer expect that 'his guys' aren't going to wait until a very critical moment to quit on him in order to hurt him.
It is a two way street. It just depends on what side of the coin you're on.
At the end of the day each employer and each employee decides what level of loyalty they're willing to give and what level they demand. I personally believe that there are no ethics in business. Go where the highest pay is. And employers need to stop acting like employing people or 'creating job's makes them akin to Jesus Christ. Employing people simply makes them more money.
SuperiorDG
10-11-2012, 12:36
Bottom Line: His business, his choice. If the employees want to deal with the situation that he is walking away from then they can start there own business. If we made it a law that he could not shut down his business it would be slavery.
So let me get this straight -
He took the risk to start his business, it grows, becomes big (no matter big or small). Now .gov wants to force him to spend more $ to stay in business. He says he'll just close shop if more of same .gov comes down the turnpike and you blame him for the decision he makes? I don't care if it's a $10 budget or you add a bunch of zeros at the end of the number. It's HIS freaking business, it's a private company. You don't like it - then go buy him out. It's turnkey as it sits and you can keep the place running.
Are you complaining about the moral standard that you think he has to provide for his employees? What moral standard is that? The Golden Rule?
Actually, no. He is firing these people because he EXPECTS that the government will force him to spend more money. It's speculation. Imagine if global employment fluxed based on theories like the oil industry...
SuperiorDG
10-11-2012, 12:42
It is kind of the same moral standard that makes an employer expect that 'his guys' are going to show up on a business critical day. Or the same moral standard that makes an employer expect that 'his guys' aren't going to wait until a very critical moment to quit on him in order to hurt him.
It is a two way street. It just depends on what side of the coin you're on.
At the end of the day each employer and each employee decides what level of loyalty they're willing to give and what level they demand. I personally believe that there are no ethics in business. Go where the highest pay is. And employers need to stop acting like employing people or 'creating job's makes them akin to Jesus Christ. Employing people simply makes them more money.
His guys show up because if they don't they will not have a job. In turn they can always quit. Why do they have the right to decide what they do with their lives and he as employer does not?
Whistler
10-11-2012, 12:46
My primary issue with it is the implicit coercion to "vote" in favor of their continued employment.
jhood001
10-11-2012, 12:46
Why do they have the right to decide what they do with their lives and he as employer does not?
Um. They both have that right. Re-read.
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 12:51
Bottom Line: His business, his choice. If the employees want to deal with the situation that he is walking away from then they can start there own business. If we made it a law that he could not shut down his business it would be slavery.
Whoa. No one even suggested there should be a law forcing his decision to maintain or cut employees. It is his business, his choice; I would not argue that point. He wants sympathy for being forced to pay more taxes, and his decision is to put people out of work rather than let those increased taxes cut into his lifestyle of relative excess. I support his right to do so, but I still think he's a scumbag for it.
I should clarify that I think our current system of paying income tax is flawed and should be replaced entirely. It is, however, the current system to which we are subject.
Actually, no. He is firing these people because he EXPECTS that the government will force him to spend more money. It's speculation. Imagine if global employment fluxed based on theories like the oil industry...
It's either going to be the same or more tax - not speculation but a 1 or 0. Seeing the last 4 years of how unfriendly the administration is to non-green businesses in general I'd say his 'speculation' is dead on. Seems to me that he's just giving his employees a "just in case/warning" to have a back up plan. Once again - it's his company to do as he pleases. If he just decides tomorrow to shut it all down and go hang out on the beach or at his mansion then WTF - it's HIS company.
ChunkyMonkey
10-11-2012, 12:59
It is kind of the same moral standard that makes an employer expect that 'his guys' are going to show up on a business critical day. Or the same moral standard that makes an employer expect that 'his guys' aren't going to wait until a very critical moment to quit on him in order to hurt him.
It is a two way street. It just depends on what side of the coin you're on.
At the end of the day each employer and each employee decides what level of loyalty they're willing to give and what level they demand. I personally believe that there are no ethics in business. Go where the highest pay is. And employers need to stop acting like employing people or 'creating job's makes them akin to Jesus Christ. Employing people simply makes them more money.
Nope. No such thing as two way street when it comes to employer and employees. One is paid to do his/her job. He/she doesn't like it, move on. The other creates opportunity by taking risk and putting investment and hiring paid workers. You need make more profit first before employing more workers.. Your statement that employing people simply makes them more money is false.
Your boss can decide no call/no show tomorrow w/o risking much of losing you. On the other hand, if you do so, you may lose your job as it is at his/her mercy. Try to act like your boss and be an asshole at him one day if you dont believe me :D
SuperiorDG
10-11-2012, 12:59
Um. They both have that right. Re-read.
Yea they both have the right, but the employer is seen as a scumbag for exercising his.
Employing more people does not necessarily make the employer more money, especially if when the government steps in.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 13:13
Whoa. No one even suggested there should be a law forcing his decision to maintain or cut employees. It is his business, his choice; I would not argue that point. He wants sympathy for being forced to pay more taxes, and his decision is to put people out of work rather than let those increased taxes cut into his lifestyle of relative excess. I support his right to do so, but I still think he's a scumbag for it.
I should clarify that I think our current system of paying income tax is flawed and should be replaced entirely. It is, however, the current system to which we are subject.
Its not an income tax he objects to, its higher taxes on his doing business, these are two different things.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 13:14
Nope. No such thing as two way street when it comes to employer and employees. One is paid to do his/her job. He/she doesn't like it, move on. The other creates opportunity by taking risk and putting investment and hiring paid workers. You need make more profit first before employing more workers.. Your statement that employing people simply makes them more money is false.
Your boss can decide no call/no show tomorrow w/o risking much of losing you. On the other hand, if you do so, you may lose your job as it is at his/her mercy. Try to act like your boss and be an asshole at him one day if you dont believe me :D
THIS GUY^^^^^ gets it.
ChunkyMonkey
10-11-2012, 13:18
THIS GUY^^^^^ gets it.
I better quit too.. almost hit a water hydrant while typing that on my iphone. Texting and driving is DANGEROUS!!!!
hghclsswhitetrsh
10-11-2012, 13:19
But us worker bees are unappreciative dirt bags because we expect to be treated fairly. But wait we should be "thankful" we have a job right? How about the employers be thankful we work for them, we are thankful we have a job and do good work etc etc.
I don't really care what you union bashers say but fair is fair. I have a certain set of rules above and beyond laws and regulations that I'm held to. And the agreement(union contract) holds my employer above and beyond labor laws. We are both happy, I work hard, they make money off the work I do, I get paid, it's a happy little relationship, I understand them and they understand me.
SuperiorDG
10-11-2012, 13:21
Nope. No such thing as two way street when it comes to employer and employees. One is paid to do his/her job. He/she doesn't like it, move on. The other creates opportunity by taking risk and putting investment and hiring paid workers. You need make more profit first before employing more workers.. Your statement that employing people simply makes them more money is false.
Your boss can decide no call/no show tomorrow w/o risking much of losing you. On the other hand, if you do so, you may lose your job as it is at his/her mercy. Try to act like your boss and be an asshole at him one day if you dont believe me :D
Hey Monkey, I had an employee (OWS type) once who I had cleaning up the shop during slow times. He was slacking and I told him that I really wanted for him to get his 40 hours, but he had to stay busy. His response to me was that he would not work for someone that didn't GIVE him his 40 hours. He didn't last much longer then a few days.
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 13:21
Its not an income tax he objects to, its higher taxes on his doing business, these are two different things.
You're right; I misspoke. He's crying about new taxes that may cause him to fire people. The result is the same.
You guys are still arguing this from the standpoint of a business-owner who has to make a decision between keeping the lights on and making cuts. Those are not the circumstances this guy is in.
ChunkyMonkey
10-11-2012, 13:24
Hey Monkey, I had an employee (OWS type) once who I had cleaning up the shop during slow times. He was slacking and I told him that I really wanted for him to get his 40 hours, but he had to stay busy. His response to me was that he would not work for someone that didn't GIVE him his 40 hours. He didn't last much longer then a few days.
I hope he wasn't one of the installers you sent to install those glasses at my house [Tooth]. Those looked like good workers.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 13:30
You're right; I misspoke. He's crying about new taxes that may cause him to fire people. The result is the same.
You guys are still arguing this from the standpoint of a business-owner who has to make a decision between keeping the lights on and making cuts. Those are not the circumstances this guy is in.
YES IT IS! That is EXACTLY the circumstance he is in. He either has to take money out of his pocket to keep the business going OR he has to let some people go and scale back, and possibly even shut down.
Tell you what, why dont you call and ask his HR department if they can circulate a memo asking all the employees to MATCH 10% of the $$ the employer puts in to keep them employed, or even better, to take a pay cut to help absorb the cost of these goburment mandates that threaten thier jobs? \
WHY should he have to take even 1 dollar out of his pocket to keep a business he has already put everything he had into for 42 years just so the guberment man can redistribute his wealth?
You are not libertarian, your a liberal, just come clean about it and go join a Union and live off my taxes.
ChunkyMonkey
10-11-2012, 13:36
Calm down... no need for personal attack. [Beer]
My primary issue with it is the implicit coercion to "vote" in favor of their continued employment.
life has consequences...even in voting. our current president is the perfect example. enough people voted him in and we all have to suffer. this is the same thing on a smaller scale with boss telling you the implications.
hghclsswhitetrsh
10-11-2012, 13:39
Dwalker I'm Union and guarantee you none of your money makes it to me. Nice try.
I better quit too.. almost hit a water hydrant while typing that on my iphone. Texting and driving is DANGEROUS!!!!
what do you care it is your business vehicle[ROFL1]
....and go join a Union and live off my taxes.
I'll have to disagree here. There are lots of different unions out there. Some are .gov workers who have a union which I find counterproductive because the tax payers cover all of the costs no matter what.
Then there are private companies whose employees have unionized. I fit into this one. A LOT of the people on here fit into this one. A union isn't necessarily a bad thing. I have problems with my union, how they represent me at times, but none of my money goes to their political fund to help any candidate out. The money they get is from my dues which comes out of my paycheck that I earn every month from my employer who is publicly traded and owned by lots of private people.
I see your point for .gov and the unions that represent them (teachers, police, fire, Air Traffic Control etc.), but to generalize all unions together isn't necessarily correct![Beer]
hghclsswhitetrsh
10-11-2012, 13:53
I'll have to disagree here. There are lots of different unions out there. Some are .gov workers who have a union which I find counterproductive because the tax payers cover all of the costs no matter what.
Then there are private companies whose employees have unionized. I fit into this one. A LOT of the people on here fit into this one. A union isn't necessarily a bad thing. I have problems with my union, how they represent me at times, but none of my money goes to their political fund to help any candidate out. The money they get is from my dues which comes out of my paycheck that I earn every month from my employer who is publicly traded and owned by lots of private people.
I see your point for .gov and the unions that represent them (teachers, police, fire, Air Traffic Control etc.), but to generalize all unions together isn't necessarily correct![Beer]
But all people in unions are lazy, leaches, liberals, entitled, etc etc etc
/sarcasm
Eff people with that stereo typical mindset.
jhood001
10-11-2012, 13:57
Nope. No such thing as two way street when it comes to employer and employees. One is paid to do his/her job. He/she doesn't like it, move on. The other creates opportunity by taking risk and putting investment and hiring paid workers. You need make more profit first before employing more workers.. Your statement that employing people simply makes them more money is false.
Your boss can decide no call/no show tomorrow w/o risking much of losing you. On the other hand, if you do so, you may lose your job as it is at his/her mercy. Try to act like your boss and be an asshole at him one day if you dont believe me :D
Yea they both have the right, but the employer is seen as a scumbag for exercising his.
Employing more people does not necessarily make the employer more money, especially if when the government steps in.
I don't think I'm being clear enough for the both of you. I'll try and reiterate:
When I say that it is a 'two way street', I mean that having morals and loyalty in the work-place is a two way street.
An employer expects employees to not steal from their business. They expect their employees to not no-show on them on a make-it-or-break-it day. They expect them to provide a 2 weeks notice when they're moving on.
Likewise, an employee expects their employer to keep them on when they move into troubled waters. They expect their employer to not give them the boot when they're approaching a point where they qualify for retirement benefits. Things of that nature.
That isn't to say that an employer shouldn't not reduce personnel if and when it means that their own well-being is being threatened. I'm not advocating that at all. If the survivability of the company is on the line, it is time to reduce costs. If the company is publicly traded, it is time to reduce head-count in order to keep share-holder profits steady. I personally don't see employers who take actions such as these as a 'scum-bag' at all, but congrats on assuming my position on the matter.
Loyalty in business, to me, is both parties doing their best for the other up until the point that they can no longer do so while preserving their own well-being. At least to me.
And when I said that employing people generates more money, I meant that in a very simplistic sense. However, Joe's Diner isn't netting 200k a year while McDonalds is netting 1 billion because Joe's Diner is doing it wrong. And even if they both clear 0 profit, McDonald's is valued exponentially higher.
Still, if either one of you own a business or two and you can run them all by your lonesome and make the same living, why don't you save yourselves the headache and let them all go?
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 13:58
Dwalker I'm Union and guarantee you none of your money makes it to me. Nice try.
Since I dont know what Union you work for, I will go with that. But that reminds me of a friend of mine who ran a stamped steel furniture company in Ohio. Around 93 or 4 he was doing pretty well, company rolling along and he had a high rate of retention amongst his employees and paid them well with benefits not offered by others in his industry. Then Union came calling, and as it is required by law he allowed them thier meetings and vote. However, he had a meeting with all his employees and told them in plain language that if they voted the Union in then he would close the facility down and retire. They voted the Union in on Friday and come Monday morning he had their final checks made out, had them clean out their personal property and closed the doors at the end of the day. Within 3 months he had auctioned off all remaining inventory and equipment and leased out the building.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 14:02
I'll have to disagree here. There are lots of different unions out there. Some are .gov workers who have a union which I find counterproductive because the tax payers cover all of the costs no matter what.
Then there are private companies whose employees have unionized. I fit into this one. A LOT of the people on here fit into this one. A union isn't necessarily a bad thing. I have problems with my union, how they represent me at times, but none of my money goes to their political fund to help any candidate out. The money they get is from my dues which comes out of my paycheck that I earn every month from my employer who is publicly traded and owned by lots of private people.
I see your point for .gov and the unions that represent them (teachers, police, fire, Air Traffic Control etc.), but to generalize all unions together isn't necessarily correct![Beer]
Yeap your right I was too general.
It's either going to be the same or more tax - not speculation but a 1 or 0. Seeing the last 4 years of how unfriendly the administration is to non-green businesses in general I'd say his 'speculation' is dead on. Seems to me that he's just giving his employees a "just in case/warning" to have a back up plan. Once again - it's his company to do as he pleases. If he just decides tomorrow to shut it all down and go hang out on the beach or at his mansion then WTF - it's HIS company.
The dude runs a hotel. Not an energy company. Not a car manufacturer. A fucking hotel.
http://westgateresorts.com/
Byte Stryke
10-11-2012, 14:04
well, I for one do not want to continue suporting welfare momma and 'gansta-snap' Daddies...
When I see a 2012 Escalade rolling on 40s and they pile out and load up the junk food on an EBT card I want to start bitch-slapping.
Another rant since I am already pissed... its not an entitlement!
no one owes it to you... you didn't flipping earn it.
a Disabled Vet getting a check from the VA is an entitlement... because he is entitled.
some inbred whore with 6 kids from 18 daddies is NOT entitled to shit.
If your reason for not getting a job is that you have too many kids... please report for sterilization.
if your reason for not working is "dey aint gots no gud job wiff gud pay fer me." There is a Reason there aren't ebonics translators at NASA. Maybe you should have studied in school, snowflake. Do you know how to pick fruit?
Lastly, I get sick of being lumped in with the welfare leeches simple because I hold a government job.
I get out of bed at 0500 everyday and go perform a technical job for the warfighters/Military of this nation, You show me 10 welfare leeches with a C|EH and I will eat my hat.
Rust_shackleford
10-11-2012, 14:06
Is no one concerned for all the people who will be without free phones if Romney wins?
Rucker61
10-11-2012, 14:07
life has consequences...even in voting. our current president is the perfect example. enough people voted him in and we all have to suffer. this is the same thing on a smaller scale with boss telling you the implications.
All have to suffer? Ask Mitt if he's financially better off than he was four years ago? Ask Goldman Sachs if they're better off. How is Apple's stock doing?
Everyone isn't suffering.
Rust_shackleford
10-11-2012, 14:08
Welfare has two sides, corporate and social guess which one is costing us the most?
Both need to go.
Rust_shackleford
10-11-2012, 14:09
All have to suffer? Ask Mitt if he's financially better off than he was four years ago? Ask Goldman Sachs if they're better off. How is Apple's stock doing?
Everyone isn't suffering.
Goldman Sachs has yet to loose. Look it up. They're running this mother.
Byte Stryke
10-11-2012, 14:12
Actually, no. He is firing these people because he EXPECTS that the government will force him to spend more money. It's speculation. Imagine if global employment fluxed based on theories like the oil industry...
do you not know about the WARN act?
hundreds of thousands of people are supposed to get layoff notices in anticipation of the budget being slashed.
Speculation... All of these military contract company's stocks are dropping.
Military units are stoc... HOARDING Supplies in anticipation of a complete lack of support.
Private companies are projecting layoffs in anticipation of Obamacare
news flash for you...
it does.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 14:18
Goldman Sachs has yet to loose. Look it up. They're running this mother.
Fuck yeah they are, weird how the investigation into their DIRECT LINE into the FED and how much info they were stealing has not really been publicized. I swear it will not be a surprise if Mitt throws G/S to the SEC wolves and laughs while he does it.
Rust_shackleford
10-11-2012, 14:21
do you not know about the WARN act?
hundreds of thousands of people are supposed to get layoff notices in anticipation of the budget being slashed.
Speculation... All of these military contract company's stocks are dropping.
Military units are stoc... HOARDING Supplies in anticipation of a complete lack of support.
Private companies are projecting layoffs in anticipation of Obamacare
news flash for you...
it does.
OMG the Military is going to have to stop wasting shit... You mean the spending spree might have to end? You mean the Federal Reserve (private bank) can't lend as much money to us with interest to keep up B.S. wars we're not meant to win going? Heroin prices might go up if we can't afford to secure the poppy fields. ITEOTWAWKI
Rust_shackleford
10-11-2012, 14:23
Fuck yeah they are, weird how the investigation into their DIRECT LINE into the FED and how much info they were stealing has not really been publicized. I swear it will not be a surprise if Mitt throws G/S to the SEC wolves and laughs while he does it.
Mitt as Dickweed Obama did, will have a meeting with the banksters and nothing will come of it.
Rucker61
10-11-2012, 14:23
Per my CPA -
Medicare payroll taxes increases in 2013 from 1.45% to 2.35% for $250000 joint income or 200k single. Also the Investment side will be 3.8%.
2014 onward, Small business health insurance tax kicks in, this is where business owners will be hit by the insurance cost increases.
Moreover....
Employer mandate kicks in. Some business owners must provide insurance, pay penalties or even both! If you have 50 or more employees and do not offer insurance, the penalty is $2000 per full time (whoops everyone gonna be working part time then). In addition for >50 employees firm like myself, we must provide voucher to contributes toward employee's premium (employee's GAI is under 400% of federal poverty line)
Then you have to sum up part timers toward full time. In addition there are automatic enrollment for those with 200 workers or more. All these will increase premium.
No offense to those who are in the insurance business, but insurance companies still cannot compete beyond state border, so this will only strengthen their monopoly and price fixing!!!
Now do you know how many businesses who are barely hanging on? Probably as many as folks who live paycheck to paycheck due to the current economy. I suspect mid of 2013 to beginning of 2014, we will see many businesses falling out.
Thanks for the viewpoint. I'm in big business that offers medical plans, so I don't get the opportunity to see the impact at the small business level. Never was a big fan of Obamacare to begin with.
well, I for one do not want to continue suporting welfare momma and 'gansta-snap' Daddies...
When I see a 2012 Escalade rolling on 40s and they pile out and load up the junk food on an EBT card I want to start bitch-slapping.
Another rant since I am already pissed... its not an entitlement!
no one owes it to you... you didn't flipping earn it.
a Disabled Vet getting a check from the VA is an entitlement... because he is entitled.
some inbred whore with 6 kids from 18 daddies is NOT entitled to shit.
If your reason for not getting a job is that you have too many kids... please report for sterilization.
if your reason for not working is "dey aint gots no gud job wiff gud pay fer me." There is a Reason there aren't ebonics translators at NASA. Maybe you should have studied in school, snowflake. Do you know how to pick fruit?
Lastly, I get sick of being lumped in with the welfare leeches simple because I hold a government job.
I get out of bed at 0500 everyday and go perform a technical job for the warfighters/Military of this nation, You show me 10 welfare leeches with a C|EH and I will eat my hat.
Amen! And I hate how government workers get lumped into the leech category- No, you have a damn job, which is more than a lot of people- many of whom actually are leeches- can say.
Rucker- Those who aren't suffering must be doing something right... just saying. [Tooth]
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 14:25
YES IT IS! That is EXACTLY the circumstance he is in. He either has to take money out of his pocket to keep the business going OR he has to let some people go and scale back, and possibly even shut down.
Tell you what, why dont you call and ask his HR department if they can circulate a memo asking all the employees to MATCH 10% of the $$ the employer puts in to keep them employed, or even better, to take a pay cut to help absorb the cost of these goburment mandates that threaten thier jobs? \
WHY should he have to take even 1 dollar out of his pocket to keep a business he has already put everything he had into for 42 years just so the guberment man can redistribute his wealth?
You are not libertarian, your a liberal, just come clean about it and go join a Union and live off my taxes.
New taxes are not putting him out of business, they will cut into his profitability. I'm not saying he should redistribute his wealth. I'm not saying he should be forced to reduce his exorbitant income in order to save people's jobs; I'm saying it's the right thing to do. Unfortunately, people don't become gazillionaires by doing the right thing.
Do you understand how high unemployment is right now? Do you understand how competitive a job market that creates? Who stands to lose more: the guy who's been working the front desk of a hotel for the last 10 years, or the guy trying to decide how many elevators to put in his new mansion?
Rucker61
10-11-2012, 14:27
Rucker- Those who aren't suffering must be doing something right... just saying. [Tooth]
Or something wrong. Yes, I'm looking at you, Wall Street.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 14:30
I understand exactly how high unemployment is. A large percentage of the reason it is this high because business in this country is being attacked left and right. Continue to attack "big business" and "corporate giants" and Wall Street, and you will continue to see the unemployment rate rise.
The guy behind that counter for 10 years, do you think he would take a 3% cut in pay?
Neither do I.
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 14:44
If it was that or lose his job, you're damn right he would. He has a lot more to lose than the guy who is already set for life.
Yeah, I'm crying a river right now for the COO who made $1.7M last year because he fired 10% of his workforce and sent their jobs to Bangalore. That poor guy has it so bad.
Or something wrong. Yes, I'm looking at you, Wall Street.
But are they being hauled into court before a grand jury in record numbers? There's a difference between immoral and illegal. I don't know a sufficient amount of info to fully say they're 100% wrong or right, but I don't see a whole lot of "bad" Wall Street folks getting in trouble.
If it was that or lose his job, you're damn right he would. He has a lot more to lose than the guy who is already set for life.
Yeah, I'm crying a river right now for the COO who made $1.7M last year because he fired 10% of his workforce and sent their jobs to Bangalore. That poor guy has it so bad.
Have you ever made $1.7M? I'll be willing to bet if you were the COO, CEO, President, whatever, of any business, and you made a shitload of money, you wouldn't care about that 10% you fired to keep your income steady... Don't just look at things from the common guy's shoes, look at it from the other side of the table as well. Two sides to every story. You do realize the double edged sword we have here right? American labor costs exponentially more than shipping it overseas. It may not be right, but it's a viable option for some companies that want to see profits (which translates to more income)... Free enterprise. Another alternative, well, ask anyone over the age of 35 from Russia how that alternative worked out for them... [Tooth]
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 15:04
Have you ever made $1.7M? I'll be willing to bet if you were the COO, CEO, President, whatever, of any business, and you made a shitload of money, you wouldn't care about that 10% you fired to keep your income steady... Don't just look at things from the common guy's shoes, look at it from the other side of the table as well. Two sides to every story. You do realize the double edged sword we have here right? American labor costs exponentially more than shipping it overseas. It may not be right, but it's a viable option for some companies that want to see profits (which translates to more income)... Free enterprise. Another alternative, well, ask anyone over the age of 35 from Russia how that alternative worked out for them... [Tooth]
Morality does not hinge upon level of income.
Rucker61
10-11-2012, 15:06
I understand exactly how high unemployment is. A large percentage of the reason it is this high because business in this country is being attacked left and right. Continue to attack "big business" and "corporate giants" and Wall Street, and you will continue to see the unemployment rate rise.
The guy behind that counter for 10 years, do you think he would take a 3% cut in pay?
Neither do I.
I took a 5% paycut for four years, while my CEO and three EVPs took home bonuses over $12m each. In one year.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 15:14
Would their normal bonuses have been $20m each?
Zundfolge
10-11-2012, 15:15
I'm not saying he should redistribute his wealth.
Yes you are ... its HIS goddamn money, if he decides he doesn't want to do business anymore it doesn't have to be because his back is against the wall, it can be because he's not going to be making as much money or it can be because his favorite TV show got canceled, it doesn't matter, its not your place to tell him he can't.
He can take his money and go home anytime he wants, anything less is tyranny.
Businesses exist to provide profit for the owners NOT as some sort of privatized jobs program.
Morality does not hinge upon level of income.
That is the opposite of what you've said this entire thread.
So if a valued employee wants to leave a company you would never interfere with that right no matter what damage it does to the company. But when the rich guy is the one making the decisions that might not be good for others, he's a bad guy?
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 15:21
Yes you are ... its HIS goddamn money, if he decides he doesn't want to do business anymore it doesn't have to be because his back is against the wall, it can be because he's not going to be making as much money or it can be because his favorite TV show got canceled, it doesn't matter, its not your place to tell him he can't.
He can take his money and go home anytime he wants, anything less is tyranny.
Businesses exist to provide profit for the owners NOT as some sort of privatized jobs program.
I know, reading is hard. If I'm going to take the time to type this shit out, you could at least do me the courtesy of reading it before you spew some unfounded rant.
I didn't say it's my place, or anyone else's place to tell him what to do with his money; in fact, I said the opposite. HE CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK HE WANTS with his money. If he would rather maintain his current salary and fire everyone, that's his prerogative. He lacks moral fiber for doing so.
In other news: Natural Law is a myth. One wins at life by fucking over as many people as he can to collect as much material wealth as possible. We now return you to your regularly scheduled back-stabbing.
ruthabagah
10-11-2012, 15:23
some inbred whore with 6 kids from 18 daddies is NOT entitled to shit.
You mean: "18 kids from 6 daddies" right? Just checking [ROFL1]
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 15:24
That is the opposite of what you've said this entire thread.
So if a valued employee wants to leave a company you would never interfere with that right no matter what damage it does to the company. But when the rich guy is the one making the decisions that might not be good for others, he's a bad guy?
No it isn't. Let me rephrase for the intellectually-challenged: Morality SHOULD NOT depend upon level of income.
I would never interfere with either of their rights. Yes, if you fuck someone over to maximize your own profitability, you're the bad guy.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 15:28
I think we have some basic misunderstandings as to wealth, so maybe this will help clarify-
No matter how much you have, its yours. Its not yours and the governments, or yours and your neighbors, its yours. Now some people, they hit a comfort zone and could care less about making more, but threaten to pull them out of that comfort zone and they circle the wagons and cut costs and may even try harder to increase income.
Others never get enough. A single dime loss on their balance sheet is a cause for alarm. Now, a socialist will say, its morally wrong to have all that wealth and not want to help people out, or lose a little bit for the greater good. Eff that. Its morally wrong to ask me to hurt myself to help you, and I am the one who gets to define what hurt is.
Personally I trade currency a lot, so I am very aware of movement in the markets. Some days I can bank $10K, just by clicking a few keys and risking a little money. Some days I lose. And no matter how small that loss is, No matter how much I bank- literally I could make 5k on one trade and turn around and lose $200 and it would bug me all day- I hate it. Its part of the process, but I hate it and do everything I can to avoid it. If it ever got to the point I felt I was going to lose more than win, I would get out.
No difference with the resort king in the article or any other business man, if the costs outweigh the benefits, if the risk is too great, its time to get out. Doesnt matter if he has 100billion sitting in the bank and could support the business and the employees for the rest of his life, if it puts him out of his comfort level, that that.
Rucker61
10-11-2012, 15:31
Would their normal bonuses have been $20m each?
Much less:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/163169-hp-s-executive-comp-is-troubling-in-a-year-of-worker-pay-cuts
"Although HP's performance has hit the wall in the past two years, Hurd's pay -- and the pay of his management team members -- has dramatically increased. For 2008, Hurd's total compensation reached $43 million (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/47217/000104746909000257/a2190057zdef14a.htm), which made him the fourth highest paid CEO in America for 2008 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/02/highestpaid-ceos-for-2008_n_195183.html). Hurd's total compensation increased 73% from his $25 million in 2007, even though HP's stock price declined 29% in 2008.
On his senior management team, the sharp compensation increases in 2008 were also noteworthy. CIO Randy Mott's total compensation went up 400% last year to $28 million. Imaging EVP VJ Joshi's total compensation jumped 83% to $22 million. Personal Systems EVP Todd Bradley's total compensation jumped 263% to $21 million. Technology Solutions' EVP Ann Livermore enjoyed a 31% bump in total compensation to $21 million. And CFO Catherine Lesjak got a 49% increase in total compensation to a more modest $6 million.
What also raises eyebrows about these sharp executive raises, aside from it happening in the face of a sharp stock price drop for the year (and the general market uncertainty which remained at the end of the year), is that 2008 was also a year (http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/07/28/237082/pay-cuts-barely-touch-hp-executives.htm) in which these same leaders imposed mandatory 10% pay cuts for other executives and 5% cuts for the rest of HP's workforce. It hardly seems like this select group is shouldering the pain like the rest of the employees."
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 15:31
I think we have some basic misunderstandings as to wealth, so maybe this will help clarify-
No matter how much you have, its yours. Its not yours and the governments, or yours and your neighbors, its yours. Now some people, they hit a comfort zone and could care less about making more, but threaten to pull them out of that comfort zone and they circle the wagons and cut costs and may even try harder to increase income.
Others never get enough. A single dime loss on their balance sheet is a cause for alarm. Now, a socialist will say, its morally wrong to have all that wealth and not want to help people out, or lose a little bit for the greater good. Eff that. Its morally wrong to ask me to hurt myself to help you, and I am the one who gets to define what hurt is.
Personally I trade currency a lot, so I am very aware of movement in the markets. Some days I can bank $10K, just by clicking a few keys and risking a little money. Some days I lose. And no matter how small that loss is, No matter how much I bank- literally I could make 5k on one trade and turn around and lose $200 and it would bug me all day- I hate it. Its part of the process, but I hate it and do everything I can to avoid it. If it ever got to the point I felt I was going to lose more than win, I would get out.
No difference with the resort king in the article or any other business man, if the costs outweigh the benefits, if the risk is too great, its time to get out. Doesnt matter if he has 100billion sitting in the bank and could support the business and the employees for the rest of his life, if it puts him out of his comfort level, that that.
Apparently we simply have a misunderstanding of morality. You seem to think an altruistic nature is socialism. I think you need to take some of your accumulated wealth and go buy a dictionary.
ChunkyMonkey
10-11-2012, 15:31
Still, if either one of you own a business or two and you can run them all by your lonesome and make the same living, why don't you save yourselves the headache and let them all go?
Sorry bud, we produce enough business for my commission driven positions for the newcomers to line up at my front desk asking for position. So yes, I let them go when they start to act up and cherry pick the creme. No two way street here - business is business, no kumbaya BS. It's my money and I built it (hear that obama?) You don't perform, you are outta here! [Muaha][Muaha][Muaha] I learnt long time ago to keep an arm distance from your employees.
It's immoral to want to make money or to be better than the guy next to you? Go join the green peace and volunteer for the cause.
SuperiorDG
10-11-2012, 15:35
I hope he wasn't one of the installers you sent to install those glasses at my house [Tooth]. Those looked like good workers.
No, the installers I have now have been here 3 years and work for their money and never complain about doing anything I ask.
dwalker460
10-11-2012, 15:37
No it isn't. Let me rephrase for the intellectually-challenged: Morality SHOULD NOT depend upon level of income.
I would never interfere with either of their rights. Yes, if you fuck someone over to maximize your own profitability, you're the bad guy.
BTW, you sound an awful lot like Obaloney-
It wont hurt the RICH to give a little more, they can afford it.
Like its morally wrong to hold on to what hes earned.
I think maybe you should ponder morals a bit. It seems a lot more morally wrong to condemn someone who is protecting what they have earned because they dont want to just "do without the elevator" in the house they fought to keep so that the government can soak them and cost them more money every time they turn around. Not sure this is hard to understand, but your really basically saying that it is wrong of him to enjoy the things he has earned, instead he should take the money and keep his business open, no matter what the burden is.
Why, exactly, is that more moral than protecting what he earned and livign out his life the way he wants using the moneys he earned?
Why do you hate the rich so much?
jhood001
10-11-2012, 15:47
Sorry bud, we produce enough business for my commission driven positions for the newcomers to line up at my front desk asking for position. So yes, I let them go when they start to act up and cherry pick the creme. No two way street here - business is business, no kumbaya BS. It's my money and I built it (hear that obama?) You don't perform, you are outta here! [Muaha][Muaha][Muaha] I learnt long time ago to keep an arm distance from your employees.
It's immoral to want to make money or to be better than the guy next to you? Go join the green peace and volunteer for the cause.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Teufelhund
10-11-2012, 15:48
Jeezus. The lack of reading comprehension here is forcing me to digress into ad hominem attacks and it's just not worth it. I'm not going to repeat myself again if you didn't get it the last three times I said it. You win.
SuperiorDG
10-11-2012, 16:17
I have one question after reading through this tread. Why should the employees worry? This CEO can easily be replaced. There are a lot of smart people out there. There are a lot of hard workers out there. Or should I just let the man say it.
YKjPI6no5ng
Sharpienads
10-11-2012, 17:17
Wow, I came into this one late...
1. I don't believe business is a two way street. The employer and the employee should both look out for their own individual self interest. To me, that means if I am an employee, I show up to work on time and work harder than anybody else. As an employer, that means that I recognize those hard working employees and try to keep them. Everybody wins when everybody has their best interest in mind. I think I read this somewhere, and highly doubt I came up with it on my own, but it's called an "enlightened self interest".
2. Teufelhund, I think I understand what you're saying. You think he has the right to shut down the business if he so chooses for whatever reason, you just personally don't agree with it for the reason he stated. Fair enough, but I don't agree with you. If he doesn't want to take a pay cut to keep his business going, that's his call. But I think the deeper point is he is saying he will not let the government bully him, and there are consequences for the actions of the government. Whether or not he is sincere in this belief, I do not know.
3. There is what sounds like a lot of bourgeois vs proletariat talk in this thread, and I find it very disheartening.
I took a 5% paycut for four years, while my CEO and three EVPs took home bonuses over $12m each. In one year.
If you had such a problem with the way they did business, why did you work for them? You are part of the problem. If you continued to work for them despite the fact you didn't like the way they did business because you needed the job, then you should be thankful they employed you.
spqrzilla
10-11-2012, 17:20
If executives are being paid too much, the fault is with the board of directors who are wasting the stockholders' money. They are not stealing the employees' money - the proceeds of the corporation don't belong to the employees.
Another possibility is that it actually costs a lot of money to hire executives of high caliber.
Rucker61
10-11-2012, 17:41
If you had such a problem with the way they did business, why did you work for them? You are part of the problem. If you continued to work for them despite the fact you didn't like the way they did business because you needed the job, then you should be thankful they employed you.
You do remember the state of the economy in 2009, I presume? Jobs in high tech in Colorado weren't easy to come by. This was corporate cronyism, pure and simple, and the founders of the company would have kicked these folks to the curb.
Aloha_Shooter
10-11-2012, 18:46
It's not speculation. Unless you're purposely clueless, Obamacare WILL increase costs for those in business. The owners of Olive Garden/Red Lobster have also announced they are cutting back full-time workers to 30 hours/wk to keep them part-time in at least 4 markets in order to keep their costs aligned.
What some of you are completely missing is that the man in question has already made his pile. His only question is whether to stay in business and keep employing people -- which he'd prefer to do -- or enjoy the fruits of his prior labors by closing the business and retiring. No doubt some of his employees would find new jobs -- certainly at least some of the time-share resorts he's built will be purchased and continue to be run to service their clients and those resorts will need to employ people -- but he will be relieved of the headache of complying with Obamacare and all the myriad decisions and pressures that go with operating a business.
If you think he's a scumbag for trying to clue people in on what the prices and consequences of going for "free" stuff might be or for deciding what to do with what he has legally earned, then you're a class "A" -- make that class "O" -- idiot. He is under no obligation, legal or moral, to keep running his business just to provide other people a paycheck.
Here's a clue Ridge: most major businesses make long term decisions based on forward speculation. They HAVE to. It's called strategic thinking and planning. Failure to plan is why so many businesses fail or collapse and why people thought they could buy $400K houses with nothing down on a $60K salary during the late 90s and early 00s. In this case, he has strong evidence for his expectation that Obamacare will increase his costs for employment and doing business because it's there in the legislation in black-and-white.
There's no coercion on his part, he's educating his company to the facts. Hell, he's giving them a warning -- the same kind of warning that the Obama administration is bribing or strongarming Lockheed Martin to NOT give their employees before the election.
It's not speculation. Unless you're purposely clueless, Obamacare WILL increase costs for those in business.
And that's not going to change, regardless of who gets elected.
jhood001
10-11-2012, 20:21
1. I don't believe business is a two way street. The employer and the employee should both look out for their own individual self interest.
Business is not a two way street. Loyalty in business is a two way street. You can't demand it if you don't provide it. That was all I've been trying to say!
Byte Stryke
10-11-2012, 20:36
There is no loyalty in Business.
If they can hire someone else to do your job for less and not get sued in the process, you are gone.
The impact to 'performance' is secondary.
Do NOT kid yourself.
They are chasing that bottom line ALLOT harder and you are a liability.
There is no loyalty in Business.
If they can hire someone else to do your job for less and not get sued in the process, you are gone.
The impact to 'performance' is secondary.
Do NOT kid yourself.
They are chasing that bottom line ALLOT harder and you are a liability.
Exactly. and it doesn't matter if you are union or not. at that point they take the company into bankruptcy and force their will and renegotiate contracts etc. just look at the airlines. that's how they got it done.
Bailey Guns
10-11-2012, 21:26
I have come to the conclusion after reading many of the responses in this thread that a lot of you are truly part of the problem.
Disheartening to say the least.
I have come to the conclusion after reading many of the responses in this thread that a lot of you are truly part of the problem.
Disheartening to say the least.
Which side are you chosing, I am pretty sure I can guess since you were a business owner yourself, but just want to make sure!
Bailey Guns
10-11-2012, 21:32
Which side are you chosing, I am pretty sure I can guess since you were a business owner yourself, but just want to make sure!
Oh...you're sure.
Bailey Guns
10-11-2012, 21:42
I took all of my retirement savings, quit a very good, well paying job where I had a real future, paid taxes/penalties on the money I took out, and took on a substantial financial risk to start my business from scratch without any help from employees.
I kept the business going even through financially challenging times. I always paid my employee(s) and others what I told them I'd pay them.
When the bills came in, I paid them. When the money didn't come in, the employee(s) still got their paycheck and went home without worrying about how I was going to pay the bills.
I didn't have many, but I did have a couple. 1 full time and 2 or 3 part time in various capacities (bookkeeper, etc...). They were all good employees but they didn't assume any of the risk. They did reap the rewards of my, and their, work. That was the deal.
When it came time to get out, I did. And I did quite well. But I don't feel like I owed anything to anyone other than myself. No one was entitled to what I made when I sold out other than me. That's the bottom line. I built it, I reaped the rewards.
You don't like it that business owners have that prerogative? Tough shit. Start you own business and run it how you like.
That's the way I run my current business. And I don't have employees this time. Much easier.
Wow, I came into this one late...
1. I don't believe business is a two way street. The employer and the employee should both look out for their own individual self interest. To me, that means if I am an employee, I show up to work on time and work harder than anybody else. As an employer, that means that I recognize those hard working employees and try to keep them. Everybody wins when everybody has their best interest in mind. I think I read this somewhere, and highly doubt I came up with it on my own, but it's called an "enlightened self interest".
2. Teufelhund, I think I understand what you're saying. You think he has the right to shut down the business if he so chooses for whatever reason, you just personally don't agree with it for the reason he stated. Fair enough, but I don't agree with you. If he doesn't want to take a pay cut to keep his business going, that's his call. But I think the deeper point is he is saying he will not let the government bully him, and there are consequences for the actions of the government. Whether or not he is sincere in this belief, I do not know.
3. There is what sounds like a lot of bourgeois vs proletariat talk in this thread, and I find it very disheartening.
If you had such a problem with the way they did business, why did you work for them? You are part of the problem. If you continued to work for them despite the fact you didn't like the way they did business because you needed the job, then you should be thankful they employed you.
I agree with most of what you say, coming from a hard working employee and working my way up the chain, to having my own lot, and employees under me. Business is business. As I told my friends, you are not my friend at work, you are my employee. You don't have to be nice, nothing requires you to be nice when you are at the top. One of the things that gets you to the top is doing what needs to be done. If he wants to be nice and cut some of his own gain, that's his deal, but he doesn't have to and the people who have a problem with it should either start their own business so they don't have to deal with someone like him in the future, or get over it and stop whining like a lefty. If I was his employee would I like it? No. If I were him, would I want to cut my personal gains? No. So, where do you draw the line? You could be nice and cut into your own budget, but I'm guessing that not many people on this board would actually do that (arm chair quaterbacking again). It's his business to run as he will, when some of you accomplish the same, you might change your mind.
I have come to the conclusion after reading many of the responses in this thread that a lot of you are truly part of the problem.
Disheartening to say the least.
Yes they are and yes it is.
I think we have some basic misunderstandings as to wealth, so maybe this will help clarify-
No matter how much you have, its yours. Its not yours and the governments, or yours and your neighbors, its yours. Now some people, they hit a comfort zone and could care less about making more, but threaten to pull them out of that comfort zone and they circle the wagons and cut costs and may even try harder to increase income.
Others never get enough. A single dime loss on their balance sheet is a cause for alarm. Now, a socialist will say, its morally wrong to have all that wealth and not want to help people out, or lose a little bit for the greater good. Eff that. Its morally wrong to ask me to hurt myself to help you, and I am the one who gets to define what hurt is.
Personally I trade currency a lot, so I am very aware of movement in the markets. Some days I can bank $10K, just by clicking a few keys and risking a little money. Some days I lose. And no matter how small that loss is, No matter how much I bank- literally I could make 5k on one trade and turn around and lose $200 and it would bug me all day- I hate it. Its part of the process, but I hate it and do everything I can to avoid it. If it ever got to the point I felt I was going to lose more than win, I would get out.
No difference with the resort king in the article or any other business man, if the costs outweigh the benefits, if the risk is too great, its time to get out. Doesnt matter if he has 100billion sitting in the bank and could support the business and the employees for the rest of his life, if it puts him out of his comfort level, that that.
I concur! [Beer]
BTW, you sound an awful lot like Obaloney-
It wont hurt the RICH to give a little more, they can afford it.
Like its morally wrong to hold on to what hes earned.
I think maybe you should ponder morals a bit. It seems a lot more morally wrong to condemn someone who is protecting what they have earned because they dont want to just "do without the elevator" in the house they fought to keep so that the government can soak them and cost them more money every time they turn around. Not sure this is hard to understand, but your really basically saying that it is wrong of him to enjoy the things he has earned, instead he should take the money and keep his business open, no matter what the burden is.
Why, exactly, is that more moral than protecting what he earned and livign out his life the way he wants using the moneys he earned?
Why do you hate the rich so much?
Can I buy you a beer? Well put! [Beer]
Teufelhund- I echo this, as I'm friends with a lot of business owners (family included). Why do you hate the wealthy so much? Saying that because they make cuts to maintain their living makes them a "bad guy." Really? Do you hold a grudge or something? You were fired by someone who was successful in business weren't you? And may I point you to the philosophical learning of Ayn Rand. She said the virtue of selfishness is helping yourself and voluntary help of other when you are not at risk of hurting your own position, but it is wholly wrong to be forced to help others (this is a stab at welfare) even if it only slightly hurts you.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.