View Full Version : Another company warns of Obama votes!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/koch-industries-sends-pro-romney-packet-employees-195709471--election.html
this time a lot bigger one! 45,000 employees!
While I don't think you should be forced into a situation where it is your job or how you vote, a lot of it really is tied together. There is only so much pressure a business can withstand before it has to lay off or shut down. At least the employees are getting it spelled out to them what could happen.
lpgasman
10-14-2012, 21:12
They have nothing to worry about, obama will take care of them ( he still has checks in his check book )[Rant2]
Sharpienads
10-14-2012, 21:14
Uh-oh, now you've done it...
I say good for them.
They're too small and don't support Obummer. He would let them go under.
BPTactical
10-14-2012, 21:20
Not saying they won't lay off folks but one thing to consider: the Koch brothers are to conservative circles almost what George Soros is to the leftward leaners. They contribute huge money.
Would we see a workforce decline if BO is re elected? Not sure but I think the odds of seeing a workforce expand with Romney are quite possible.
The guys that run the TEA party will be upset if Obama gets re-elected? Imagine that.
Delfuego
10-14-2012, 22:37
Dude the Koch brother have been trying to but this election all along.
A new projection of political spending by the Koch brothers (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer) puts their organizations’ anticipated expenditures at $400 million, doubling previous expectations and bringing the total for independent conservative groups to about $1 billion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...-political-ad/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57497331-503544/controversial-koch-brothers-criticized-in-new-political-ad/)
Neighbors voting for Romney this election. Last election he had a big Obama sign out front. So at least I am seeing that some f the Obama followers have switched up. I really do not see anyone being dumb enough to vote for him again, but they are out there.
I suppose if the Tea Party were supported by trust funds and stimulus money instead of a bunch of people banding together and spending personal money to fund themselves it would be different. But it could just be the message that gets the most opposition. But a company can fire people for whatever they want. Its more cost effective to force them to quit. Maybe they are just giving them a chance to look around to find another job.
buffalobo
10-15-2012, 08:11
Maybe they are prepping for future WARN Act compliance.
Koch Industries made $100 billion in profit in 2009, and they threaten their employees because they're worried they'll only make $99 billion or whatever?
I have no sympathy for that billionaire needing to squeeze the last buck out of their employees.
There's a point at which squeezing too much profit out of any company is detrimental to that entity in the long run, look at all the horse-shit stock manipulation on wall street so that all these companies can hit their quarter-to-quarter goals, without any long term view.
Koch Industries made $100 billion in profit in 2009, and they threaten their employees because they're worried they'll only make $99 billion or whatever?
I have no sympathy for that billionaire needing to squeeze the last buck out of their employees.
There's a point at which squeezing too much profit out of any company is detrimental to that entity in the long run, look at all the horse-shit stock manipulation on wall street so that all these companies can hit their quarter-to-quarter goals, without any long term view.
Yeah what kind of asshole employs 45,000 people? He didn't build that![Bang]
Rucker61
10-15-2012, 16:08
Yeah what kind of asshole employs 45,000 people? He didn't build that![Bang]
How many government contracts does Koch Industries have? What kind of government subsidies do they accept?
Teufelhund
10-15-2012, 17:16
Yeah what kind of asshole employs 45,000 people? He didn't build that![Bang]
He should get a Nobel Peace Prize for charity work of such magnitude. Scratch that; he should cut loose all those lazy damn leeches suckling at his benevolent teat and then he can really make some money.
The perfect business plan (as soon as we get Step 4 figured out, I'm all-in):
Step 1: Build That!
Step 2: Hire "employees" and graciously give them a handout (call it a paycheck) while they pretend to do all the menial work that keeps the business running and growing.
Step 3: Fire everyone.
Step 4: ????
Step 5: Profit!
Uberjager
10-15-2012, 18:31
He should get a Nobel Peace Prize for charity work of such magnitude. Scratch that; he should cut loose all those lazy damn leeches suckling at his benevolent teat and then he can really make some money.
The perfect business plan (as soon as we get Step 4 figured out, I'm all-in):
Step 1: Build That!
Step 2: Hire "employees" and graciously give them a handout (call it a paycheck) while they pretend to do all the menial work that keeps the business running and growing.
Step 3: Fire everyone.
Step 4: ????
Step 5: Profit!
I think step 4 is fire everyone, and step 3 is have the hired peasantry design and build robot employees.
He should get a Nobel Peace Prize for charity work of such magnitude. Scratch that; he should cut loose all those lazy damn leeches suckling at his benevolent teat and then he can really make some money.
The perfect business plan (as soon as we get Step 4 figured out, I'm all-in):
Step 1: Build That!
Step 2: Hire "employees" and graciously give them a handout (call it a paycheck) while they pretend to do all the menial work that keeps the business running and growing.
Step 3: Fire everyone.
Step 4: ????
Step 5: Profit!
[ROFL2]
Good business plan! I say run with that and let us all know how it works out for you. Although it seems if it somehow miraculously worked out, you would inevitably have some asshat employee who would think you were evil for running a profitable company and keeping them employed. The thought of you keeping any of those profits for yourself would be ludicrous. I'm curious, what exactly you guys these companies owes their employees besides a paycheck? They were hired to come to work and do a job and in return they receive paychecks. That is the most basic employer-employee relationship. Did any of the employees he hired risk anything to start this business? If they didn't take the risk why are they ENTITLED to the reward? That's like the Bronco's towel boy asking for the same $18 million a year paycheck that Manning gets because he has to bring him a towel.
It's also hilarious that step 1 is "build that" as if you just shit out an idea and are granted a business from a "business genie". Which was funny in your laughably ignorant "business plan", before step:2 of hiring employees (in this instance 45,000 of them) you would need to have profits in place to rationalize the additional cost of individuals to perform the work, because you have to pay your employees (even the ungrateful ones). So overall, thank you for clarifying that you have no clue how to run or manage a business, that will be taken into consideration next time you decide to post about them.
[Beer]
Teufelhund
10-15-2012, 19:41
. . . so I guess that whole thing went right over your head. Glad I didn't spend a lot of time typing it.
Sharpienads
10-15-2012, 19:42
[ROFL2]
Good business plan!...
^^^ +1
Some of the comments on these threads blow my mind. Especially from the Libertarians, who I thought were supposed to believe in liberty, which I thought was being able to do whatever you want as long as you don't tread on anybody else's liberty.
Sharpienads
10-15-2012, 19:44
. . . so I guess that whole thing went right over your head. Glad I didn't spend a lot of time typing it.
Must have gone over my head too, because it sounds like the same thing you were saying in the other similar thread.
^^^ +1
Some of the comments on these threads blow my mind. Especially from the Libertarians, who I thought were supposed to believe in liberty, which I thought was being able to do whatever you want as long as you don't tread on anybody else's liberty.
They believe in their definition of liberty, not THE definition of liberty.
You guys honestly read #2 and thought he was serious?
Teufelhund
10-15-2012, 21:55
I was just poking fun at you guys. It was all sarcasm. Sorry for the confusion. I don't really want to fight about this one again.
^^^ +1
Some of the comments on these threads blow my mind. Especially from the Libertarians, who I thought were supposed to believe in liberty, which I thought was being able to do whatever you want as long as you don't tread on anybody else's liberty.
I've come to the conclusion that a lot of the Libertarians on this site are actually Liberals. Goes back to what some people say, "A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.