CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins....

[dwalker460]

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]

Calm down... no need for personal attack.

[sniper7]

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]

Dwalker I'm Union and guarantee you none of your money makes it to me. Nice try.

[sniper7]

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

[sniper7]

....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!

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

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!

But all people in unions are lazy, leaches, liberals, entitled, etc etc etc

/sarcasm

Eff people with that stereo typical mindset.

[jhood001]

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

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]

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]

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!

Yeap your right I was too general.