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

[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?

[ChunkyMonkey]

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! 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.

[jhood001]

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! 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?

[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.

[Rust_shackleford]

Is no one concerned for all the people who will be without free phones if Romney wins?

[Rust_shackleford]

Welfare has two sides, corporate and social guess which one is costing us the most?
Both need to go.