If Obama is re-elected, you'll be fired, CEO tells workers

[pjbleek]

Don't threats like these actually discourage some people to vote a certain way. I mean bullying people into voting a certain party or else we close the doors is old school type politics that used to be the way in the 1970 and 1980s.. Everyone knows if there is a void in a market place it will be filled faster than you can say "money" so why bother.

Just my opinion but I think this will hurt Romney and not help..



http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news...elected-youll-be-fired-ceo-tells-workers?lite

wondering if he was full of hot air or a wait and see....be very interesting to see for sure

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

The fear comes from the Obama administration...not from the man relaying the message

LOL...What ignorant and ill-informed bullsh*t..........

Never mind. Obama won. Let's see how quickly this scummy bully actually closes up shop.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

as a side note I guess I am a bullying monster of a business owner because when ever I saw things looking bad I would warn the employees about future layoffs coming. Silly me I thought I was giving them a heads up so they would not be unprepared. Damn I had no idea I was being threatening. I guess I just had to do better at making silk out of a sows ear eh?

If you link it directly to the outcome of a free vote, rather than your own ability to run a profitable business, then yes, you'd be a bully.

I realise that the useless blowhard Bush made it much harder for all Americans to achieve prosperity,but Obama has at least slowed the rot down.

It'll take a long time to get America out of the depression that the Republicans created.

 

[Stone]

...................... Obama has at least slowed the rot down.

.....................

A lot more meaningful than 'Change'.......

 

[Accountable]

It'll take a long time to get America out of the depression that the Republicans created.

Proof of the international success of the dem partisan propaganda.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Proof of the international success of the dem partisan propaganda.

Truth hurt? Enough people figured out that trickle down deregulation is a failure. Simple as that.

 

[Johnfromokc]

If you link it directly to the outcome of a free vote, rather than your own ability to run a profitable business, then yes, you'd be a bully.

I realise that the useless blowhard Bush made it much harder for all Americans to achieve prosperity,but Obama has at least slowed the rot down.

It'll take a long time to get America out of the depression that the Republicans created.

This.

 

[Francis]

wondering if he was full of hot air or a wait and see....be very interesting to see for sure

Here's your answer PJ...:24:

The private timeshare mogul and Mitt Romney supporter who swore mass employee layoffs if President Barack Obama won reelection has had a change of heart.

Earlier this year, David Siegel, the founder of Central Florida Investments and Westgate Resorts, emailed a letter to his employees warning them to vote for Romney or else. However, after Obama won the election on Tuesday, instead of firing some of his 65,000 employees, Siegel decided to give them raises.

The anti-Obama Siegel opened up about his change of heart. "I’m going to work my hardest to keep the company going and expand the best I can," Siegel told Bloomberg Businessweek. "We’ll see what happens. Meanwhile I gave everybody in the company a raise this week—the average was 5 percent. I wanted to help them handle the additional burdens the government will put on them."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...rings-obama-win-victory-raises_n_2092582.html

 

[Stone]

Here's your answer PJ...:24:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...rings-obama-win-victory-raises_n_2092582.html

It does sound odd to be bitching about tax issues during a bankruptcy and then give the employees a 5% wage increase after claiming a future of insolvency if Obama won.

With that in mind, his letter does now look like a baseless threat.

 

[Tim]

It does sound odd to be bitching about tax issues during a bankruptcy and then give the employees a 5% wage increase after claiming a future of insolvency if Obama won.

With that in mind, his letter does now look like a baseless threat.

It's actually a smart business move if you think your taxes are going to go up.

The more he spends in payroll the less he has to pay on corporate tax.

 

[Accountable]

It's actually a smart business move if you think your taxes are going to go up.

The more he spends in payroll the less he has to pay on corporate tax.

Payroll tax is less than corporate tax?

Aside: Wouldn't this be a lot easier (or at least fairer) if all of a company's revenue were considered & taxed as straight income of the owners?

 

[Stone]

It's actually a smart business move if you think your taxes are going to go up.

The more he spends in payroll the less he has to pay on corporate tax.

The more he spends in payroll the less he has to pay on corporate tax.

He would, but a capitalist doesn't function with that attitude.
It's largely about being competitive while reducing un-needed overhead and maximizing a profit.




Bankruptcy clouds the issue. Bankruptcy often involves cash flow problems and protection from creditors becomes court scheduled till that cash flow adjusts. If he's having money issues to start with, it's difficult to understand how his business model can withstand a 5% labor increase.
To be that secure, I would think he's already reorganized and sees exiting bankruptcy in the near future.......and that would make his letter look even more intimidating because it's not just a baseless claim, it's intentionally false..... imo.

 

[Francis]

He would, but a capitalist doesn't function with that attitude.

Do people like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and many others think that way ?

The old thought you have to run people into the ground with fear is long past.. Retraining even educated staff is costly and finding and bringing people up to speed cost companies, stores and any type of business owner a lot of money.. Even what people consider trivial jobs are not so trivial and cost in time, investment and company name quality.

We just saw another competitor of ours go under because they had a high turn around of staff.. Threat people like shit and pay them the same and they only get what they deserved.

I'm all for running a company conservatively and fiscally responsible, but burning cash training people or having unqualified people losing you money from poor quality service will definitely lose you a heck of a lot more money than giving then a 5% pay increase when it's deserved.. Not only that but its been proven time and time again that the positive benefit will only boost business in a positive way.. Also if you are always training staff they are not doing their job effectively..

Yah if someone really sucks at a job, either move them to a better suited position or get rid of them, but if you have quality people, you don't treat them like shit..

It's largely about being competitive while reducing un-needed overhead and maximizing a profit.

I never understood this.. How does un-needed overhead creep into a fiscally conservative company ?

The only way this happens is by incompetence and lack of planning to refocus projects and staff shifting when required..

 

[Stone]

Do people like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and many others think that way ?
....................

It's rather obvious some do and some don't.
Buffett often leverages quality and that involves keeping quality people in specialized job descriptions that have unique thinking abilities.....not really comparable to hiring a set of hands for manual labor. Of course there exists need in many jobs that require abilities beyond manual labor and pay scales often parallel employment needs.
I don't see Gates or Buffett increasing wages for the purpose of lowering corporate tax loads.
When they do increase wages on their own, exacting greater productivity is most likely their greatest target.

We just saw another competitor of ours go under because they had a high turn around of staff.. Threat people like shit and pay them the same and they only get what they deserved.

Indeed.......but that has nothing to do with raising wages to lower corporate taxation.
That's an issue of maintaining an efficient work force. That should be an element of the smart capitalist....but what we see in effect are the results of seeking a bottom line of short time returns at the expense of long term reality. Debase efficiency and quality in the short term leads to many of your complaints.
Just because a business plan is based upon capitalist theory, final execution of it isn't necessarily logical nor efficient. There are a lot of variables.

I'm all for running a company conservatively and fiscally responsible, but burning cash training people or having unqualified people losing you money from poor quality service will definitely lose you a heck of a lot more money than giving then a 5% pay increase when it's deserved.

Too many 'if's'.
At the same time, paying an extra 5% in labor with out expected returns would also be a loss.

I never understood this.. How does un-needed overhead creep into a fiscally conservative company ?

In times that are flush and growing, under-employment can drive inefficiencies as management tries to adjust to growing markets and capture them.
A factory that builds at 100% production has no room to expand. This includes the factory and employees.
So...in a healthy and growing economy, a smart employer hires a buffer to fulfill projected/expanding needs.
When times turn, that need evaporates and that buffer can grow to an unacceptable overhead....and we have lay-offs.

The only way this happens is by incompetence and lack of planning to refocus projects and staff shifting when required..

If that statement is in regard to the above.....no....example: what we saw with the crash under Bush had far reaching impacts very few businesses could foresee in long term strategy.
Ford was one of the few to plan accordingly and at the time, analysts quite critical because a major crash wasn't generally accepted theory.
In the banking system....I think it was more an issue of greed and corruption than incompetence that brought it's downfall.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

As expected, the threat subsides immediately after the election result. Fortunately, the bully did not get what he wanted.

It amazes me the number of bad businessmen who think that because they have a bit of capital and employ a few staff, the world should bow down and blindly follow their political agenda. Democracy does not work like that. All this fool has done is risked alienating the intelligent voters [from all parties] who recognise that democracy itself is more important than party politics. I for one would not help to bankroll this ignorant redneck.

Here's another redneck for you.......




This one shoots the other guy in the foot with both barrels! What his sign really says is that not only does he not understand democracy, he thinks that under Obama, business will be so good that he can afford to turn away the majority of the voting public!

 

[Francis]

It's rather obvious some do and some don't.
Buffett often leverages quality and that involves keeping quality people in specialized job descriptions that have unique thinking abilities.....not really comparable to hiring a set of hands for manual labor. Of course there exists need in many jobs that require abilities beyond manual labor and pay scales often parallel employment needs.
I don't see Gates or Buffett increasing wages for the purpose of lowering corporate tax loads.
When they do increase wages on their own, exacting greater productivity is most likely their greatest target.


Indeed.......but that has nothing to do with raising wages to lower corporate taxation.
That's an issue of maintaining an efficient work force. That should be an element of the smart capitalist....but what we see in effect are the results of seeking a bottom line of short time returns at the expense of long term reality. Debase efficiency and quality in the short term leads to many of your complaints.
Just because a business plan is based upon capitalist theory, final execution of it isn't necessarily logical nor efficient. There are a lot of variables.



Too many 'if's'.
At the same time, paying an extra 5% in labor with out expected returns would also be a loss.



In times that are flush and growing, under-employment can drive inefficiencies as management tries to adjust to growing markets and capture them.
A factory that builds at 100% production has no room to expand. This includes the factory and employees.
So...in a healthy and growing economy, a smart employer hires a buffer to fulfill projected/expanding needs.
When times turn, that need evaporates and that buffer can grow to an unacceptable overhead....and we have lay-offs.


If that statement is in regard to the above.....no....example: what we saw with the crash under Bush had far reaching impacts very few businesses could foresee in long term strategy.
Ford was one of the few to plan accordingly and at the time, analysts quite critical because a major crash wasn't generally accepted theory.
In the banking system....I think it was more an issue of greed and corruption than incompetence that brought it's downfall.

Stone do you run a business?

I think it was more an issue of greed and corruption than incompetence that brought it's downfall.

The above line makes absolutely no sense.. If you have greed and corruption you have incompetence, as anyone who understand business and would be competent would never let greed and corruption stand in the way of what's best for the company ( corporation ). Yes these people maybe "educated" but that does not make them competent. Faster growth can bring a lot more money and success to you than greed that will eventually bring you down..

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

Proof of the international success of the dem partisan propaganda.

Or alternatively, proof that facts that are visible from the other side of the planet are being conveniently ignored by Republican hardliners.

 

[Accountable]

Or alternatively, proof that facts that are visible from the other side of the planet are being conveniently ignored by Republican hardliners.

Partisans are all half blind, be they dems, repubs, or others from the other side of the planet. They choose to see only what fits their paradigm.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

That's exactly what I just said about you. Please be more creative. The indesputable fact is that the Bush misadministration screwed the American economy. You may not like it, but the figures don't lie.

 

[Accountable]

That's exactly what I just said about you. Please be more creative. The indesputable fact is that the Bush misadministration screwed the American economy. You may not like it, but the figures don't lie.

You said nothing at all about me. You mentioned Repub hardliners. If you cared enough to look past hyperbolic soundbites you hear on TV, you'd find that your accusations are simplistic pap.