[BeaverFever]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

This guy needs to be investigated for voter interfence.

What's that for? You think it's accpetable for a person to write to their employees and directly threaten to fire them if the election doesn't go his way? He's trying to skirt the law here and IMO he crossed the line.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

This guy needs to be investigated for voter interfence.

What's that for? You think it's accpetable for a person to write to their employees and directly threaten to fire them if the election doesn't go his way? He's trying to skirt the law here and IMO he crossed the line.

While I think his methods lack tact and come off as super-sleazy, he's not the only company in history to announce pending changes due to government policy.

Most recently, Ontario changed the rules on the business models for pharmacies and preventing them from using professional allowances. During these pending changes, all the big drug store chains sent out numerous internal memo's that these changes will result in changes at the store level. Translation= job losses.

Lots of fearmongering from the corporate side of the business but they were telling store staff indirectly that the current government was making changes that could affect their jobs.

Would the message have been more appropriate if he took a more tactful approach?

[BeaverFever]

It's one thing to say that policy x could result in revenue losses, and if those losses occur, there could be consequences to employment. But that's not an accurate picture of what happened in this case.

1) Unlike your example, this asswipe sent this communication to workers in lead-up to an election specifically for the purpose of influencing how his employees voted in that election.

2) He makes it clear that this is not about the viability of his business but his personal interests:

$1:

My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities.

[bootlegga]

And here's the answer to the question, "Why have wealthy have gotten such a black-eye over the past couple years?"

[Regina]

I have to question this guys decision making skills if he's willing to shut down his business before he knows what the impact would be. Sounds like he's not doing well and is trying to lay the ground work for blame.

[BartSimpson]

Regina Regina:

I have to question this guys decision making skills if he's willing to shut down his business before he knows what the impact would be. Sounds like he's not doing well and is trying to lay the ground work for blame.

Sounds to me like he knows exactly what's going on. If Obama gets re-elected then Obamacare won't get repealed and that means this fellow's business will be impacted by that fact. If his profit margins drop to where it makes more sense to just close the business and invest in something else then that's a business decision.

As to those people on this board who think that's a cold decision then let me ask:

Instead of shopping at Wal Mart and buying cheap crap from China that was probably made with slave labor, do you buy Canadian or US made clothing? Do you buy from local small businesses or because it saves you some money are you selfishly contributing to the fortunes of the Walton family while putting your fellow Canadians/Americans out of work? Hmmm?

If so, you're making the exact same kinds of decisions with your money that these business owners are making with theirs.

And, kindly note, businesses are not charities. They exist because the people who built them depend on them for an income. They are not philanthropic enterprises and that is not a problem! These private enterprises provide the tax revenues that keep our governments functioning and anyone who does not consider the health of their business community when making national decisions is an idiot. Period.

Some of the people here who have antagonistic attitudes towards business while at the same time expecting those businesses to support their Utopian social programs are the absolute paradigm of ignorance.

Why not sit down to a nice dinner and castigate the farmers, fishermen, and ranchers who made your dinner possible? Why not? I know plenty of people who stupidly can't connect the dots between the people who produce their food and the food on the shelf at the grocery store.

I can excuse some of you for this kind of ignorance for the simple reason you've never had a job and you live at home and you just can't make the mental connection between a job and a roof over your head because you've never done jack sh*t to provide for yourself anyway. Your warm house and the food on the table just magically appears in your world. And since it magically appears you think you can just order people to make things for you and deny them any benefit from their labors.

But for those of you who work for a living you have no excuse for this ignorance. If your taxes go up by 20% then your net income correspondingly drops and you have to cut back expenses. You live with that reality yet you think someone else is supposed to deny it.

Seriously, I think some of you morons (You'll know who you are because you'll whine about my calling you a 'moron') won't be happy until your country (whatever country that is) is an economic ruin like Greece, Italy, or Spain. And then you'll still bleat abut the rich as if they and not you had everything to do with your poverty.

To quote Tom Voo: "If you don't know what it takes to create wealth then you deserve to be poor!"

[raydan]

Bart... this guy blamed Bush 4 years ago when his company was having problems.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Seriously, I think some of you morons (You'll know who you are because you'll whine about my calling you a 'moron') won't be happy until your country (whatever country that is) is an economic ruin like Greece, Italy, or Spain. And then you'll still bleat abut the rich as if they and not you had everything to do with your poverty.

Nice rant, Bart. But what about the USA? Your debt crisis is at least as bad as any of the 3 countries you've noted.

This guy isn't saying that Obama could hurt his bottom line. He's telling people "vote as I say or I'll fire you". That's indefensible.

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

Bart... this guy blamed Bush 4 years ago when his company was having problems.

And the criticism was just as valid then as it is now.

[andyt]

But he won't have the same problems if Romney is elected? You said his problems stem from Obama care - there was no Obamacare under Bush.

OMG, just took a look at the OP. THIS GUY? Bart you're defending this guy? He already almost went broke. What a scumbag. They just made a documentary about this couple: The Queen of Versailles. I hope he does move to the Caribbean, the US would be well rid of him. If his business model is a sound one, somebody else would step up to use it. My guess is that in a failing economy, timeshares aren't the ultimate in secure business propositions. Me, I would invest in the cardboard box industry, especially the really big thick ones. Good future in those.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It's one thing to say that policy x could result in revenue losses, and if those losses occur, there could be consequences to employment. But that's not an accurate picture of what happened in this case.

1) Unlike your example, this asswipe sent this communication to workers in lead-up to an election specifically for the purpose of influencing how his employees voted in that election.

2) He makes it clear that this is not about the viability of his business but his personal interests:

$1:

My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities.

As I said initially, it all comes down to tact. He has none.

The companies I referred to did this leading up to the election in 2011 and beyond the corporate wording the message was essentially the same.

"The government was going to cut profits, we don't like that, so we'll start cutting jobs to make up the losses."

You don't have to be direct and blunt in your message to get the point across. Everyone knew what the memo's meant.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Seriously, I think some of you morons (You'll know who you are because you'll whine about my calling you a 'moron') won't be happy until your country (whatever country that is) is an economic ruin like Greece, Italy, or Spain. And then you'll still bleat abut the rich as if they and not you had everything to do with your poverty.

Nice rant, Bart. But what about the USA? Your debt crisis is at least as bad as any of the 3 countries you've noted.

Worse, actually. Most people just talk about the national debt while almost no one speaks of the $16 trillion the Federal Reserve gave away all on their own authority. In total, the US national debt is in excess of $32 trillion dollars, or over 225% of GDP. Greece is upside down with a debt of around 140% of GDP. the US should be in the state of runaway inflation right now and it would be except for the fact that too many people in the world are afraid to say it because they don't want to deal with the realities of a US economic collapse.

That's why I'll take Romney (while I would rather have Gingrich to deal with this crisis) because at least with Romney he'll manage the country to a softer crash than Obama would. Obama has NO PLAN to deal with the inevitable and once the US goes into hyperinflation we'll be doomed. But he looks and sounds good as President.

Lemmy Lemmy:

[
This guy isn't saying that Obama could hurt his bottom line. He's telling people "vote as I say or I'll fire you". That's indefensible.

No, he's not. He's just saying that if Obama wins then there are things that are currently slated to happen in 2013 and 2014 that will cost these people their jobs. I expect to lose my job with the state because we're a self-funded agency (we do not get paid out of tax revenues) and we're already looking at layoffs in 2013 as revenues have gone down. If Romney gets in I might keep this job. Maybe. If I lose the job then I am going to go into 100% retirement and Lisa and I are moving out of state because we won't be able to afford staying here.

Back on topic, two reasons why this man is not telling anyone how to vote:

1. There is no way he could know how his people vote anyway.

2. Even if all his employees vote for Romney 8,000 people won't make much difference in a national election.

[BartSimpson]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

As I said initially, it all comes down to tact. He has none.

And that rude b@stard who captained the Titanic had no business telling people that the ship was sinking when he could have said it more politely, like that the ship was experiencing negative buoyancy. That would have been much more polite.

[Zipperfish]

I think this may well have the reverse effect that this guy was hoping for. File it under the Law of Unintended Consequences.

People react negatively to be being blackmailing.

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

People react negatively to be being blackmailing.

Aristocrats don't care how the lower orders react. The peasants are there to do what they're told when they're told to do it. This is what forty years of worshipping Mammon gets you.