LAS VEGAS (CBS Las Vegas) â A Las Vegas
business[Image: icon1.png] owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obamaâs re-election.
âDavidâ (he asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons) told Host Kevin Wall on 100.5 KXNT that âelections have consequencesâ and that âat the end of the day, I need to survive.â
Hereâs an excerpt from the interview. Click the audio tab below to hear even more from this compelling conversation:
âIâve done my share of educating my employees. I never tell them which way to vote. I believe in the free system we have, I believe in the right to choose who they want to be president, but I did explain as a business owner that I have always put my employees first. I always made sure that when I went without a paycheck that [I] made sure they were paid. And I explained that I always put them first and unfortunately Iâm at a point where Iâm being forced to have to worry about me and my family now and a business that I built from just me to 114 employees.
âI explained to them a month ago that if Obama gets in office that the regulations for Obamacare are gonna hurt our business, and Iâm gonna have to make provisions to make sure I have enough money to cover the payroll taxes, the additional health care Iâm gonna have to do, and I explained that to them and I said you do what you feel like in your heart you need to do, but Iâm just letting you know as a warning this is things I have to think of as a business owner.
âWell unfortunately, and most of my employees are Hispanic â Iâm not gonna go into what kind of company I have, but I have mostly Hispanic employees â well unfortunately we know what happened and I canât wait around anymore, I have to be proactive. I had to lay off 22 people today to make sure that my business is gonna thrive and Iâm gonna be around for years to come. I have to build up that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way. Elections do have consequences, but so do choices. A choice you make every day has consequences and you know what, Iâve always put my employees first, but unfortunately today I have to put me and my family first, and you watch whatâs gonna happen. Iâm just one guy with 114 employees â well was 114 employees â watch what happens in the next six months.
The Dow alone lost 314 points today. Thereâs a tsunami coming and if you didnât think this election had consequences, just wait.â
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11/07/...employees/
Although it sounds like he does have a financial crisis coming I think he pulled the trigger a little too soon.
It's very sad to read, especially for those employees, but I can understand where he is coming from. Expect to see more of this.
My wife and I own two small businesses. IF the changes that were outlined in Obama's economic plan happens, we will be in the same position as this man. I sure hope the government comes up with more public sector jobs, because the private sector is going to generate a lot of eligible workers....
So this guy las off 22 and a coal mine in pikeville hires 150z
Wildcatk23 Wrote:So this guy las off 22 and a coal mine in pikeville hires 150z
LOL, you think that's the only one laying off? Wait till you see all the other layoffs junior...
Just post the links bobby..
On a side note we hired 5 workers today.
Don't this kinda seem weird that he basiclly said he fired 22 people just because Obama was reelected? Sounds like a tightwad at its best coughcoughcoalcompanies
Wildcatk23 Wrote:Just post the links bobby..
On a side note we hired 5 workers today.
we fired one for dope!
Wildcatk23 Wrote:So this guy las off 22 and a coal mine in pikeville hires 150z
And telco coal layoffed 90 today
4_real Wrote:we fired one for dope!
Was it your other personality?
^ Interesting we go no response from Junior after this.
nicker:
^ It was easier to move on to a new subject
Wildcatk23 Wrote:So this guy las off 22 and a coal mine in pikeville hires 150z
Yep. And Hostess just announced that it is closing, liquidating, and permanently laying off 18,000. Goodbye Twinkies and Hohos and goodbye union jobs. You don't want to compare hirings with layoffs. You will be stomped.
^ Some morons out there will think "Thank God for Obamacare, now all of these people will get Health Insurance for FREE!"
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Yep. And Hostess just announced that it is closing, liquidating, and permanently laying off 18,000. Goodbye Twinkies and Hohos and goodbye union jobs. You don't want to compare hirings with layoffs. You will be stomped.
File bankruptcy, steal pensions from the workers, change names, come back. It's the American way.
TheRealVille Wrote:File bankruptcy, steal pensions from the workers, change names, come back. It's the American way.
Oh, so now we have changed the topic to UNION LEADERS!!!!!
I'm 100% for the Union, the one's that forced my father into "Helping his Company" stay afloat, telling him that he must give 12% of his paycheck back to his company, but the Union will ensure that he receives it back when he retired - which years later, after he put over $30K back into his trucking company, the Union helped insure that he got $1,300 of it back
Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about, I lived it with my family and my fathers employment with United Trucking (and all of the names that they subsequently had)
My father, who was a Union Steward for years - HATES the Union. But, it's good for what it is I guess.
TheRealVille Wrote:File bankruptcy, steal pensions from the workers, change names, come back. It's the American way.
Spoken like a true union partisan with no knowledge of how the system works and certainly no knowledge of how the law works.
Good for Hostess. Unions put you in a financial bind. Urinate on them.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Spoken like a true union partisan with no knowledge of how the system works and certainly no knowledge of how the law works.
Good for Hostess. Unions put you in a financial bind. Urinate on them.
And with that little bit of insight you know why union leaders have lost the ability to negotiate in good faith. Everybody else is a bunch of crooks (rich white republicans) that are out to hold them down, and deny them the riches and benefits they want. They refuse to accept the law of supply and demand. Operating instead, from a flawed understanding of hand me down unionism from days gone by, when union leaders had much more personal integrity and respect for their country.
Hostess has been through two previous Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings. To aviod liquidation, the company asked the union workers to take an eight percent reduction in wages. One union agreed. The other rejected the offer. Hostess decided to permanently close. The union boys and girls cut their own throats.
The truth is that many companies, including hostess, are being smothered by thse union contracts particularly in regard to retirement benefits. They can't survive and fnd these obscene retirement plans. Therefore, you will continue to see many more companies going out of business. What other choice do they have when unions won't compromise for the good of all.
In light of this fact, and it is fact, Hostess did the right thing. Ninety-two percent of a high wage is certainly preferable to O% of a high wage. The union cut its own throat.
TheRealVille Wrote:^My union works for 90%.
Maybe you boys should have talked with the boys at Hostess. Of course, maybe Obama will step in to protect the union benefit contracts like he did in the automobile industry.
Your boy didn't "save" GM. He saved the union contracts with GM. If you are familiar with the workings of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and the "managed" bankruptcy used by GM as rquired, in essence, by your boy through his bail out, you would know Obama's real purpose. It had nothing to do with protecting the general and secured creditors of GM or the corporation per se. He manipulated the process to protect the unions and the related union contracts.
Now that is fact.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Maybe you boys should have talked with the boys at Hostess. Of course, maybe Obama will step in to protect the union benefit contracts like he did in the automobile industry.
Your boy didn't "save" GM. He saved the union contracts with GM. If you are familiar with the workings of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and the "managed" bankruptcy used by GM as rquired, in essence, by your boy through his bail out, you would know Obama's real purpose. It had nothing to do with protecting the general and secured creditors of GM or the corporation per se. He manipulated the process to protect the unions and the related union contracts.
Now that is fact.
The taxpayer is guaranteeing the union worker's benefit package will remain solvent. Is that what you're saying?
TheRealThing Wrote:The taxpayer is guaranteeing the union worker's benefit package will remain solvent. Is that what you're saying?
Absolutely. That was exactly Obama's intended end result. And, that is the end result.
Another example of abuse of the system is the Solyndra bankruptcy.
In a bankruptcy, one of the paramount goals is to protect all creditors, as much as possible, from loss. Also, creditors are to come ahead of investors in order of payment. As a part of the process, contracts, including union contracts, may be reaffirmed or rejected. If rejected, which is almost always the case (and I know this from being involved in many such bankruptcies), the contracts may be renegotiated in a way to help the company stay afloat or declared null and void. The purpose of the GM manipulated "bankruptcy" was to keep GM in business in a way that would protect all union contracts without change. And, that is what happened. On the other hand, in the Solyndra bankruptcy, the goal was to protect the major investors- all of whom had/have political ties to Obama. Somehow, that goal was reached. Actual creditors were not protected.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Absolutely. That was exactly Obama's intended end result. And, that is the end result.
Another example of abuse of the system is the Solyndra bankruptcy.
In a bankruptcy, one of the paramount goals is to protect all creditors, as much as possible, from loss. As a part of the process, contracts, including union contracts, may be reaffirmed or rejected. If rejected, which is almost always the case (and I know this from being involved in many such bankruptcies), the contracts may be renegotiated in a way to help the company stay afloat or declred null and void. The purpose of the GM manipulated "bankruptcy" was to keep GM in business in a way that would protect all union contracts without change. And, that is what happened.
Thank you, I just wanted you to spell that out for the sake of clarity. To be honest, that was the first thought I had when Hostess made the announcement,
would Obama step in and fund the pensions and help defray the cost of ObamaCare with taxpayer dollars?
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Absolutely. That was exactly Obama's intended end result. And, that is the end result.
Another example of abuse of the system is the Solyndra bankruptcy.
In a bankruptcy, one of the paramount goals is to protect all creditors, as much as possible, from loss. Also, creditors are to come ahead of investors in order of payment. As a part of the process, contracts, including union contracts, may be reaffirmed or rejected. If rejected, which is almost always the case (and I know this from being involved in many such bankruptcies), the contracts may be renegotiated in a way to help the company stay afloat or declared null and void. The purpose of the GM manipulated "bankruptcy" was to keep GM in business in a way that would protect all union contracts without change. And, that is what happened. On the other hand, in the Solyndra bankruptcy, the goal was to protect the major investors- all of whom had/have political ties to Obama. Somehow, that goal was reached. Actual creditors were not protected.
Very informative post script. In my mind, part, maybe even most, of the reason that more folks don't understand why the Solyndra bankruptcy and many other administration machinations are basically illegal, is because the pundits don't explain the situation in like manner as the clear and concisely articulate terms in which you have just done. Like I have said before, the only time this administration cites the law, is when they want to
use the law to
run over the law. :biggrin:
![[Image: icon1.png]](http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png){kind=link}