Massive Layoffs

Discussion in 'International Current News & Events' started by *Andi, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. *Andi

    *Andi Supporting Member

    6,660
    8
    As this has hit home ... :) I thought I would share ...(and) As the list is rather long and by far not complete, see link ... :)

    Companies plan massive layoffs as Obamacare becomes reality ...

    Freedom Works has put together a list of companies that will be laying off employees as a result of President Barack Obama's health care law:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...-companies-plan-massive-layoffs-obamacare-be/
     
  2. Bobbb

    Bobbb Well-Known Member

    3,290
    4
    It's just such a shame that it is illegal to fire people based on their political views for I'm a firm believer in holding people accountable for their choices and every single person being fired should be an Obama supporter so that they can experience the full glory of Hope and Change. What is manifestly unfair is for Romney supporters to be fired because some of their coworkers voted for Obama and brought this situation onto the company.
     

  3. *Andi

    *Andi Supporting Member

    6,660
    8
    102 workers laid off

    EAST CARBON, Carbon County — A Utah coal company owned by a vocal critic of President Barack Obama has laid off 102 miners.


    The layoffs at the West Ridge Mine are effective immediately, according to UtahAmerican Energy Inc., a subsidiary of Murray Energy Corp. They were announced in a short statement made public Thursday, two days after Obama won re-election.

    http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22890041&ni...ama-for-102-workers-laid-off&s_cid=featured-4
     
  4. *Andi

    *Andi Supporting Member

    6,660
    8
  5. horseman09

    horseman09 Well-Known Member

    1,240
    4
    In many states (PA included) it is not illegal to fire someone for their political views as long as the protected classes (age, race, sex, religion, national origin or ADA protected) are not specifically targeted.

    In other words, if I want to fire a white, middle aged American male because he sports an Obama button on his shirt -- he's toast. Firing a crippled, 60 year old black muslim woman from Kenya could get a little dicey.

    Gasp! Oh No! I think I just fired ObaMao's Aunt! :lolsmash::lolsmash:
     
  6. CrackbottomLouis

    CrackbottomLouis Winston Smith Sent Me

    4,996
    472
  7. DJgang

    DJgang I put SAs on IGNORE!

    2,426
    0
    Just the beginning.

    Personally, I know one person who's company lost a major job from another company that said they would close if Obama was re elected. So, that is possibly two small businesses gone. One for sure.

    Not to mention one poster here, closing their business.

    Just this afternoon, heard at the homeschool meeting, one family, husband too decided to close down his business.
    :cry:

    Good job America, good job! :congrat:

    Obama will save us!:D
     
  8. DJgang

    DJgang I put SAs on IGNORE!

    2,426
    0
    White men are open game, and it's only going to get worse.
     
  9. Bobbb

    Bobbb Well-Known Member

    3,290
    4
    Nothing to worry about, not really. Recall in another thread I pointed to a survey conducted by the NAACP where 95% of blacks want government to create jobs for people. Hey, the government can create jobs for everyone. That must be Bronco's plan, right? Don't worry, we're in good hands. Lots of jobs are going to be created by government. Why look at all the government jobs that have been saved by Bronco's spending in the last 4 years.
     
  10. Bobbb

    Bobbb Well-Known Member

    3,290
    4
    I would love for some businessman to take the heat on this issue. I hope one like that exists. If you have to fire some of your employees, let them be Democrats.
     
  11. cnsper

    cnsper Well-Known Member

    1,984
    56
    This is just as bad as what the unions do. Politics should not play a part in your decision to fire or hire. You should want the best people for the job. I would want someone that was going to be efficient, inventive and reliable over everything else.

    I know you are pissed off or disappointed, I am to. But you are letting emotion override logic and that is the same thing that happens in congress.
     
  12. Lake Windsong

    Lake Windsong Well-Known Member

    1,170
    1
    Thanks for the link. I'm most interested, at this point, in following the news about the companies that are cutting employee hours to below the threshold for providing company benefits. This affects a lot of people I know, and the link addresses this.
     
  13. Bobbb

    Bobbb Well-Known Member

    3,290
    4
    One aspect of liberty is having the freedom to make mistakes. If you want the most efficient, inventive and reliable employee even if they would vote to socialize your company out from under you, then you should have the liberty to hire or retain in your employment that employee. However, if I don't want to have that employee working for me, then why should I have to endure their presence and know that their political voice is working to harm me, my company and their fellow employees?

    The silver lining here is that the marketplace will determine which is the best option to follow as the experiment plays itself out. Your company might make more profits by having the best employees compared to my company, but what good does that do you when your employees, being Bronco supporters, decide to kick you out of your company in a squatting take-over where my employees believe in property rights and contracts and thus respect my ownership of the company even though they're not as efficient at making profits as the employees you kept on?

    Who is the winner? Your employees who were more efficient and kicked you to the curb or my employees who weren't as sharp nor as profitable but respect my position of ownership? I've still got a company and your sharp employees have your company.

    It happened elsewhere:

    Argentina's fábricas recuperadas movement, which emerged in response to Argentine's 2001 economic crisis,[2] is the current most significant workers' self-management phenomenon in the world. Workers took over control of the factories in which they had worked, commonly after bankruptcy, or after a factory occupation to circumvent a lockout.

    Fábricas recuperadas means "reclaimed/recovered factories." The Spanish verb recuperar means not only "to get back", "to take back" or "to reclaim" but also "to put back into good condition". Although initially referring to industrial facilities, the term may also apply to businesses other than factories (e.g. Hotel Bauen in Buenos Aires).

    Throughout the 1990s in Argentina's southern province of Neuquén, drastic economic and political events occurred where the citizens ultimately rose up. Although the first shift occurred in a single factory, bosses were progressively fired throughout the province so that by 2005 the workers of the province controlled most of the factories.

    The point is that with freedom comes responsibility for one's exercise of freedom and that cuts both ways - employees being held responsible for their vote and companies suffering the consequences by using political association rather than job performance as the basis for hiring and firing.
     
  14. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    People need to learn that actions have consequences.
     
  15. Bobbb

    Bobbb Well-Known Member

    3,290
    4
    Tee up Energizer:

    Energizer Holdings Inc. will reduce its global workforce by more than 10 percent — or about 1,500 employees — as the company closes three manufacturing plants and streamlines other operations. . . . . One of the battery factories slated for closure is in Maryville, Mo. The other two are in St. Albans, Vt., and in Tampoi, Malaysia.
     
  16. cnsper

    cnsper Well-Known Member

    1,984
    56
    And business owners need to produce effectively. If you get rid of your best service tech because of who they voted for your business will suffer. I want the guy that knows which end of the wrench to use. I am not one that is going to be swayed by others that work for me, nor am I afraid they will take over. Bobbb that article you quoted has nothing to do with this. It states that they took over after bankruptcy or occupation to prevent lockouts.

    Fear is a big motivator and I see that it is motivating a lot of you. Why live in fear of something you have no control over? It is going to eat you from the inside. Just like someone pointing out shooting someone at 200 yards after shtf, in another thread. That is really going to be helpful when the local citizens band against you. I don't care how many weapons you have, the good citizens will take you out. If for nothing else but their own safety.

    Except maybe in the cities, things are not going to break down as far as many believe. Rural communities will thrive because they will all join together to defend themselves as a whole.

    Technology may be temporarily rendered ineffective but we have today what they did not have 100 years ago and that is knowledge. Knowledge will not be held back and we will progress again.

    Most people are followers and I would venture to guess that most on here are followers too. If you work for someone else, you are a follower. You can give all the excuses that you want as to why you do not own a business but the only thing holding you back is you.
     
  17. Bobbb

    Bobbb Well-Known Member

    3,290
    4
    We all understand that. The point is that freedom can be expressed in many ways. Your position is that efficiency and profit matter above all else. For many people this is indeed true. What though of those who have different priorities, meaning that profit might be #2 on the list behind justice. If you have to fire an employee due to Bronco's policies, why should the employee who voted to oppose Bronco's policies get the axe and the one who cheered on Bronco's policies which led to this firing decision be spared the consequence of his actions? One type of owner will look only at work performance and spare the Democrat. I wouldn't though. I'd be willing to eat the marginal profit produced by that employee and satisfy myself with the performance of the next best employee in order to taste the sweet droplets of justice raining down on the Democrat.

    Those employees, like Obama, violated property rights. Just because a business locks-out employees doesn't mean that the owner should no longer own the land, building and equipment. Obama upset bankruptcy law and shafted bondholders and favored union members. That's the Democratic Way.

    The point is, if you have employees who believe that they have a greater right to your company than you do, should you be able to fire them for their political beliefs even if they are great workers? I say yes. Hold people accountable for their beliefs and actions in furtherance of those beliefs.

    I wouldn't call it fear, for myself it's anger and it's disgust to see the ravaging hoards of Takers destroy what was a great beacon of light to grace the world.

    Rural communities where all are bound together in common culture will survive just fine. A rural community where half the people are communists and think that they are entitled to kick you off your land are going to be in a state of war as landowners and those who believe in property rights and liberty fight back to protect what is theirs.
     
  18. Lake Windsong

    Lake Windsong Well-Known Member

    1,170
    1
    I value the opinions of all who have posted so far, and want to pose a question to y'all, and anyone else who would answer:
    I do believe that most of the companies that are lowering employee hours, and some of the companies announcing layoffs, are responding to parts of the health care act that will become effective in 2013 and 2014. However, I think some of the corporate layoffs are a response to the weak global economy. So the question I ask is: Do you think the global economy is as strong a factor in the decisions to 'restructure', or do you feel the health care act is the sole reason for lost jobs and lost hours?
     
  19. Bobbb

    Bobbb Well-Known Member

    3,290
    4
    It all ultimately boils down to the strength of the economy for if the economy was growing then the burden of carrying the healthcare coverage would be manageable or least more manageable.

    This ultimately boils down to Obama's choices. He has made disastrous choices over the last 4 years with respect to laying the conditions which incubate growth in the economy. For instance, to look at just one strand, energy costs. There is a strong relationship between energy costs in terms of input and economic output. If you hold all factors equal and increase energy costs, then the additional costs paid for energy must come from some other factor, usually profitability. With lowered profitability you get lowered asset values because a good part of the valuation of assets depends on their ability to earn profit. With lowered asset values there is less security to back loans and loan covenants kick in which force companies to pay down loans so that debt/equity ratios fall back into line. All of this works its way down to employees, employee salaries, and results in layoffs.

    That's just one strand of Obama's many bad decisions with respect to creating the conditions for growth. As Obama has stated on many occasions, he is primarily interested in "fairness" not economic growth or even economic efficiency.

    The above isn't meant to let ObamaCare off the hook because, like energy costs, this is another strand of imposing costs onto business in order to meet social goals.

    The Obama Effect on the economy is like dying by a thousand cuts. One cut or even a few cuts can be absorbed but a thousand cuts begins to do very serious damage.
     
  20. goshengirl

    goshengirl Supporting Member

    3,312
    4
    Lake, I think it's both.

    My sister's company (retail) has kept hours below full-time for a couple years now. This keeps them from having to provide benefits. But now the company is making the hours ridiculously low (like 8 hours a week), and it seems to be geared towards weeding out the long-standing (and therefor higher-paid) employees, and relying on lower-paid newbies. So that's policy that's driven by the economy.

    On the other hand, my husband's company (engineering) contracts out to other companies, and they're starting to see policy changes from those companies due to Obamacare. My son's employer is also making a response/change due to Obamacare, and changing folks' hours accordingly.