CEO threatens workers jobs if Obama is reelected

[Rasheed1]

Why are the business owners greedy for wanting to keep the 4%, the 4% THEY EARNED mind you, but it's somehow noble when the government gets it?

Government is just as greedy as business. Government has a huge ego just like business.

The government plans to collect 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS in income tax in 2013. For comparison, the gross profit of Microsoft from September 2011-September 2012 was $57.39 billion. Whoa! Here's what needs to stop- people acting like the government is some poor orphan child with no money.

If government can't make due with that much, I have no sympathy for them. They're a wasteful group with no concept of fiscal responsibility. I'd much rather have Bill Gates privately investing his money than the government metaphorically sniffing cocaine off strippers asses, at the taxpayers expense.

None of your post speaks to un-american idea that bosses should intimidate their workers to vote a certain way.

my point remains.

If you wanna shut business down when Obama gets re-elected? go on and do it.

But "warning" your employees about the potential loss of their jobs is a disgrace. At least in America.

[The Real JW]

If you wanna shut business down when Obama gets re-elected? go on and do it.

But "warning" your employees about the potential loss of their jobs is a disgrace. At least in America.

You'd rather he just spring it on them as a fun surprise?

[kentatm]

[QUOTE] Top CEOs make 3,489 times the average US worker

WASHINGTON

[joe]

poor CEOs. They deserve to make 200 times more than the lowest paid employees. Its not causing problems with the economy at all!

Your post contains some good facts.. but facts are pretty empty by themselves. CEO'S are earning 200x more than the lowest paid employees, okay.. so what? I don't disagree with you, but the facts themselves don't present any obvious cure to our problems. Does it mean we should put a cap on CEO earnings? Does it mean we should raise the minimum wage? Does it mean we need less government intervention? The facts themselves don't answer these questions.

Like if I say, "The Yankees have made the playoffs every year but one since 1996," that doesn't explain WHY, or give a cure to this problem, or even tell you if there is a problem. It's just stating a fact. Okay, CEO's make a bunch of money. So what?

I'm not saying I know the answer, because I don't. But the general vibe from leftists lately has just been getting creepy. Their whole thought process seems to be, "we hate rich people." It's become a legit argument to just state the salaries of rich people.. as if that ends the debate. And Kent, I'm not trying to be rude here, that's just something I've noticed over time.

[IcanzIIravor]

You'd rather he just spring it on them as a fun surprise?

Heaven forbid a guy building a 300 + million dollar mansion have to fire his employees because he doesn't want to overpay for the special marble his wife wants in the bathroom, even though he is still making his money. That poor man.

[The Real JW]

Heaven forbid a guy building a 300 + million dollar mansion have to fire his employees because he doesn't want to overpay for the special marble his wife wants in the bathroom, even though he is still making his money. That poor man.

That doesn't answer my question though.

If I were an employee of that company and the owner was seriously contemplating layoffs due to a potential upcoming increase in taxes, I would want to know. It doesn't mean I'd change my votes or not be angry at the owner, but I would rather he be upfront about his intentions that directly affect me as an employee.

[joe]

Heaven forbid a guy building a 300 + million dollar mansion have to fire his employees because he doesn't want to overpay for the special marble his wife wants in the bathroom, even though he is still making his money. That poor man

That doesn't answer my question though.

If I were an employee of that company and the owner was seriously contemplating layoffs due to a potential upcoming increase in taxes, I would want to know. It doesn't mean I'd change my votes or not be angry at the owner, but I would rather he be upfront about his intentions that directly affect me as an employee.

Real JW, I agree with what you're saying here. But to ravor.. so what if he builds a 300 million dollar mansion? Is the guy not allowed to have a 300 million dollar mansion? If the CEO owns this business, it's not our right to tell him what to do with his profits. He doesn't owe his employees a job. Just like it wouldn't be the CEO's right to tell an employee he can't quit "just so he can get an extra 10 bucks an hour" someplace else.

But at the same time ravor, there is two levels to your words. On the personal level, I completely agree with you. If the CEO is raking in that much cash, I would personally dislike him for firing employees under this scenario. I feel the pain of the employees and I would prefer he didn't fire them. But where I draw the line is political action- people saying it should be illegal for him to fire them. To me, it's not our (or the governments) right to make decisions for a business, or a CEO. It's their business, it's their jobs, it's their profit, and it's their life.

[Jailblazers7]

That doesn't answer my question though.

If I were an employee of that company and the owner was seriously contemplating layoffs due to a potential upcoming increase in taxes, I would want to know. It doesn't mean I'd change my votes or not be angry at the owner, but I would rather he be upfront about his intentions that directly affect me as an employee.

I understand this sentiment but the CEO using the threat of layoffs as a tool of political influence is a slippery slope and has the potential to undermine the integrity of political elections in this country.

In reality, the CEO is uncertain if Obama will be able to get a tax raised passed and what the impact those raises will have on his business. The move he pulled is wrong and has no place in our political system imo.

[IcanzIIravor]

Real JW, I agree with what you're saying here. But to ravor.. so what if he builds a 300 million dollar mansion? Is the guy not allowed to have a 300 million dollar mansion? If the CEO owns this business, it's not our right to tell him what to do with his profits. He doesn't owe his employees a job. Just like it wouldn't be the CEO's right to tell an employee he can't quit "just so he can get an extra 10 bucks an hour" someplace else.

But at the same time ravor, there is two levels to your words. On the personal level, I completely agree with you. If the CEO is raking in that much cash, I would personally dislike him for firing employees under this scenario. I feel the pain of the employees and I would prefer he didn't fire them. But where I draw the line is political action- people saying it should be illegal for him to fire them. To me, it's not our (or the governments) right to make decisions for a business, or a CEO. It's their business, it's their jobs, it's their profit, and it's their life.

It should be illegal to fire them based on if he is firing them over who they voted for. How you can be a libertarian yet be okay with this happening theoretically is beyond me. I think he has stopped short of actually stating this, but he is certainly right on the line. The next step is forcing his workers to bring proof of who they voted for and using that as a basis of either firing or keeping that. Would you still be supportive of these ceo's if they did that?

[Balla_Status]

Honestly don't see anything wrong with what he said. Not like he didn't work for what he got. This thread proves what he's said about people thinking he didn't earn what he has.

And he's not threatening voters. He doesn't know who voted for who so he's not saying, "Vote Obama and you will get fired."

He can't know that. Some people are misunderstanding his letter and twisting his words.

[Balla_Status]

[QUOTE=andgar923]None of this is race related

[Balla_Status]

I understand this sentiment but the CEO using the threat of layoffs as a tool of political influence is a slippery slope and has the potential to undermine the integrity of political elections in this country.

In reality, the CEO is uncertain if Obama will be able to get a tax raised passed and what the impact those raises will have on his business. The move he pulled is wrong and has no place in our political system imo.

The government has introduced the political influence themselves by taxing the corporation.

[joe]

It should be illegal to fire them based on if he is firing them over who they voted for. How you can be a libertarian yet be okay with this happening theoretically is beyond me. I think he has stopped short of actually stating this, but he is certainly right on the line. The next step is forcing his workers to bring proof of who they voted for and using that as a basis of either firing or keeping that. Would you still be supportive of these ceo's if they did that?

Again, there's two levels. I don't think it should be illegal to do that, but on a personal level I don't love it.

Frankly, all of this can be decided very easily on the free market. Business that will ONLY hire Democrats or ONLY hire Republicans necessarily weaken the talent pool of their employees. The employees they don't hire will be scooped up by competitors, leaving them at a disadvantage. Behavior like what you're describing would be very risky for an employer.

Throwing the government into this equation just needlessly complicates it. The market would handle it without batting an eyelash, very simply. Either you want to work for an employer who controls who you vote for, or you don't. I'd guess most people wouldn't, and most employers wouldn't bother asking.

[Jailblazers7]

The government has introduced the political influence themselves by taxing the corporation.

The legal system is the reason free market can work. There at least needs to be some minimum tax rate on corporation and businesses in order to maintain the legal framework that gives credibility to financial systems and markets.

[ALBballer]

Hypothetically if the owner did fire the employees and go off to the bahamas, and assuming there is a demand for this product or service then another business would certainly take over and these employees could potentially find a job at this new business. Not to mention the employees do not have to disclosed who they voted for. And there are a ton shit of other things. Basically this is some empty "threat" (for lack of a better word.)

Anyways this is all nonsense. Is it unethical for the boss to influence his employees political decisions with this empty "threat?" Sure. But this sorts of threats happen all the time. Just look at the candidates themselves. Barack Obama claims if Romney would win then the country would fall apart and vice versa.