Vegas Employer: Obama Won–So I Fired 22 Employees

[GuyPinestra]

If they go out of business it because dumb asses won't let you lay them off or fire them, then I doubt they will have much in capital gains tax to get. Looks like the greedy government will get nothing but more on unemployment.

BTW: Many decent business people get out of business because of they can't afford to be in business.

You really need to stop being such a dumb ass when it comes to running businesses.

Joe can't help himself, he's a "Workers of the World, UNITE!" kind of guy...

And if he IS a worker in this world, he would be foolish NOT to "unite" with other workers.

Appeasement never works, and as per our own nation's stated government policy, we don't negotiate with terrorists.

It never ceases to amaze me the penchant for some within the same economic class to think that contracted benefits union employees are an obscenity - swallowed whole in the same breath that that excuses, even applauds, the CEOs and owners of industry for raising your prices based on the last dime the largest demographic has to spend.

Many people currently advocate for a balance between public and private sector wages and benefits, but it would not be a "balance," it would rather be a leveling of wages and benefits, and the only direction privately owned industry will ever level wages and benefits is down. Meanwhile, prices continue to rise, and because corporations got rid of the people who once provided the service they charge such high prices for (The consumer is now considered to be just as much of an unnecessary and unpleasant overhead as labor traditionally has been), customer service continues to deteriorate. Whenever the ugly and inevitable results become evident, the advocates of supply side policies point to their handiwork as proof of the ―inefficiency of government bureaucracy and claim that, unregulated, and free from the constraints of collective bargaining laws, the private sector can do the job better. They‘ll also claim that they can do it cheaper. And, oh, by the way, they just happen to know a guy…

Complete and utter bullshit. Unions had their place 100 years ago, but the corruption and cronyism of the current structure makes them a curse rather than a blessing. In my personal experience I've dealt with union thugs trying to 'organize' construction workers on jobs as small as home roof repairs to jobs as large as 20 story office buildings.

The workers on these jobs were ALREADY getting top wages and benefits WITHOUT the union, yet these thugs would try to intimidate the workers into demanding 'representation'. Why? Obviously so the union could legally extort 'dues' from these workers, simultaneously increasing the union's bottom line while providing ZERO benefit to the workers.

I've worked for many non-union shops that treat their employees like gold and consequently reap the benefit of a well-trained and EXTREMELY loyal group of employees.

 

[GuyPinestra]

And if he IS a worker in this world, he would be foolish NOT to "unite" with other workers.

Appeasement never works, and as per our own nation's stated government policy, we don't negotiate with terrorists.

It never ceases to amaze me the penchant for some within the same economic class to think that contracted benefits union employees are an obscenity - swallowed whole in the same breath that that excuses, even applauds, the CEOs and owners of industry for raising your prices based on the last dime the largest demographic has to spend.

It never ceases to amaze me that parasites, leaches and ticks on the ass of society think they have something in common with me or share common goals because they have similar incomes. Corporations set their prices according to the laws of supply and demand. Any other theory about how they do it is invariably based on some flavor of Mraxism.



Meaningless twaddle. Government workers make more on average than the people who pay their salaries. Your lame attempt to justify that isn't fooling anyone.

Meanwhile, prices continue to rise, and because corporations got rid of the people who once provided the service they charge such high prices for (The consumer is now considered to be just as much of an unnecessary and unpleasant overhead as labor traditionally has been), customer service continues to deteriorate. Whenever the ugly and inevitable results become evident, the advocates of supply side policies point to their handiwork as proof of the ―inefficiency of government bureaucracy and claim that, unregulated, and free from the constraints of collective bargaining laws, the private sector can do the job better. They‘ll also claim that they can do it cheaper. And, oh, by the way, they just happen to know a guy…

Prices rise because government finances its operations by rolling the printing presses. Private corporations have nothing to do with it.

Government has demonstrated over and over that it produces an inferior product at a vastly inflated price. Economists have understood the mechanism for this result for centuries. The market is responsible for all the wealth and technical wonders we enjoy today. Government only spread poverty.

Not true, and the lie is BASED on a lie.

Genesis

Reagan‘s twenty-five percent federal tax cut caused a considerable addition to the federal deficit, and an almost twenty percent rise in foreign investment on that debt that led to higher large dollar holdings and an unfavorable trade imbalance.

While Reagan blamed the deficits on Congress, conservative pundits convinced many in society to blame union labor when factories moved to other countries. In reality, ninety-five percent of the reason for the deficits was high defense spending and Reagan‘s refusal to raise taxes to pay for it.162 In 1982, the deficit was 90 billion dollars, and by 1987 it totaled 283 billion dollars. The shortfall of revenue required the US to borrow money, which raised interest rates. The higher interest rates attracted foreign investment, which caused the value of the dollar to rise out of any proportion to its actual worth. As the dollar skyrocketed, imports became cheaper than products made by American labor, and the trade imbalance became even more disproportionate as foreign markets could not afford American made goods at the inflated dollar value either.

These circumstances were what compelled many American businesses to relocate to third-world countries in search of low wage labor platforms. Not the demands for decent working conditions and reasonable increases in wages by unions, not regulations that prohibited industry from urinating in our common well, and not a tax code that billed the wealthiest among us at very reasonable rates for services rendered.

And the beat goes on, NOT because of liberals who want to reward small businesses here who act decently and play fair, while removing government protections and restricting government handouts TO corporations THAT (rather than who) offshore their factories and marry their profits elsewhere. Companies THAT do so in order to avoid their fair share for the infrastructure that benefits them, entities that have NO biological need relating to WE, THE ACTUAL PEOPLE, and no allegiance to THIS nation.

It is increasingly hard to sympathize with people like you. Yes, you have a right to your opinion. Sill, those who think about these things, both on a practical level and an ideological one find such views to be poorly, nay, deplorably researched.

Please provide a link to the source you quoted...

 

[rightwinger]

Joe can't help himself, he's a "Workers of the World, UNITE!" kind of guy...

And if he IS a worker in this world, he would be foolish NOT to "unite" with other workers.

Appeasement never works, and as per our own nation's stated government policy, we don't negotiate with terrorists.

It never ceases to amaze me the penchant for some within the same economic class to think that contracted benefits union employees are an obscenity - swallowed whole in the same breath that that excuses, even applauds, the CEOs and owners of industry for raising your prices based on the last dime the largest demographic has to spend.

Many people currently advocate for a balance between public and private sector wages and benefits, but it would not be a "balance," it would rather be a leveling of wages and benefits, and the only direction privately owned industry will ever level wages and benefits is down. Meanwhile, prices continue to rise, and because corporations got rid of the people who once provided the service they charge such high prices for (The consumer is now considered to be just as much of an unnecessary and unpleasant overhead as labor traditionally has been), customer service continues to deteriorate. Whenever the ugly and inevitable results become evident, the advocates of supply side policies point to their handiwork as proof of the ―inefficiency of government bureaucracy and claim that, unregulated, and free from the constraints of collective bargaining laws, the private sector can do the job better. They‘ll also claim that they can do it cheaper. And, oh, by the way, they just happen to know a guy…

Complete and utter bullshit. Unions had their place 100 years ago, but the corruption and cronyism of the current structure makes them a curse rather than a blessing. In my personal experience I've dealt with union thugs trying to 'organize' construction workers on jobs as small as home roof repairs to jobs as large as 20 story office buildings.

The workers on these jobs were ALREADY getting top wages and benefits WITHOUT the union, yet these thugs would try to intimidate the workers into demanding 'representation'. Why? Obviously so the union could legally extort 'dues' from these workers, simultaneously increasing the union's bottom line while providing ZERO benefit to the workers.

I've worked for many non-union shops that treat their employees like gold and consequently reap the benefit of a well-trained and EXTREMELY loyal group of employees.

Unions are needed more today than in the last 30 years

Standard of living for workers has declined. Wages are stagnant, benefits are disappearing, worker protections are eroding. All while executive salaries and benefits are soaring.

Meanwhile, republicans run on ending collective bargaining rights, cutting employee healthcare and wages

Non union shops pay top wages to keep out the unions

 

[bigrebnc1775]

last two years of Bush the democrats and obama were in control why didn't they stop the crash?

They did not pass a single piece of legislation that would have led to the economic collapse. Also, unlike Republicans they supported Bush in most of his attempts to fix a collapsing economy

You did not see Democrats in 2007-2008 saying......Bush must fail

You mean the democrats failed to stop the crash. what else could t be? obama would never have won the first time if the economy was doing good.

Left winger

 

[SniperFire]

And if he IS a worker in this world, he would be foolish NOT to "unite" with other workers.

Appeasement never works, and as per our own nation's stated government policy, we don't negotiate with terrorists.

It never ceases to amaze me the penchant for some within the same economic class to think that contracted benefits union employees are an obscenity - swallowed whole in the same breath that that excuses, even applauds, the CEOs and owners of industry for raising your prices based on the last dime the largest demographic has to spend.

Many people currently advocate for a balance between public and private sector wages and benefits, but it would not be a "balance," it would rather be a leveling of wages and benefits, and the only direction privately owned industry will ever level wages and benefits is down. Meanwhile, prices continue to rise, and because corporations got rid of the people who once provided the service they charge such high prices for (The consumer is now considered to be just as much of an unnecessary and unpleasant overhead as labor traditionally has been), customer service continues to deteriorate. Whenever the ugly and inevitable results become evident, the advocates of supply side policies point to their handiwork as proof of the ―inefficiency of government bureaucracy and claim that, unregulated, and free from the constraints of collective bargaining laws, the private sector can do the job better. They‘ll also claim that they can do it cheaper. And, oh, by the way, they just happen to know a guy…

Complete and utter bullshit. Unions had their place 100 years ago, but the corruption and cronyism of the current structure makes them a curse rather than a blessing. In my personal experience I've dealt with union thugs trying to 'organize' construction workers on jobs as small as home roof repairs to jobs as large as 20 story office buildings.

The workers on these jobs were ALREADY getting top wages and benefits WITHOUT the union, yet these thugs would try to intimidate the workers into demanding 'representation'. Why? Obviously so the union could legally extort 'dues' from these workers, simultaneously increasing the union's bottom line while providing ZERO benefit to the workers.

I've worked for many non-union shops that treat their employees like gold and consequently reap the benefit of a well-trained and EXTREMELY loyal group of employees.

Unions are needed more today than in the last 30 years

Standard of living for workers has declined. Wages are stagnant, benefits are disappearing, worker protections are eroding. All while executive salaries and benefits are soaring.

Meanwhile, republicans run on ending collective bargaining rights, cutting employee healthcare and wages

Meanwhile, republican

Double-down on union idiocy.

That should reduce private sector union jobs from 9% of the workforce to about 4.5%.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Well, you can always root for more unemployment....but I think you will be disappointed

We'll see. But, on the contrary, I think it's the left who is rooting for more unemployment. They're the ones who elected you know who.

Our Presidents policies have resulted in positive growth in the private sector for 30 consecutive months. Why do you root against that?

Positive growth in the private sector has occurred in spite of, not because of, Obama's policies.

And that 'post-recession' growth has been the slowest, weakest and lowest-paying in HISTORY!

 

[JoeB131]

Complete and utter bullshit. Unions had their place 100 years ago, but the corruption and cronyism of the current structure makes them a curse rather than a blessing. In my personal experience I've dealt with union thugs trying to 'organize' construction workers on jobs as small as home roof repairs to jobs as large as 20 story office buildings.

The workers on these jobs were ALREADY getting top wages and benefits WITHOUT the union, yet these thugs would try to intimidate the workers into demanding 'representation'. Why? Obviously so the union could legally extort 'dues' from these workers, simultaneously increasing the union's bottom line while providing ZERO benefit to the workers.

I've worked for many non-union shops that treat their employees like gold and consequently reap the benefit of a well-trained and EXTREMELY loyal group of employees.

I guess the question is, why are they giving these workers top wages? To keep the union out.

I mean, otherwise, they'd just go down to the Home Depot and get some Day Laborers...

 

[Freewill]

Complete and utter bullshit. Unions had their place 100 years ago, but the corruption and cronyism of the current structure makes them a curse rather than a blessing. In my personal experience I've dealt with union thugs trying to 'organize' construction workers on jobs as small as home roof repairs to jobs as large as 20 story office buildings.

The workers on these jobs were ALREADY getting top wages and benefits WITHOUT the union, yet these thugs would try to intimidate the workers into demanding 'representation'. Why? Obviously so the union could legally extort 'dues' from these workers, simultaneously increasing the union's bottom line while providing ZERO benefit to the workers.

I've worked for many non-union shops that treat their employees like gold and consequently reap the benefit of a well-trained and EXTREMELY loyal group of employees.

I guess the question is, why are they giving these workers top wages? To keep the union out.

I mean, otherwise, they'd just go down to the Home Depot and get some Day Laborers...

If I ran a business I would welcome unions. All they need do is buy off the officials give the lowest paid people the larger wage and they will sell out everyone in their Union. Kind of like what is going on in America today. The Union I represented for years always asked for a percent wage, which meant that those making the most got the most. NEVER did the Union representation, who were the higher paid, ever, ever ask for a dollar amount wage increase to help those not making the same wage. NEVER did they ask for income equality. If you were a secretary your concerns were barely heard let alone addressed. So if I were running the business I would use that against them. I would offer dollar raises so that youngest would vote for the contract meanwhile use that lever to take things that matter to the real bottom line. Having a Union contract also means I do not have to worry about incentive raises or rewarding those who perform better. Much easier to just blame the Union contract.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Complete and utter bullshit. Unions had their place 100 years ago, but the corruption and cronyism of the current structure makes them a curse rather than a blessing. In my personal experience I've dealt with union thugs trying to 'organize' construction workers on jobs as small as home roof repairs to jobs as large as 20 story office buildings.

The workers on these jobs were ALREADY getting top wages and benefits WITHOUT the union, yet these thugs would try to intimidate the workers into demanding 'representation'. Why? Obviously so the union could legally extort 'dues' from these workers, simultaneously increasing the union's bottom line while providing ZERO benefit to the workers.

I've worked for many non-union shops that treat their employees like gold and consequently reap the benefit of a well-trained and EXTREMELY loyal group of employees.

I guess the question is, why are they giving these workers top wages? To keep the union out.

I mean, otherwise, they'd just go down to the Home Depot and get some Day Laborers...

They sell day laborers at the Home Depot? Wow, I gotta get me a couple of those. Are they expensive?

 

[House]

Complete and utter bullshit. Unions had their place 100 years ago, but the corruption and cronyism of the current structure makes them a curse rather than a blessing. In my personal experience I've dealt with union thugs trying to 'organize' construction workers on jobs as small as home roof repairs to jobs as large as 20 story office buildings.

The workers on these jobs were ALREADY getting top wages and benefits WITHOUT the union, yet these thugs would try to intimidate the workers into demanding 'representation'. Why? Obviously so the union could legally extort 'dues' from these workers, simultaneously increasing the union's bottom line while providing ZERO benefit to the workers.

I've worked for many non-union shops that treat their employees like gold and consequently reap the benefit of a well-trained and EXTREMELY loyal group of employees.

I guess the question is, why are they giving these workers top wages? To keep the union out.

I mean, otherwise, they'd just go down to the Home Depot and get some Day Laborers...

They sell day laborers at the Home Depot? Wow, I gotta get am a couple of those. Are they expensive?

Depends, in SoCal they're damned near free.

 

[JoeB131]

They sell day laborers at the Home Depot? Wow, I gotta get am a couple of those. Are they expensive?

Don't be obtuse... anyone knows if you want to get some cheap labor quick, you offer some day laborers $50.00 for the day and they will hang your drywall in record time.

 

[rightwinger]

Complete and utter bullshit. Unions had their place 100 years ago, but the corruption and cronyism of the current structure makes them a curse rather than a blessing. In my personal experience I've dealt with union thugs trying to 'organize' construction workers on jobs as small as home roof repairs to jobs as large as 20 story office buildings.

The workers on these jobs were ALREADY getting top wages and benefits WITHOUT the union, yet these thugs would try to intimidate the workers into demanding 'representation'. Why? Obviously so the union could legally extort 'dues' from these workers, simultaneously increasing the union's bottom line while providing ZERO benefit to the workers.

I've worked for many non-union shops that treat their employees like gold and consequently reap the benefit of a well-trained and EXTREMELY loyal group of employees.

Unions are needed more today than in the last 30 years

Standard of living for workers has declined. Wages are stagnant, benefits are disappearing, worker protections are eroding. All while executive salaries and benefits are soaring.

Meanwhile, republicans run on ending collective bargaining rights, cutting employee healthcare and wages

Meanwhile, republican

Double-down on union idiocy.

That should reduce private sector union jobs from 9% of the workforce to about 4.5%.

Unions look out for the middle class, Republicans don't

"Look for, the union label....."

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Unions are needed more today than in the last 30 years

Standard of living for workers has declined. Wages are stagnant, benefits are disappearing, worker protections are eroding. All while executive salaries and benefits are soaring.

Meanwhile, republicans run on ending collective bargaining rights, cutting employee healthcare and wages

Non union shops pay top wages to keep out the unions

I guess the question is, why are they giving these workers top wages? To keep the union out.

I mean, otherwise, they'd just go down to the Home Depot and get some Day Laborers...

You two may want to huddle up and get your story straight. On one hand you tell us unions are needed because people aren't getting paid enough and on the other you say non-union shops pay more than they have to to keep unions out. So which is it?

 

[JoeB131]

Unions are needed more today than in the last 30 years

Standard of living for workers has declined. Wages are stagnant, benefits are disappearing, worker protections are eroding. All while executive salaries and benefits are soaring.

Meanwhile, republicans run on ending collective bargaining rights, cutting employee healthcare and wages

Non union shops pay top wages to keep out the unions

I guess the question is, why are they giving these workers top wages? To keep the union out.

I mean, otherwise, they'd just go down to the Home Depot and get some Day Laborers...

You two may want to huddle up and get your story straight. On one hand you tell us unions are needed because people aren't getting paid enough and on the other you say non-union shops pay more than they have to to keep unions out. So which is it?

Nothing to keep straight. The threat of unionization is what keeps middle class wages where they are at. Always has.

It is certainly not because employers are such wonderful people. I've worked in the private sector for the last 20 years, and frankly, they'll try to cheat you at every oppurtunity.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Complete and utter bullshit. Unions had their place 100 years ago, but the corruption and cronyism of the current structure makes them a curse rather than a blessing. In my personal experience I've dealt with union thugs trying to 'organize' construction workers on jobs as small as home roof repairs to jobs as large as 20 story office buildings.

The workers on these jobs were ALREADY getting top wages and benefits WITHOUT the union, yet these thugs would try to intimidate the workers into demanding 'representation'. Why? Obviously so the union could legally extort 'dues' from these workers, simultaneously increasing the union's bottom line while providing ZERO benefit to the workers.

I've worked for many non-union shops that treat their employees like gold and consequently reap the benefit of a well-trained and EXTREMELY loyal group of employees.

I guess the question is, why are they giving these workers top wages? To keep the union out.

I mean, otherwise, they'd just go down to the Home Depot and get some Day Laborers...

They get top wages because they are very good at their jobs. Why would an employer want to trade highly skilled, WILLING workers for union thugs who stare at their watch waiting for their next union-mandated break time?

 

[bodecea]

When the small business employers ask me what to tell their employees when they are let go, I tell them to ask if that employee voted for obama. If so, what did they expect. Everyone knew this was going to happen. It's not like it was some secret. Boeing is reducing its workforce by 30%, lower than the 2010 levels. Compared to this, 22 lost jobs is small.

You give any hint...any hint at all...that you pick those you fire based on their politics, you deserve to be sued into bankruptcy.

 

[bodecea]

Joe can't help himself, he's a "Workers of the World, UNITE!" kind of guy...

And if he IS a worker in this world, he would be foolish NOT to "unite" with other workers.

Appeasement never works, and as per our own nation's stated government policy, we don't negotiate with terrorists.

It never ceases to amaze me the penchant for some within the same economic class to think that contracted benefits union employees are an obscenity - swallowed whole in the same breath that that excuses, even applauds, the CEOs and owners of industry for raising your prices based on the last dime the largest demographic has to spend.

Many people currently advocate for a balance between public and private sector wages and benefits, but it would not be a "balance," it would rather be a leveling of wages and benefits, and the only direction privately owned industry will ever level wages and benefits is down. Meanwhile, prices continue to rise, and because corporations got rid of the people who once provided the service they charge such high prices for (The consumer is now considered to be just as much of an unnecessary and unpleasant overhead as labor traditionally has been), customer service continues to deteriorate. Whenever the ugly and inevitable results become evident, the advocates of supply side policies point to their handiwork as proof of the ―inefficiency of government bureaucracy and claim that, unregulated, and free from the constraints of collective bargaining laws, the private sector can do the job better. They‘ll also claim that they can do it cheaper. And, oh, by the way, they just happen to know a guy…

Complete and utter bullshit. Unions had their place 100 years ago, but the corruption and cronyism of the current structure makes them a curse rather than a blessing. In my personal experience I've dealt with union thugs trying to 'organize' construction workers on jobs as small as home roof repairs to jobs as large as 20 story office buildings.

The workers on these jobs were ALREADY getting top wages and benefits WITHOUT the union, yet these thugs would try to intimidate the workers into demanding 'representation'. Why? Obviously so the union could legally extort 'dues' from these workers, simultaneously increasing the union's bottom line while providing ZERO benefit to the workers.

I've worked for many non-union shops that treat their employees like gold and consequently reap the benefit of a well-trained and EXTREMELY loyal group of employees.

So...we don't need the 2nd amendment anymore either?

 

[bodecea]

Unions are needed more today than in the last 30 years

Standard of living for workers has declined. Wages are stagnant, benefits are disappearing, worker protections are eroding. All while executive salaries and benefits are soaring.

Meanwhile, republicans run on ending collective bargaining rights, cutting employee healthcare and wages

Non union shops pay top wages to keep out the unions

I guess the question is, why are they giving these workers top wages? To keep the union out.

I mean, otherwise, they'd just go down to the Home Depot and get some Day Laborers...

You two may want to huddle up and get your story straight. On one hand you tell us unions are needed because people aren't getting paid enough and on the other you say non-union shops pay more than they have to to keep unions out. So which is it?

Same, really. IF the unions weren't there to keep out, they'd treat their workers like crap.

 

[Freewill]

When the small business employers ask me what to tell their employees when they are let go, I tell them to ask if that employee voted for obama. If so, what did they expect. Everyone knew this was going to happen. It's not like it was some secret. Boeing is reducing its workforce by 30%, lower than the 2010 levels. Compared to this, 22 lost jobs is small.

You give any hint...any hint at all...that you pick those you fire based on their politics, you deserve to be sued into bankruptcy.

So put everyone out of work because of your politics does that even make sense? I would think it does make sense to Obama supporters but to the sane world it is doubtful.

Having lived my last 30 years in a county where if you are not a democrat you can't get a job working for the county I find the crocodile tears coming from democrats laughable.

 

[Freewill]

Unions are needed more today than in the last 30 years

Standard of living for workers has declined. Wages are stagnant, benefits are disappearing, worker protections are eroding. All while executive salaries and benefits are soaring.

Meanwhile, republicans run on ending collective bargaining rights, cutting employee healthcare and wages

Meanwhile, republican

Double-down on union idiocy.

That should reduce private sector union jobs from 9% of the workforce to about 4.5%.

Unions look out for the middle class, Republicans don't

"Look for, the union label....."

Unions look out for Unions, Republicans look out for the country.