Vegas Employer: Obama Won–So I Fired 22 Employees

[Truthmatters]

Prove this story is true.

If you cant your just blowing wind out your asses

please guys take an some beano next time

 

[Si modo]

This MAY be illegal because there are laws that protect employees rights that covers an employer may not fire someone due to political activity. Not sure if Obama getting elected is covered by that, though. So im trying to look it up even further.

You should read the OP more carefully. No where does it say the 22 were fired for their political views.

> Click link in OP
> Read first sentence in article
> Observe the 9th word in the article. "fired".

Again. No where does it say the 22 were fired for their political views.

Shall I define 'for' or go over what the function of a prepositional phrase is for you?

 

[Vast LWC]

And this is all complete bullshit anyway.

Only the stupidest among us are going to start firing people because of their political affiliation, and or because Obama won an election.

Those that do will probably go belly-up at some point in the near future anyway due to gross managerial incompetence.

So, I'm not too worried about it.

And that's about all I have to say about that.

Later.

 

[shintao]

Why is it fascist to seek out employees who you believe best give your organization the best opportunity to thrive and be profitable?

Sounds like a stupid way to chose employees to me, but then there are tons of businesses that fail yearly, telling me there are a lot ignorant rightwing business owners who are daily failures due. It is clearly her choice and her business, but if she wants to bi-tch about regulations she is free to move over the border where she doesn't have regulations. Problem solved.

The Left has won and gets to keep their extraordinarily oppressive legislation which damage nearly every business in America.

We can't afford to hire employees who support that, much less those who will be shitting on our automobiles in the parking lot when they get mad about something.

Yep, it looks that way doesn't it. Those regulations are put there for a reason, they didn't just appear out of thin air, so blame businesses that can't regulate themselves for your woes. If you can't regulate yourself, government is sending a message to you that they can.

Yeah, they have a thing called a job interview, testing, background checks, so I assume you can figure out who might sht on the car when you mistreat the employee.

 

[nitroz]

You should read the OP more carefully. No where does it say the 22 were fired for their political views.

> Click link in OP
> Read first sentence in article
> Observe the 9th word in the article. "fired".

Again. No where does it say the 22 were fired for their political views.

Shall I define 'for' or go over what the function of a prepositional phrase is for you?

oh, derp. didn't see that. x_x

 

[Chris]

We have just had the fastest drop in unemployment since 1984....from 10.2% to 7.8%%. All this in spite of the fact that House Republicans have blocked infrastructure spending bills that would have helped. Why? Because Republicans are more concerned with winning the election than helping America.

 

[Chris]

Unemployment under Obama's first term mirrors unemployment under Reagan's first term.

Reagan started with a 7.5% unemployment rate, it rose to 10.8%, and was over 8% for two plus years.

Then by the time Reagan was seeking reelection, it was at 7.4%

.

 

[jillian]

You should read the OP more carefully. No where does it say the 22 were fired for their political views.

> Click link in OP
> Read first sentence in article
> Observe the 9th word in the article. "fired".

Again. No where does it say the 22 were fired for their political views.

Shall I define 'for' or go over what the function of a prepositional phrase is for you?

from the link:

I explained that to them and I said you do what you feel like in your heart you need to do, but I’m just letting you know as a warning this is things I have to think of as a business owner

 

[Chris]

Since 1961...

Republican job growth - 24 million jobs in 28 years.

Democrats - 42 million jobs in 24 years.

 

[rightwinger]

Unemployment under Obama's first term mirrors unemployment under Reagan's first term.

Reagan started with a 7.5% unemployment rate, it rose to 10.8%, and was over 8% for two plus years.

Then by the time Reagan was seeking reelection, it was at 7.4%

.

Reagan also did not have to contend with massive government sector layoffs while he was trying to fix the employment picture

 

[Photonic]

On what grounds? Private business owner doesn't even have to have a reason to lay-off employees.

Not for their political affiliation, they aren't. That's a big no-no.

Again, what makes you believe that they were fired for political affiliation?

Link?

Not to this story in particular, though if they can prove the people hired had a correlation in political view to being fired, they would probably have a case to sue their employer.

Though a bunch of people in this thread are bragging that they have fired employees or their employer has, solely on their political views.

Not only are they putting their own ideology ahead of the greater good of the country, but they are actively contributing to the problem.

 

[jillian]

Unemployment under Obama's first term mirrors unemployment under Reagan's first term.

Reagan started with a 7.5% unemployment rate, it rose to 10.8%, and was over 8% for two plus years.

Then by the time Reagan was seeking reelection, it was at 7.4%

.

Reagan also did not have to contend with massive government sector layoffs while he was trying to fix the employment picture

that's because reagan raised taxes 7 times...

oh right.. that was before grover norquist.

 

[Freemason9]

That guy must have a pretty lousy business model.

He should liquidate and let someone who can do it have a crack.

Considering the guy has 114 employees (you can bet he didnt start out with that many)
I would have to say he doing something right.
Way to pass judgement with absolutely no knowledge of his business acumen.

I would be willing to bet he has ZERO employees, no job, and just made that crap up. This came from a caller to a "talk radio program," right? Hell, that caller probably lives in his mom's basement and spends all of his time trolling internet message boards bitching about "those liberals."

I used to write business plans for a living, and I am very familiar with cash flow, income statements, and all pro forma financials. This is an old story, and it is a lie. No responsible business owner would reduce his gross revenue because marginal profits decrease.

That's just stupid.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're not very smart, are you? That was a rhetorical question, btw. We all know the answer.

He had employees. When you have employees they are the biggest expense, hiring them, training them, retaining them and firing them. You hold off hiring until you absolutely have to. You hold off firing too.
Now the economic tea leaves are clear: Obamacare and its business-killing mandates stay. More taxes. More regulations. All of that equals less business. With less business the forecast is for less need for employees on a long term basis. So you fire them.
Had Romney won he would have anticipated a better environment and would have held on to them, even if they were costing more than they brought in.

"You're not very smart are you?"...

What are you, fucking 12-years-old?

Employees may be "the biggest expense", but having employees to work for you is how you make a profit in the first place.

If your business is growing enough to hire employees, you hire them, or your business stagnates.

This isn't rocket science there, Rabbi.

And don't give me the "Obamacare expenses" bullshit. If it weren't for you assholes, we would have had a public option, and you wouldn't have to worry about it anyway.

Yeah, you really are the next Peter fucking Drucker, aren't you? Employees cost money. If the business isn't there to sustain them, you cut. If you anticipate lower rates of sales, you cut. It's about anticipation of the future. And the future looks dimmer than your wit.

 

[Si modo]

> Click link in OP
> Read first sentence in article
> Observe the 9th word in the article. "fired".

Again. No where does it say the 22 were fired for their political views.

Shall I define 'for' or go over what the function of a prepositional phrase is for you?

from the link:

I explained that to them and I said you do what you feel like in your heart you need to do, but I’m just letting you know as a warning this is things I have to think of as a business owner

It's settled. You didn't duck the last time someone was swinging the stupid stick.

That quote does NOTHING to support a claim that the 22 were fired for their political views.



Kraist...the country has gone full retard.

 

[Freemason9]

Dumbshit right wingers.

So . . . if each additional employee represents 58% of your incremental cost of doing business (and each employee, through productive labor, increases revenue), and if that incremental cost increases to, say, 63%, you, WHAT . . .

lay off employees???

Dumbshit right wingers.

 

[shintao]

You're not very smart, are you? That was a rhetorical question, btw. We all know the answer.

He had employees. When you have employees they are the biggest expense, hiring them, training them, retaining them and firing them. You hold off hiring until you absolutely have to. You hold off firing too.
Now the economic tea leaves are clear: Obamacare and its business-killing mandates stay. More taxes. More regulations. All of that equals less business. With less business the forecast is for less need for employees on a long term basis. So you fire them.
Had Romney won he would have anticipated a better environment and would have held on to them, even if they were costing more than they brought in.

"You're not very smart are you?"...

What are you, fucking 12-years-old?

Employees may be "the biggest expense", but having employees to work for you is how you make a profit in the first place.

If your business is growing enough to hire employees, you hire them, or your business stagnates.

This isn't rocket science there, Rabbi.

And don't give me the "Obamacare expenses" bullshit. If it weren't for you assholes, we would have had a public option, and you wouldn't have to worry about it anyway.

Yeah, you really are the next Peter fucking Drucker, aren't you? Employees cost money. If the business isn't there to sustain them, you cut. If you anticipate lower rates of sales, you cut. It's about anticipation of the future. And the future looks dimmer than your wit.

Well of course the future looks dimmer, and guess what, it isn't hurting anyone but the rich who have things, and businesses and corporations who want profits. Laid off workers are going to be taken care of with social programs, always, your military toy will go before we stop feeding and caring for Americans, and your taxes will go up to pay for them. So keep electing the Party of No for that dimmer future, and we will keep electing presidents to oppose them.

What a layoff means is the business owner is going to have less production and less profits and his business and home life is going to suffer, and eventually he will close his doors and lose it all. That is what the Party of No promises businesses, because they don't care is workers get laid off, they are not conserned if workers are unemployed, and they don't even care about 47% of them that are Liberals.

It is all a state of mind. LMO!

 

[Si modo]

"You're not very smart are you?"...

What are you, fucking 12-years-old?

Employees may be "the biggest expense", but having employees to work for you is how you make a profit in the first place.

If your business is growing enough to hire employees, you hire them, or your business stagnates.

This isn't rocket science there, Rabbi.

And don't give me the "Obamacare expenses" bullshit. If it weren't for you assholes, we would have had a public option, and you wouldn't have to worry about it anyway.

Yeah, you really are the next Peter fucking Drucker, aren't you? Employees cost money. If the business isn't there to sustain them, you cut. If you anticipate lower rates of sales, you cut. It's about anticipation of the future. And the future looks dimmer than your wit.

Well of course the future looks dimmer, and guess what, it isn't hurting anyone but the rich who have things, and businesses and corporations who want profits. Laid off workers are going to be taken care of with social programs, always, your military toy will go before we stop feeding and caring for Americans, and your taxes will go up to pay for them. So keep electing the Party of No for that dimmer future, and we will keep electing presidents to oppose them.

What a layoff means is the business owner is going to have less production and less profits and his business and home life is going to suffer, and eventually he will close his doors and lose it all. That is what the Party of No promises businesses, because they don't care is workers get laid off, they are not conserned if workers are unemployed, and they don't even care about 47% of them that are Liberals.

It is all a state of mind. LMO!

Or, a layoff means that the business has or will have less orders to fill and does not or will not need as much production.

The guy could be making up stories, or not. It doesn't really matter all that much to me. But, the fiscal cliff is coming - to a theater near you after the new year.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Dumbshit right wingers.

So . . . if each additional employee represents 58% of your incremental cost of doing business (and each employee, through productive labor, increases revenue), and if that incremental cost increases to, say, 63%, you, WHAT . . .

lay off employees???

Dumbshit right wingers.

Surely your not this stupid?

 

[Vel]

I really hope this continues.

It seems we need more laws.

It's amazing employers are this stupid.

But they are..and it seems legislation is the only way to correct this stupidity.

What type of legislation would you be in favor of? Would you demand that a government panel be consulted before firing an employee? If so, what would become of the unions?

It's a slippery slope you are on there pal.

No it's not.

Employers should not be able to fire people for their political affliations. Or, because their candidate lost.

Laws are meant to address stupidity.

So, what makes you think an employer owes anyone a job?