CEO threatens layoffs if he is taxed any further

[Dacien]

To quote Family Guy:

"They're going to bitch and moan....then beg for their apple juice, go poop and fall asleep.."

Most of the polemics are people that lack any real threat behind their posturing.

I just worry about the opposing sides of the religious right and the progressive left in this country.

[Tradewind]

If I was them I would ignore that message until he actually follows through with it. Then sue the shit out of him for wrongful dismissal.

[smelltheglove]

If I was them I would ignore that message until he actually follows through with it. Then sue the shit out of him for wrongful dismissal.

pretty much. and lol @ ceo stupid enough to think taxes determine hiring, rather than demand

[N-7]

The title is misleading >.>

[Elegiac]

I just worry about the opposing sides of the religious right and the progressive left in this country.

Progressives don't believe in violence as an acceptable means to effect political change.

---------- Post added 2012-10-09 at 03:30 PM ----------

It won't happen until the US Dollar collapses and we're unable to buy fuel/food etc.

And that will never happen. So.....

[FusedMass]

The title is misleading >.>

It's a valid and legit question. Should influencing voter's be illegal?

[Laize]

It's a valid and legit question. Should influencing voter's be illegal?

He's saying if his taxes go up he'll have to lay people off. That's a valid statement.

[smelltheglove]

It's a valid and legit question. Should influencing voter's be illegal?

yeah, but you need to draw the line from one to the other, not just claim your end result

[cubby]

Last I recall intimidation in order to force someone to either not vote or vote a particular way was unethical.

Extortion is illegal.

[goobernoob]

It's a valid and legit question. Should influencing voter's be illegal?

the question is fine, the title is fiction.

[Theinquisition]

Repugnicans at their finest.

Funny, i remember reading a story on MMO-champs a few months ago. It was about a Boston Landlord refusing to rent a apartment to a veteran because she disagreed with him being a former member of the military.

Don't remember the outrage at that discrimination reaching the levels it has in this story.

Intresting how that goes

[Torq]

What a sensationalist title.

Can we get a moderator to change it? It's not even accurate, and it's got some pretty blatant party-favortism going on.

[Skizo]

Huffington Post with the strawman for 3 points

[FusedMass]

What a sensationalist title.

Can we get a moderator to change it? It's not even accurate, and it's got some pretty blatant party-favortism going on.

This is what I dislike. Just like the thread that had the cop shot a disabled man. Somehow him being disabled as any way to do with him being shot. The title of the thread is accurate. Wordily differently but says he will have to cut jobs. Maybe he didn't say vote for Mitt. It's fairly obvious.

[anveena]

I don't see where this CEO says he's firing all his employees if Obama is re elected.

What the CEO said seems fair, he's just informing his employees that he'll have to downsize the company if taxes go up.

[Dakia]

If I was them I would ignore that message until he actually follows through with it. Then sue the shit out of him for wrongful dismissal.

They wouldn't likely have a leg to stand on. All he would have to do is show documentation of increased costs as justification for layoffs. Those who are not full-time employees wouldn't have a leg to stand on either. The hours of those employees could likely just be reduced to the point where they walk away due to lack of work. I've used that technique several times myself to get rid of undesirables instead of firing.

The letter also includes this line, which I believe would pretty much be something that wouldn't allow for him to be guilty of anything:

In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

Now, I'm not saying that this letter is right or wrong. Personally, I disagree with what is an obvious threat. However, I do believe that he is simply stating his case to those employees and this letter likely wouldn't result in any concrete legal action.

[Klutzington]

Isn't money wonderful. It can buy you anything apparently, even to the point of winning an election campaign for YOUR choice candidate, completely disregarding everyone elses opinions. It's a veiled threat and can't be seen any other way, especially based on what he's said outside the email.

Does this not violate "Free Speech" in a way that everyone could morally agree on (except the people who are pushing for the employees to vote in a particular way)? He's basically telling them they can't vote for Obama or bad things will happen (and not in the implied manner that Obama would be bad for the US, but in the "You're fired" personal manner). I mean, yeah, i agree free speech doesn't apply to everything (such as yelling certain phrases in public, etc), but to something like voting for the candidate of your choice in the next election.... yeah, something definitely seems wrong here. Whether it's the system or otherwise, i don't know.

"Money doesn't buy happiness"

lmao.

I cry, laughing whenever I hear someone say that.

[Unfair]

I do not see how this can be legal. Isn't a vote a personal preference to influence the outcome for personal gain should be considered corrupted. ... Isn't this going a bit far with voter suppression and now people threatening. ... We need to create a red line from pushing people how to vote. Why isn't there a law already?

Should it be illegal to say that if you hand out all the money in a box, the box will become empty?

There's nothing illegal with influencing other people, even in influencing how they vote. The folks carrying signs on the streets, the ones attending public debates, the ones starting political threads in gamers forum... their motivation is to influence people, to influence how they vote. It's part of our political process.

If this guy broke a law, if he was deceptive or actually threatened someone that would be actionable. But just stating he believes he will have no choice but to reduce the size of his company or even close his business if taxes on that business are raised higher... that's not a threat. It's reality.

[Theinquisition]

Progressives don't believe in violence as an acceptable means to effect political change.

---------- Post added 2012-10-09 at 03:30 PM ----------



And that will never happen. So.....

Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEAh4MjDggU

Heres just one example of a "progressive" advocating violent revolution. There are plenty more online.

Also, why is it there always seems to be leftist bandana wearing revolutionaries at left wing protests, but not at right wing protests?

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...BE16F32CED3C54

[Kierson]

It's a valid and legit question. Should influencing voter's be illegal?

Yes, Influencing Voters should be illegal.

If only he was influencing anyone. He's not. The thread title is misleading and the story is painted to make him look like the bad guy. Kinda sad you guys are too blinded to realize the news story is slanted so much when it's so obvious.

He's warning his workers to seek other routes of employment if Obama's new taxes and regulations get passed, since his company would undergo unnecessary financial strain to keep them around and at the same hours. Guess what? Lots of other companies are doing the same or have already had massive layoffs because they don't know what new changes are coming.

How do you think the unemployment rate increased so much to begin with?