CEO's blame layoffs and reduced hours on Obama re-election

[One-Eyed Jack]

Deep down where? In the loins? Why is it so deep down and not very shallow?

There's a difference between being selfish to the point of making a very comfortable living, and being selfish to a point where you literally step all over people just to make another dollar even though you already have millions. The large majority of people are the former.

You can't tell me you've never had one ill thought about others. No one has the mindset of perfection, and yes everyone is greedy some way or another

[Dispersedshadow]

They're still human rights and the document was still signed by the USA. You're changing the goalposts.

Signed, but we've not yet ratified the treaty.

[Elegiac]

why are people surprised by this? When Obamacare passed originally many business owners said they would be reducing hours, laying off workers, etc because of it. Contrary to popular belief this would not have occured if Romney were elected. Romney would have repealed obamacare, lowered the corporate tax rate, and given business incentives for having healthcare for their employees. But, Obama won and this is what the people wanted apparently so don't seem surprised.

1) Romney was the one who introduced Romneycare in Massachusetts, the system off which Obamacare is based.

2) Romney could have done nothing without Congress' approval, and the Senate still has a Democrat majority.

[Deleted]

It has been used as a point of reference by the judiciary to ascertain the intentions of the founders in a number of legal situations; ergo, it does carry legal weight. Plus, if it didn't you could argue that the US never legally declared independence from Britain.



You seem to have a problem grasping the nuances between legally-binding, legal-weight, and philosophical context.

I wish this was true, because it would pretty much negate much of the bullshit that the left-wing tries to do nowadays. But unfortunately it isn't.

But yeah, it's a good source to try and interpret what the founders meant.

[darkwarrior42]

It doesn't have to be legally binding to carry legal and philosophical weight.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 01:15 PM ----------



It means that it carries importance in terms of interpretation of the law and of human rights. So when you ask "who says it's a human right", the UDHR is an entirely valid statement of that which the US government did sign.

"Article 25

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."

That doesn't say that your company has to provide you with any of those things, just that you are entitled to them from somewhere. Bringing this up as an argument against what the CEOs are doing here is fallacious.

*shrug* What America has right now is a national system of forcing people to buy private insurance, with a few hard-to-use systems as backups in case you can't. It's no surprise at all that companies will do what they can to avoid paying extra money while providing that insurance, particularly in the case of businesses that sell low cost goods (such as fast food and pizza places). This sort of thing is exactly what I expected when Obama's health care plan was passed (my parents health insurance tripled in cost without increasing benefits in the immediate aftermath).

As far as having philosophical and legal weight, the reason the document is called "wishy-washy" is because it is. It is a fluffy, nice sounding document that does absolutely nothing to compel anyone. "Everyone has the right to this." Awesome. Who secures that thing? Who provides it? In the case of medical care, is it paid for by employers or the government? Who do you turn to when the person responsible fails to provide? Forget consequences, let me demonstrate.

I believe that everyone in the world has the right to adequate food for him/herself and their family.

Am I now responsible for provide food to everyone in the world who does not have it? Are you going to punish me for failing to do so? Of course not, because a statement that people have the right to something is not the same as a statement making someone responsible for providing or defending that right.

So yes, we ratified that document. The only weight it carries as a result is that we believe these things are basic rights. The US government is entirely within its rights to try and force private companies to provide these things to their employees and only cover the gaps where people are unemployed, and private companies are entirely within their rights to avoid paying the money for this if they don't want to. (The way around all of this, of course, is to not leave this decision in the hands of private companies who, for better or worse, will prioritize profits... but as that's not the system we have, there's not much we can do about it atm).

[SirRobin]

CEO's blame layoffs and reduced hours on Obama re-election

Well we wandered off so, I guess, I'll summarize my thoughts on the matter. If he wants to use Obamacare as an excuse to layoff people then by all means, he can. However, national healthcare reform has been a political goal for decades. Obama was hardly the first president to try it. He is just the first who actually managed to get it done. Sooner or later, the rules regarding healthcare, health insurance if you prefer, were going to change. So, they did. While what we ended up with after the lobbyists got done gutting it could hardly be called perfect. At least Washington finally got something done about it.

Now if some want to excuse it through some sort of willful ignorance regarding what made his success possible in the first place? They can do that too. That doesn't mean it will have any relationship with reality. It will just be one more thing that the people and government of this nation have worked so hard and so long to make possible. And, yes, I do see the irony in that.

[Rennadrel]

I want that house so much. His driveway goes into a tunnel! How cool is that.

Anyway OT, seems a bit odd to do this, though as a none American I'm really not sure on the details so why is he having to pay 14cents extra per pizza for employee health care? I thought employers already provided health care in America, or something like that.

Most of them don't. Many union based businesses have medical plans for their workers, it's the retail and food chain industry that are the worst of them all. If you aren't in a union job, you don't get squat in North America unfortunately. People who have benefit plans either need to work in some form of large manufacturing industry or work for some other big money business like a law firm or government worker.

[Dispersedshadow]

You can't tell me you've never had one ill thought about others.

Strawman - I don't see the quoted post even suggesting this.

No one has the mindset of perfection, and yes everyone is greedy some way or another

Source? Are you sure your not just projecting your beliefs onto others in order to justify your own actions?

[Deadvolcanoes]

So on the other hand instead of laying people off Papa Johns raises their prices and one of two things happens. People stop going there because they can find it cheaper elsewhere or we the consumer have to pay higher prices because some people were not responsible enough to know what they "needed" in life vs what they wanted to buy with their money.

We're talking about 14 cents per pizza. Surely you would pay an extra 14 cents if you knew the person making your pizza then received adequate health insurance, right?

[smelltheglove]

1) Romney was the one who introduced Romneycare in Massachusetts, the system off which Obamacare is based.

2) Romney could have done nothing without Congress' approval, and the Senate still has a Democrat majority.

its roots go further back. when clinton was pursuing universal healthcare, what is currently called obamacare was the republican counteroffer to the plan clinton was proposing. it is entirely a republican creation that they have turned on

[Requiem4aDr3am]

1) Romney was the one who introduced Romneycare in Massachusetts, the system off which Obamacare is based.

2) Romney could have done nothing without Congress' approval, and the Senate still has a Democrat majority.

Yes, Romney introduced Romneycare but it is not exactly the same as Obamacare. Also, Romney said he would repeal Obamacare if elected which he does indeed have the power to do if he were president. Romney's plan was different than Obamacare though he never gave us a super detailed description. I guess we will never find out how things would have been now. BUt, hey remember this is what you wanted...you got it...TOYOTA!

[billymayz]

Meh... Behavior like that just further shows that just because you are a CEO, doesn't automatically mean that you are more intelligent or more ethical. Reminds me of the glass-steagall lobbying where the bankers claimed that "corporate ethics" would keep them from abusing changes to it. We saw how that turned out.

Breaking news bulletin... Greedy hypocritical assholes are greedy hypocritical assholes... Details at no shit sherlock...

^this a thousand times

[Deleted]

I believe that everyone in the world has the right to adequate food for him/herself and their family.

Am I now responsible for provide food to everyone in the world who does not have it? Are you going to punish me for failing to do so? Of course not, because a statement that people have the right to something is not the same as a statement making someone responsible for providing or defending that right. .

A legal right actually means that someone must provide that for you. But the UDHR doesn't create any legal rights. And those are the only rights that matter.

[Zhangfei]

A legal right actually means that someone must provide that for you. But the UDHR doesn't create any legal rights. And those are the only rights that matter.

Says you. Kind of means a lot to the hundred or so countries that signed it, and certainly means a lot when it comes to determining rights.

[Rennadrel]

why are people surprised by this? When Obamacare passed originally many business owners said they would be reducing hours, laying off workers, etc because of it. Contrary to popular belief this would not have occured if Romney were elected. Romney would have repealed obamacare, lowered the corporate tax rate, and given business incentives for having healthcare for their employees. But, Obama won and this is what the people wanted apparently so don't seem surprised.

And at the same time, many people who lose their jobs for this reasoning, especially now that it has been made public that many companies don't want to pay for healthcare for their workers, have a legal right to sue those said companies for termination without a just cause. You can't just up and fire someone without legal reason, and laying off people because the company CEO is a greedy fucking asshole who doesn't want to pay for your survival, is reason enough to sue them. I hope these companies are ready for it because the shit storm is coming. If I were an American who lost my job just because the company doesn't want to pay for a bit of healthcare, I'd sue the company into changing their tune really bloody fast.

[Jtbrig7390]

You can't tell me you've never had one ill thought about others. No one has the mindset of perfection, and yes everyone is greedy some way or another

People always have ill thoughts about others but there is a difference in ill thoughts and chosing to step on someone to get ahead in life.

As I said a min ago I would not make someone else's life worse or harder just to make mine easyer.

[Draeblin]

Romney would have repealed obamacare, lowered the corporate tax rate, and given business incentives for having healthcare for their employees.

Now please explain to me, why I should give my empolyees healthcare with the money I saved from paying less taxes? This makes absoluetly no sense. No businessman would invest the money he saved from lower taxes into healthcare or more workers - this is a totaly stupid and unrealistic idea.

[Lothan]

if costs increase for employers, many of them will pass that cost on to their employees. Right or wrong, it's just a fact. There will be lots of employers who will hire exclusively for below 30 hours. I worked for one for a few months. Many employees where 90% of them were either under 30 hours or contract workers through an agency. The contract workers got 40 hours to do the extra work that needed to be done, but the company workers were limited to 30 hours. Again, right or wrong, it's not surprising.

Same goes for sales. Costs go up, the business owners are not going to just eat that cost, they are going to pass that cost to the consumer. So these little food places are going to be full of part time workers and the cost of a burger/pizza/whatever will go up. It definitely sucks, and you can argue it's not right, but either way it's going to happen.

[One-Eyed Jack]

People always have ill thoughts about others but there is a difference in ill thoughts and chosing to step on someone to get ahead in life.

As I said a min ago I would not make someone else's life worse or harder just to make mine easyer.

I don't feel sorry for anyone if your put in that position. People need to be smarter about te business they attend to. People shouldn't blaim the government for not relieving them of there problems

[Deadvolcanoes]

You can't tell me you've never had one ill thought about others. No one has the mindset of perfection, and yes everyone is greedy some way or another

Easy there fella. I feel like we're headed for dark places. Maybe you should sit this one out before you confess to something.

As I stated, there are different degrees of greed. You would probably be interested to know that a lot if CEOs have sociopathic personalities. Lack of empathy is a big one.