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

[Sunseeker]

And they will do absolutely nothing about it, because they can't quit.

Yes, they can. The idea that they will do nothing because they have to have a job is a myth. Yes you generally need a job in the world to survive, but at some point people will decide that the costs of "just surviving" in society are too high. They can and will quit, and when they do, it will be en-masse, and the whole system will fall to pieces.

The idea that they "can't quit" is what companies who abuse the little guy count on, the mentality that they just have to suck eggs because they need that job so badly. It's happened elsewhere and it can and will happen here if the few continue to abuse the many.

[starlord]

It's the only way we're going to get them back. Companies will always outsource labor if the reduction in labor costs are worth it.

but i thought the only way to bring jobs back to america was to eliminate corporate taxes.

[Sunseeker]

It's the only way we're going to get them back. Companies will always outsource labor if the reduction in labor costs are worth it.

Or we could ya know, educate our people for little to no cost to them so that we have smart, skilled, intelligent people who don't have to compete with foreign factory jobs for a living.

[Zigzagzoom]

What really is going to suck now is that college grads won't have that full time job at McDonald's to lookk forward to anymore,part time will have to suffice.



/sarcasm

[merrier]

*sigh* Wow. So, I guess corporate profits really are everything to some people.

On your deathbed, are you going to say 'WOOHOOO, I made an extra 5% for my shareholders!' I just don't get it.

Every single company makes profits from the blood, sweat, and tears of the people who work there. When something like extra healthcare cost enters the system, there are choices to be made.

A lot of these CEOs are making the choice of 'screw the people' by pitching a temper tantrum and making sure that a law that is attempting to help the average person instead grinds them into the ground.

Every company is in the same place. Perhaps if these people quit acting like two year olds and considered a more balanced approach everyone would end up better off. There's seldom one answer to a problem. Companies like these whose only answer is to try to take away what little the employees are entitled to will, with luck, end up on the wayside as more creative and thoughtful companies work toward innovative ideas that help both the company and the employee.

[araine]

HOLY SHIT DID YOU REALLY IGNORE MY ENTIRE POST POINTING OUT HOW MIN WAGE HAS KEPT UP WITH INFLATION? BOTH OF THEM?!

Minimum wage started in 1938. Why don't you take a look at what a chart that actually extends that far back looks like.

It kept pace up until about Jan of 1981 ( when Reagan become president) after that it went down the crapper so to speak and obviously you failed to see that it in 2007 was falling over 40% below in just keeping up with inflation.

""The federal minimum wage has never included a feature by which it automatically increases each year to ensure that it maintains its purchasing power. As a result, Congress has to act to provide such adjustments.

These adjustments have not always occurred in a timely fashion. Nonetheless, from 1938 to 1981, they did occur with enough regularity that the minimum wage generally either rose in purchasing power or remained relatively stable in real value.""

Last being commentary from CBPP but it displays that up until 1981 min wage was mostly keeping pace with inflation after that it stopped.

I pointed out that it kept mostly pace with inflation dont know where you get the idea that i didnt. But unlike you i can see it hasnt kept pace in the last 30 years and as a result it is too low. So explain why it is a good idea that it had fallen behind inflation by over 40% in 2007 ( the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 solved a little bit about this problem but not all of it)

[Unclekreepy]

a lot of these companies are GREEDY, papa johns made 300 mil in their last quarter and complain about paying 5 mil for obamacare.


today it was the unions fault that hostess went out of business, not Obamacare.. they filed bankruptcy 3x.. if the workers would have just used their heads and said "hey our company isn't doing so good maybe we should help out and take this 10% cut to keep our jobs" instead they didn't and lost their jobs for good.


down here in so cal the local joints are competing with the corporations now, they went to the $5 pizza and man are they delicious.

[Grizzly Willy]

Or we could ya know, educate our people for little to no cost to them so that we have smart, skilled, intelligent people who don't have to compete with foreign factory jobs for a living.

Well, yeah. I'm talking about people who want us to get those outsourced jobs back. They're never coming back unless we start playing like China, and we shouldn't. I don't disagree with you.

[Notos]

Oh look, businesses are finding it harder to weasel out of paying healthcare... boohoohoo.

Also, my friends and I agree that Domino's has been far superior to Papa John's since they've stepped up their game.

[Felya]

The new reality is that low-income, low-skilled workers will be trapped. They will no longer be able to find 40 hour/week jobs. It will cost too much to keep them. For the past month I have been reorganizing our workforce. Our employees will be finding out next month that we will no longer have full-time employees as of Jan 1, 2013. Everyone will be on 7 hour shifts, 4 days a week. We will have to do this to survive as a contract company.

Elections have consequences, this is just the start of them.

Romney would not have been inaugurated until January 20th. The lay off threats are not based on reality, because even if Romney won, Obama would still be president. Further more, anything Romney would do is pure speculation, because he never set a policy. What would it take for you to take credit for mismanaging your business, as a cause for these lay offs, instead of the government? I do not know of a single place that is laying people off. None of my friends, none of my relatives. Boing just announced several thousand jobs in our area. What do all these employers do, to not be effected by Obama, but your place of business is? When do you pay for the failures running your job, instead of it's employees?

This is nothing but retaliation by folks who were guarantied a win and are now showing the exact reason why 'job creators' are nothing but a joke. Want to make Atlus shrug? Go for it, plenty of places that are willing to take your business.

---------- Post added 2012-11-17 at 03:42 AM ----------

Are employees tax deductible? Also, is the employer end of health insurance, also tax deductible?

[KrazyK923]

But Papa Johns has enough money to pay for his 2 million pizza's advertising thing.

I like how NOW they're suddenly realizing this huge issue they are supposedly facing, despite the fact that Obamacare (Which is what they're blaming) has been in law for almost 2 years.

Hint: Its called they're being utterly and totally disingenuous because their guy didn't win.

[Zigzagzoom]

But Papa Johns has enough money to pay for his 2 million pizza's advertising thing.

I like how NOW they're suddenly realizing this huge issue they are supposedly facing, despite the fact that Obamacare (Which is what they're blaming) has been in law for almost 2 years.




Hint: Its called they're being utterly and totally disingenuous because their guy didn't win.

Not really, although it was passed
2 years ago for the most part it's not in effect and a lot of big companies were waiting on the outcome of the election to make some serious decisions about the future.

[Sunseeker]

Not really, although it was passed
2 years ago for the most part it's not in effect and a lot of big companies were waiting on the outcome of the election to make some serious decisions about the future.

So far, I haven't heard a single company issue a public statement that sounded serious. Most of them sound like babies crying because they didn't get their bottle.

[KrazyK923]

Not really, although it was passed
2 years ago for the most part it's not in effect and a lot of big companies were waiting on the outcome of the election to make some serious decisions about the future.

Its exactly what they're doing. They are throwing a hissy fit because their guy lost.

If they were so worried about this, using Obamacare as an excuse, you'd figure you would have heard a whole lot more about it right before/during/after it was passed.

But you didn't. You heard the Papa John guy being butthurt on Faux News during the debate, talking about OH NOES HE'LL HAVE TO RAISE THE PRICE OF HIS SHITTY PIZZA 14 CENTS, but nothing about layoffs/reduced hours.

They are throwing tantrums because they lost.

The legitimately sad thing is that people are losing their jobs because their bosses are partisan fucks.

[Zigzagzoom]

So far, I haven't heard a single company issue a public statement that sounded serious. Most of them sound like babies crying because they didn't get their bottle.

Well I suppose whether or not each is serious remains to be seen. Time will tell.

[Felya]

Well I suppose whether or not each is serious remains to be seen. Time will tell.

No, time will not tell, because we do not know and will never know what Romney would have done. There is no current necessity to make any changes because even if Romney now, they would have to wait until January 20th for Romney to do anything. If they were not going to lay off people right now if Romney won, there is nothing that is different at this moment that should lead them to lay offs, other than spite.

[Zigzagzoom]

No, time will not tell, because we do not know and will never know what Romney would have done. There is no current necessity to make any changes because even if Romney now, they would have to wait until January 20th for Romney to do anything. If they were not going to lay off people right now if Romney won, there is nothing that is different at this moment that should lead them to lay offs, other than spite.

Time will tell if anyone is serious about layoffs/scale backs/surcharges ect.

[Felya]

Time will tell if anyone is serious about layoffs/scale backs/surcharges ect.

But, time cannot tell if they would have done the same under Romney. Time cannot tell if these lay offs are the result of Obama policy or a thrust of power by a corporation against a democratically elected president.

[Sunseeker]

Well I suppose whether or not each is serious remains to be seen. Time will tell.

They may be "serious" in the sense that they'll go through with it. But it's hard to take grown men acting in such a manner "seriously".

[Zigzagzoom]

It's irrelevant to me, only thing that matters is here and now and down the road. So yea, time will tell.