Best Layoff Letter Ever --- Obama

page: 2
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   
This reminds me of the restaurant that was cutting peoples hours because of the healthcare mandate.
Alot of people were angry about it but I dont know if it made a diiference.
But the fact of the matter is many places are cutting peoples hours to prevent them from having to pay for insurance, its just that one restaurants manager who decided to go public and get his name in the paper.
The people may voice their anger over blatant cutting of hours in opposition to the health care,
yet they will fail to recognize that many restaurants, grocery stores and whatnot are doing the same thing and have been for years now.

They might, *might* stop going to that particular restaurant because they disagree with the managers choice but they are too stupid to realize that most places who are cutting peoples hours are doing so as quietly as they can. Thanks for the healthcare? Ohyeah, im 23, dont need it, cant afford the mandate and my hours are now cut. All hail obama.
edit on 29-1-2013 by tehdouglas because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by teslahowitzer
Now if we could just get the rest of the companies in America to do the same thing, this would be great. I heard that Ford motor company did sort of the same thing in the early 80s, they had to cut a number of employees, they checked out the parking lot, got the sticker #s of all of the newer non american cars, matched the #s to employees, and pinkslipcity...S&F...


That could NEVER happen.....as the union contracts since the 1960's control that only seniority can be used as a barometer of who get's furloughed and who works.

Secondly, when they rehire....they MUST contact the furloughed worker to comeback to work before they can hire anybody else.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Why do the executives never even consider taking a pay cut for the benefit of other people and the business as a whole?


Because the executives whose decision to lay-off people or not are typically the CEO's, they take directives from the CFO's.


They cannot blame the layoffs on Obama, because there is a way to circumvent the layoffs, although they would not personally make as much money.


That's not entirely true. If your business is so tight financially, then that might have to be the case. But if you leave wiggle room in your ledger to where you can get financially "creative", you can shuffle money here and there to where you can still retain your employee's, compensate yourself as you usually do and still make a good profit. That, and not all company CEO's salaries are fixed. Some are dependent on profits. There are way too many ways of doing business that the blanket statement you made simply can not be true in all cases.


Any organization that puts profits before people is not an organization I would ever work for personally.


You can't be serious. Every other part of your post made sense except that one. Money may be subject to a lot of variables to where you can't put ALL your faith into it, but people are even more so the case. All those years ago when I managed a crew of 12, even on that level of management I realized that you have to put profits first because you simply cannot count on people for being so stable as to put your faith in them on a business level. Manage people and tell me otherwise. When they fall short, which most will inevitably do, YOU, the manager, have to pick up the slack without any more compensation then what you're already getting. Now is THAT fair? No, that's business. They have their own lives outside of work and there are times when they cannot be counted on, but not necessarily for reasons that you should hold against them. Things happen.

Yeah, that was a chain letter from 4 years ago but it's still relevant, so worthy of conversation. It was a draft that was never sent. Companies send out memo's like this all time (
) It's the one's you DON'T see that matter most.

edit on 29-1-2013 by Taupin Desciple because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mumbotron

Originally posted by SilentKoala
Funny, but I'm pretty sure discrimination on the basis of political affiliation is illegal...


It sure is illegal. How can anybody think this is OK? So employers should be able to choose who you vote for? Insane!! Well, if this is true, those employees stand to make a bundle should they choose to sue.
edit on 07/17/2009 by Mumbotron because: (no reason given)


If you consider voting for obama a disability, then yea its illegal.. Otherwise, in at will states, it is not illegal.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyn50
 


Well if this is true which I DOUBT then it shows how backward some people are in the good ole US of A, do you people not have any employment laws over there


Any company that tried something like that in the UK or EU would regret it, the employee's could RETIRE on the compensation they would get!!!

Same with the Ford story!!!



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyn50
 

Now thats the way to fire people.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by eXia7
 


Not racist. Simply an idiot.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


OK, first, this is obviously a hoax, but outside of that fact:

Yes, political affiliation does not fall under a protected class. However, this idiot would have been wise to lay of those people without making an announcement of why. If this had been real, this guy would have been sued out of his as*, and most likely would have lost.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mumbotron

Originally posted by SilentKoala
Funny, but I'm pretty sure discrimination on the basis of political affiliation is illegal...


It sure is illegal. How can anybody think this is OK? So employers should be able to choose who you vote for? Insane!! Well, if this is true, those employees stand to make a bundle should they choose to sue.
edit on 07/17/2009 by Mumbotron because: (no reason given)


Well....its not like our vote directly makes a difference as evidenced via popular vote versus electoral votes, so it is ok for politicians to decide who we vote for....why not businesses?



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Any organization that puts profits before people is not an organization I would ever work for personally.


So, you're either unemployed or self employed then right?
edit on 28-1-2013 by RedmoonMWC because: (no reason given)


The ONLY way to be. When you "work for the man", you are a slave. Someone else profits from your ideas. Somebody else profits from you labor. ( Yeah, I know you get a meager wage, but somebody else makes more than that off of you.) WAKE UP! If you do not work for yourself, then you are a SLAVE.





new topics
 
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join