After election Vegas employer lays off 22 employees

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by flopticalcube

If Romney had won, the chances of going over the cliff would have been reduced as you would have had a GOP house and a GOP admin. I agree that its not the man himself but the prospect of gridlock. Compared to what happens if the cliff is reached, this selloff is small beer.

but it would never get past the senate so same thing.

The party of no is the problem. The GOP is very much give us everything we want or else.

I fully expect the goverement shut down. The dems need to grow some balls and call the GOP bluff. They refuse to compromise at all.

[Ugg]

The guy said most of his employees were Hispanic and that "he wasn't going to get into the nature of his business". That to me sounds extremely suspicious. My guess is that he runs a janitorial service or some other low paid service company and that he lost a contract or more likely that he's just making it up.

[robanga]

Originally Posted by Ugg

The guy said most of his employees were Hispanic and that "he wasn't going to get into the nature of his business". That to me sounds extremely suspicious. My guess is that he runs a janitorial service or some other low paid service company and that he lost a contract or more likely that he's just making it up.

Yeah that was a rather weird part of the story. Let's say he was a roofer or insulation company etc. Also did he really think that if Romney was elected that Obamacare would get a repeal through a democratic senate? and when exactly? The week after inauguration? months after? How about all the wages and costs he'd have to pay until then?

Just a political guy trying to make a point, pretty weakly.

[edk99]

Originally Posted by robanga

Yeah that was a rather weird part of the story. Let's say he was a roofer or insulation company etc. Also did he really think that if Romney was elected that Obamacare would get a repeal through a democratic senate? and when exactly? The week after inauguration? months after? How about all the wages and costs he'd have to pay until then?

Just a political guy trying to make a point, pretty weakly.

I don't think so. Now we know that Obamacare is for sure and companies will take action to limit their overhead to compensate.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/gru...offs-you-voted

and it looks like Boeing is laying people off too but that is due to defense budget cuts.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49729998

[robanga]

Originally Posted by edk99

I don't think so. Now we know that Obamacare is for sure and companies will take action to limit their overhead to compensate.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/gru...offs-you-voted

I don't disagree on the costs of this to business.

The point on a guy deciding to do 22 layoffs the day after and then seeking press on it is just political obviously, and there is the strange racial component to it all. Like see Hispanic voters?!! I told you Obama was bad.

[noteple]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I understand.

But my question then is why is this [alleged] increase different from other increases?

Why was it conventional wisdom that businesses simply pass on increased taxes ... yet this cost instead is handled by laying off employees?

To me it smells like retribution.

But I would gladly hear opinions to the contrary.

Small business owners are taking it on the chin.

Local businesses have terminated workers expecting those who are left to do more.
Workers that are left are having their hours cut so they are now effectively part time with no benefits.

Additional taxes are split between the consumer, owner, worker.
The consumer rejects higher product costs resulting in fewer sales.
The owner can only absorb so much reducing the buffer normally in place that rides seasonal and financial ups and downs.
The worker with fewer hours and reduced wages cannot and will not pay for any of these new 'benefits'.

This is NOT the first wave of employer backlash.
I applaud him for going public and at least trying to save the company and some jobs rather then cutting losses and closing the doors.

These owners are not oil company magnates. 99% are the store up the block in your town.

You cannot understand the domino effect of a business closing.
After Sandy some here were flooded, lost everything, cannot sell the business, they will not reopen.
Consumer gets no product, owner and worker have no income, and will not be spending either.

How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?
Small firms:
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau and Intl. Trade Admin.; Advocacy-funded research by Kathryn Kobe, 2007 (www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs299.pdf) and CHI Research, 2003 (www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs225.pdf);U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[robanga]

The anonymous nature of the employer will soon be nul as one of the 22 folks will step forward and talk.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11...-22-employees/

This is exactly the issue I was referring to when I started the Legality thread over it below:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1485131

This, quoted as is, is directly due to Citizens United, and can spur wrongful termination suits as the employees did nothing wrong, nor was their performance called into question.

This has nothing to do with the healthcare law. This has nothing to do with taxes. This is clearly an employer that said "If Obama wins I'm firing people". That is wrong.

This is already making the news rounds at home here, and I smell some really nasty lawsuits coming up.

BL.

[robanga]

Originally Posted by bradl

This is exactly the issue I was referring to when I started the Legality thread over it below:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1485131

This, quoted as is, is directly due to Citizens United, and can spur wrongful termination suits as the employees did nothing wrong, nor was their performance called into question.

This has nothing to do with the healthcare law. This has nothing to do with taxes. This is clearly an employer that said "If Obama wins I'm firing people". That is wrong.

This is already making the news rounds at home here, and I smell some really nasty lawsuits coming up.

BL.

There will be some suits no doubt but the case is pretty weak overall, in most places the right to work also means the right of the employer to lay off for economic reasons but you are right when the veil between politics and that action is made this thin, its begging for a legal challenge.


Those 22 should march into a lawyer.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Thank you.

The key qualifier being "following a U.S. presidential election".

5th worst out of 29 elections.

My ... that is ... dire.

Anyone who knows anything about economics knows the day-to-day fluctuations in the market don't mean **** unless you are a trader who makes money buying and selling your stocks every day.

Come back in a month and let's see where it is. If it's consistently down for a month then we might have a problem.

[leenak]

Originally Posted by robanga

Those 22 should march into a lawyer.

I'm going to make some huge assumptions. The guy can lay off nearly 20% of his workforce without taking a hit in business.

1) The guys business may already be struggling, due to who knows what. He may also run a business that is fairly seasonal so he may need to lay off workers anyway.
2) Those people are most likely relatively unskilled workers considering he views them as so disposable. Him saying his business is nearly all hispanic, I'm guessing they are laborers of some sort.
3) He may be trying to skirt healthcare mandates by laying off full time workers. This wouldn't be too hard to do with relatively unskilled workers. Fire them, then hire them back part time or hire others part time.

So it really depends, did they expect to be layed off anyway either to poor performance of the business or seasonal work? If they are hispanic, it would be harder for them to feel comfortable going to a lawyer if everything in the article is true but hopefully they can reach out to an advocate.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by noteple

Small business owners are taking it on the chin.

Notepie, can you explain why/how Obamacare is the make or break issue here?

That's what I'd really like to know ... why it specifically is the straw that is [allegedly] breaking the camels back.

[robanga]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Notepie, can you explain why/how Obamacare is the make or break issue here?

That's what I'd really like to know ... why it specifically is the straw that is [allegedly] breaking the camels back.

Indeed does the measures actually raise the price of full time employees? by what percentage on average. So before these businesses were able to hire full time employees and offer them no health benefits - no access to insurance - nada.. and now they have to?

[Anuba]

If there was a direct correlation between employment rates and taxes/costs of running businesses, a country like Denmark with the highest taxes in the world (49% of GDP, compared to 27% in the USA) would have something bizarre like 50% unemployment in this economy. But in September of 2012 it was 4.8%. Their all time high is 8.2% (Nov 1996), their all time low is 1.7% (May 2008).

One of their biggest exports is wind power gear -- they supply 20% of the world's wind turbines (this is a tiny country with the population of Minnesota), 90% of the off-shore ones. (In case you're one of those people who scoff at so-called "green jobs"...)

Sweden (tax revenue = 48% of GDP) Sep 2012, 7.3% unemployment, Belgium (tax revenue = 47% of GDP) Aug 2012, 7.4% unemployment. USA = 7.9% Oct 2012.

Looking at national debt as % of GDP in 2011, Denmark = 46.5%, Sweden = 38.4%, USA = 105.9%.

Needless to say, these 3 EU countries have way more regulation than the US, too.

When countries that tax the hell out of businesses and the rich, have less unemployment and less severe issues with debt than the US has, it's evident that the GOP's magical solution for job creation (lower taxes, less regulation, trickle-down blah blah) is complete horse manure. I gotta hand it to them though, they're masters at making everyone believe that lining the pockets of the rich is the way to brighter days for the average Joe.

[robanga]

Originally Posted by Anuba

If there was a direct correlation between employment rates and taxes/costs of running businesses, a country like Denmark with the highest taxes in the world (49% of GDP, compared to 27% in the USA) would have something bizarre like 50% unemployment in this economy. But in September of 2012 it was 4.8%. Their all time high is 8.2% (Nov 1996), their all time low is 1.7% (May 2008).

One of their biggest exports is wind power gear -- they supply 20% of the world's wind turbines (this is a tiny country with the population of Minnesota), 90% of the off-shore ones. (In case you're one of those people who scoff at so-called "green jobs"...)

Sweden (tax revenue = 48% of GDP) Sep 2012, 7.3% unemployment, Belgium (tax revenue = 47% of GDP) Aug 2012, 7.4% unemployment. USA = 7.9% Oct 2012.

Looking at national debt as % of GDP in 2011, Denmark = 46.5%, Sweden = 38.4%, USA = 105.9%.

Needless to say, these 3 EU countries have way more regulation than the US, too.

When countries that tax the hell out of businesses and the rich, have less unemployment and less severe issues with debt than the US has, it's evident that the GOP's magical solution for job creation (lower taxes, less regulation, trickle-down blah blah) is complete horse manure. I gotta hand it to them though, they're masters at making everyone believe that lining the pockets of the rich is the way to brighter days for the average Joe.

Good points and fair comparisons but to compare the smaller economies with that of the USA, has its faults. If this system was alive and well and working in a larger economy - China, Russia, Brazil even Japan it would be a better model. Germany is a better comparison.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by robanga

Good points and fair comparisons but to compare the smaller economies with that of the USA, has its faults. If this system was alive and well and working in a larger economy - China, Russia, Brazil even Japan it would be a better model. Germany is a better comparison.

Agree on Germany. Not so much on China or Russia, they were hardcore communist nations 25 years ago, it's a bit much to ask that they would be comparable to the US or western Europe after a couple of decades of transition.

Anyway, my point was that Europe has quite a few success stories in contrast to the ones that Bachmann and her ilk like to hand pick. In the GOP bubble, all of Europe has the economy of Greece, the policies of the Soviet Union and the decadence of Sodom & Gomorra.

Of course, it also helps EU economy that we don't run a couple of wars... pouring trillions of dollars into middle eastern sand is not one of our priorities.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by robanga

There will be some suits no doubt but the case is pretty weak overall, in most places the right to work also means the right of the employer to lay off for economic reasons but you are right when the veil between politics and that action is made this thin, its begging for a legal challenge.

Then wouldn't the onus be on the employer to show that is company is under economic hardship to justify those layoffs? I mean, just saying "economic reasons" is why you are being terminated may be enough for some, but needing to know exactly why when it is the person's and that family's livelihood at stake is more of an overriding concern to really know.

Even more so, if the economy in Vegas starts to improve, and it slowly is.

Those 22 should march into a lawyer.

Agreed.

BL.

[VulchR]

Perhaps the rich are finally seeing the handwriting on the wall. The election was not just about Obama winning, but a shift in demographics. The rich are such a minority now that even their money can't buy elections...

[edk99]

Originally Posted by bradl

Then wouldn't the onus be on the employer to show that is company is under economic hardship to justify those layoffs? I mean, just saying "economic reasons" is why you are being terminated may be enough for some, but needing to know exactly why when it is the person's and that family's livelihood at stake is more of an overriding concern to really know.

Even more so, if the economy in Vegas starts to improve, and it slowly is.

BL.

This is a private employer. He doesn't need to justify why he is firing you. He can come in and tell 22 people your fired because I figured out I can continue to run my business at the same level or close to that level without you guys and I really want to buy that new Ferrari and take a nice vacation this year. Bye!

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by edk99

This is a private employer. He doesn't need to justify why he is firing you. He can come in and tell 22 people your fired because I figured out I can continue to run my business at the same level or close to that level without you guys and I really want to buy that new Ferrari and take a nice vacation this year. Bye!

It depends on if you're employment at will or under contract. If you have a contract, they can't just fire you without a reason or they have to pay you.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by edk99

This is a private employer. He doesn't need to justify why he is firing you. He can come in and tell 22 people your fired because I figured out I can continue to run my business at the same level or close to that level without you guys and I really want to buy that new Ferrari and take a nice vacation this year. Bye!

I understand that, especially with Nevada being a right to work state and my living in Las Vegas.

But if this article holds true and the only reason he did it was because his guy didn't win the presidency, that has nothing to do with the performance of the employee or the rights of the employee that is being terminated. It is the right of the employee (per Nevada law) to know the reason he is being terminated. The employer's statement is one thing, but this that has been divulged to the press is another, and they don't mix. This puts the employer in a bit of a pickle, right-to-work state or not.

BL.

[edk99]

Originally Posted by zioxide

It depends on if you're employment at will or under contract. If you have a contract, they can't just fire you without a reason or they have to pay you.

Yes correct I'm assuming that these are non-contract (non-union) employees.

----------

Originally Posted by bradl

I understand that, especially with Nevada being a right to work state and my living in Las Vegas.

But if this article holds true and the only reason he did it was because his guy didn't win the presidency, that has nothing to do with the performance of the employee or the rights of the employee that is being terminated. It is the right of the employee (per Nevada law) to know the reason he is being terminated. The employer's statement is one thing, but this that has been divulged to the press is another, and they don't mix. This puts the employer in a bit of a pickle, right-to-work state or not.

BL.

Yes the article is definitely making a political statement. For all we know this may be all made up. If I was going to do something like that I surly wouldn't broadcast it out to the public like that. That is just asking for some sort of backlash. You really don't want to burn bridges like that.

But I have no doubts many small businesses are looking at their bottom lines and reevaluating headcount with the new tax burdens going into 2013 and beyond and making adjustments.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by edk99

Yes the article is definitely making a political statement. For all we know this may be all made up. If I was going to do something like that I surly wouldn't broadcast it out to the public like that. That is just asking for some sort of backlash. You really don't want to burn bridges like that.

And that is the whole point. If this is a political statement, and his actions are based on political policy rather than his business' bottom line, putting that out to where the press picks up on it is not advantageous to the employer nor the company. There will definitely be some sort of backlash there, and the press, already sensitized to it, will pick it up and run with it.

But I have no doubts many small businesses are looking at their bottom lines and reevaluating headcount with the new tax burdens going into 2013 and beyond and making adjustments.

no doubt here. It is just the political sensitivity to this and the aftermath of the election that is making this out to be a big issue.

BL.

[werther]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

The biggest Dow Jones sell off this year occurred when Obama was elected for another 4 years, he isn't the only one that is concerned about profitability in the future. A bit too much panic though, nothing is going to get passed the house. The corporate welfare health insurance plan is probably worrisome to any company that isn't in the health insurance industry.

This falsely assumes a cause and effect relationship to Obama's re-election and the sell-off the next morning. After hours trading was up until about 7:30 (Eastern Standard) in the morning when Germany released their economic data showing even more decline.

EDIT: I am not saying that after hours trading was up because Obama won...likely no relation. But to clarify, Germany had forecast .04% contraction in manufacturing but Wednesday, released the actual numbers showing 3% contraction.

[topgunn]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

but it would never get past the senate so same thing.

The party of no is the problem.

So the Republicans are the problem? Yet if Romney had won it still wouldn't get passed? Wouldn't you then conclude that the problem lies on both sides of the aisle?