Jerk Boss

[bigbadberry3]

http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-b ... as-elected

Cry baby. Yes I read the entire letter but this isn't something you throw around before an election.

[stebo0728]

Saw an article today that in Orlanda, Darden Restaurants is testing out putting hourly employees on a 30 hour a week limit, thereby exempting the need to offer them insurance. Ya this Obamacare plan, it wasn't the answer. You're going to see trends like this continue, just watch.

But I do think that letter thing is a hoax, not surprised to see it again this year.

[bigbadberry3]

But I do think that letter thing is a hoax, not surprised to see it again this year.

Yeesh, they actually called the guy and he informed them hat the letter was legit.

[stebo0728]

Interesting. There was a hoax one of these going around last election, I sorta assumed this was a rehash.

Still, I dont agree with the title "Jerk Boss". Market reactions like there were not considered when this plan was drummed up. A company doing what it feels it needs to in order to preserve its bottom line is not "jerkitis", its good business.

[bigbadberry3]

Interesting. There was a hoax one of these going around last election, I sorta assumed this was a rehash.

Still, I dont agree with the title "Jerk Boss". Market reactions like there were not considered when this plan was drummed up. A company doing what it feels it needs to in order to preserve its bottom line is not "jerkitis", its good business.

Good business, bad voter intimidation.

[themadscientist]

I said when people were all excited about the magical plan and how it was going to fix everything, employers would just pay the penalty and drop coverage. The only other people that realized it were the government types who wanted that to happen so they could get socialized medicine which was the real goal. America is populated by saps.

[stebo0728]

Good business, bad voter intimidation.

Yes, I do have misgivings about the boss using this as leverage against his employees votes. However, he could have gone a step farther and stated that he was going to start by eliminating the jobs of those mostly likely to have actually voted Obama. That would have be a stereotypical decision to make at best. The way he put it was intimidating, and there was a way not to do that. He could have said

"Look people, this Obamacare is bad for OUR business, and I urge you to vote for someone who is Keen on trying to repeal. If this measure goes through, this company may have to make some tough adjustments."

Instead he chose the harsh, "if this sap wins, imma start FIARIN FOLK" approach. Very poor taste.

[bigbadberry3]

Good business, bad voter intimidation.

Yes, I do have misgivings about the boss using this as leverage against his employees votes. However, he could have gone a step farther and stated that he was going to start by eliminating the jobs of those mostly likely to have actually voted Obama. That would have be a stereotypical decision to make at best. The way he put it was intimidating, and there was a way not to do that. He could have said

"Look people, this Obamacare is bad for OUR business, and I urge you to vote for someone who is Keen on trying to repeal. If this measure goes through, this company may have to make some tough adjustments."

Instead he chose the harsh, "if this sap wins, imma start FIARIN FOLK" approach. Very poor taste.

Thank goodness for the anonymous ballot.

[stebo0728]

Thank goodness for the anonymous ballot.

People say the same thing regarding the anonymous unionization ballot.

[bigbadberry3]

Thank goodness for the anonymous ballot.

People say the same thing regarding the anonymous unionization ballot.

Explain, never heard of such.

[stebo0728]

Explain, never heard of such.

Ever heard of the Card-Check bill? I think its kinda tabled right now, but its still very much a part of the liberal agenda.

Basically, unionization has 2 steps:

1. Public petition to seek unionization.
2. Secret ballot election to determine passage of unionization measure.

Union thuggary in some areas is extremely high, and most people in these areas sign the petition. They hate buying new tires and windows when they dont sign. But when the secret ballot comes around, they know they can keep quiet and vote no safely.

The card check bill seeks to ratify unionization solely on the public petition.

[bigbadberry3]

Explain, never heard of such.

Ever heard of the Card-Check bill? I think its kinda tabled right now, but its still very much a part of the liberal agenda.

Basically, unionization has 2 steps:

1. Public petition to seek unionization.
2. Secret ballot election to determine passage of unionization measure.

Union thuggary in some areas is extremely high, and most people in these areas sign the petition. They hate buying new tires and windows when they dont sign. But when the secret ballot comes around, they know they can keep quiet and vote no safely.

The card check bill seeks to ratify unionization solely on the public petition.

Elaborate further. As a union member this highly intrigues and amuses me.

[stebo0728]

What's there to elaborate on? Thats pretty cut and dry. If card check passes, the public petition will be all thats required to ratify the union charter.

[bigbadberry3]

What's there to elaborate on? Thats pretty cut and dry. If card check passes, the public petition will be all thats required to ratify the union charter.

So union charter, public or private, is part of the liberal agenda to sneak things through via a secret ballot measure? Oh c'mon Stebo, you we're doing so good there!

EDIT: Forgot, to add through intimidation and muscle!

[stebo0728]

No, I dont see how you made that assessment. Intimidation and muscle already exist as pressure for signing the PUBLIC petition. The liberal agenda is to make this PUBLIC petition the only metric for unionization. Currently there is also a fall back SECRET ballot. The secret ballot is what card check eliminates. Don't take my word for it, read up on Card Check man.

[bigbadberry3]

No, I dont see how you made that assessment. Intimidation and muscle already exist as pressure for signing the PUBLIC petition. The liberal agenda is to make this PUBLIC petition the only metric for unionization. Currently there is also a fall back SECRET ballot. The secret ballot is what card check eliminates. Don't take my word for it, read up on Card Check man.

I just did on wiki, hope you didn't edit it . So I see you really like to emphasize public there, anything a private union pulls is oky doky then?

Physical intimidation my butt. Now a days muscular intimidation isn't rampant. People can video tape upload almost anything, days of old bats and brass knuckles ain't here gramps.

EDIT: I think the way I am reading your public is incorrect. You are referring to public as you can view which members voted for what say eg like Congress?

Yes that makes more sense. Now with that, I can't determine your position on wanting either a public vote or a secret vote under the proposed EFCA.

[stebo0728]

Yes, I was just thinking we were confusing our publics. I didn't mean public sector lol. You're right, I mean public as in Brutus with the tire slashing fetish knows whether or not you signed it.

[bigbadberry3]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/koch ... ction.html

Oh those Koch (roach) Brothers....

[bigbadberry3]

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/10/20/ceo-to-e ... to-romney/

[S13_love]

I think I'm just going to leave this right here...

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-sees-execut ... ector.html

[hannibal]

I'm not an attorney, but I'm pretty sure this is illegal.

18 USC 594 - Intimidation of voters
Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.