Romney: OK for employers to influence employees' votes

I showed you the math what doesn't add up? By the way he doesn't make 500k he makes 400k if he stopped advertising and reduced workplace conditions to sweatshop level, maybe he could shave expenses by 100k.... Maybe. He obviously wouldn't do that I was just trying to illustrate the point of what the healthcare act puts him up against.

Perhaps it's hard to imagine a company with that many employees making that little money. Its probably not the worlds best business, it only really makes him just over 2,000 dollars per employee. It's not a great company they aren't great jobs. Is no job better than a bad job? because in this part of Louisiana I can tell you there are only so many McDonald's type jobs to go around. A lot of poor and unemployed people. And to reeko no, none of them are undocumented workers if a person only makes 10 dollars an hour they must be an illegal alien? What the heck is that all about? If i didnt know better id say it was racist. If you wanna know what type of workers they are so bad just imagine watever u think stereotypical boondocks backwoods Louisiana is filled with and I'm sure u won't be terribly far off hope that makes you happy. And yah for the last 20 years you and him have been paying because i am sure many of his employees have taken advantage of programs like Medicaid. So yah you Reeko paid for their healthcare and it sounds like you must have paid a much larger share of that than my dad did since u take so much credit?

But growth is like a snowball everyyear there is more to reinvest more to grow. If we were a major player in the marketplace it's possible we could be lean and mean enough to offer employees healthcare. That is the goal, to get there. Unfortunately it doesn't look like Trump workwear will reach those heights. Maybe you should check out the biggest company in the industry ,BulWark owned by vanity fair and see how many they suits they make in USA. Or how many clothes are made in America in general. Not many people want to run businesses like that because you have to "deal with" too many employees and don't make "a lot". My dad is one of the last domestic manufacturers left because he didn't see it that way he enjoyed working with people even when times were rough.

The reason there is not revolting in the streets is I would think there are probably less than 100,000 business owners like my dad. And they aren't savvy political types they are head down grinders. Good ol boys if u will. No one would feel sorry for someone who makes over 250,000 a year. They know that, the republicans know that. You will lose people at "poor rich guy". Fact is my dad isn't gonna starve the business would as your points pretty much said "adapt". In our case that would mean send jobs over seas. The business would be fine but as a man my dad would be crushed, if you think providing a job that can't even cover healthcare cost is nothing to be proud of, I can't say I blame you. But I'll tell you this it made my dad proud as hell and I know he hopes that he can continue to do it and help make the company something that can provide even more to the people who made it whatever it will become. A lot of people will see that as narcissistic but it's true

So TL DR he makes 2000 per employee it's simply not enough to offer healthcare and still keep a wage that is worth the effort and stress of running a business that so many people depend on. Sorry if you don't like hearing that... But sometimes the world is the way it is not the way liberals wish it could be. His form of adapting will have to be moving factory jobs overseas.

 

By the way thank you guys so much for the responses. I know not everyone is going to agree. And it may be possible there are things about the healthcare act I understand. But it feels good to say because I feel like it is a dynamic that has been ignored by both parties.

 

Don't understand * geez sorry

 

The disease is spreading...

GOP Rep. Joe Walsh Tells Employers To Intimidate Their Workers Into Voting For Romney

 

Republicans, please explain to me how this is different from buying someone's vote? God... How does this not disgust you? At what cost do you want to win this election? Are you really willing to sell out on the ideas you hold true? This is beyond sad. Fine, take the election, if this is how low you are willing to stoop. I didn't know Obama was really that bad you feel the need to not only lie but cheat as well.

 

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
- Mitch McConnell

Pretty much sums up the GOP gameplan. Tell any lie, compromise any belief, violate any ethic: just win, baby. It's the Al Davis school of politics.

 

When international labor regulations catch up, this won't be so viable. You're referring to the general problem of margins being thinner in manufacturing in America because (surprise surprise), workers aren't being treated like s**t.

PPACA isn't going to be the tipping bridge on that. But the Chinese worker is only going to be willing to take so much more s**t, for so much longer.

However, if you want to elect a man who took money from British bankers THE DAY after they were caught red-handed manipulating interest rates, and whose economic proposals are empirically dubious at best, then I wish you the best of luck with a set of policies that led up to 2008. Your father is better off sparing a vote for the man who is trying to create jobs rather than the side that keeps on trying to create fiscal cliffs, and Great Recessions.

 

The GOP didn't say any of those things. That's just your brain goin screwy on you.

 

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

- Mitch McConnell

 

I'm not going to say much about your posts describing your father's business and what he clearly believes (and apparently has convinced you) about what he sees as the negative impact of Obamacare, except to say this. You say that many of the employees are minimum wage earners, and that the vast majority are women. These are people, using your own description, who are making poverty level wages.

Your father is concerned about what national healthcare will cost, but there's something the two of you need to understand. Your father's employees don't get company health insurance, do they? Correct me of I'm wrong. They are working for poverty level wages without benefits that include healthcare, right? A large majority are women, and it wouldn't surprise me if many have children to raise... on those wages and without healthcare. What's wrong with this picture? Do I have the picture entirely wrong?

If an employee or the child of an employee becomes ill, what recourse do they have? Do they go to the county hospital's emergency room, paid for with our tax dollars? Do they have paid sick leave if they become ill, or have to stay at home to care for a child who has become ill? Do your fathers employees have company provided healthcare? If not, your father's employees are one of the groups of Americans that national healthcare was designed to help. That they are working manufacturing jobs for those wages and, I'm assuming, largely without benefits, is not something I would be particularly proud of as an employer. Again, forgive me if I've misunderstood the benefits, or lack there of, of those workers. That your father worked hard for many years to start and grow a business is admirable, but in my opinion, that those employees are earning wages that allow them to barely scrap by, hoping that they don't get sick, or that their child doesn't get sick when it's a struggle to live on those low wages, doesn't generate a lot of sympathy from me. It is more an example of what's wrong in segments of our job market, rather than an example of what's right. In my opinion, of course.

Having said that, I wish your father well. You're lucky he's still around. I lost my own father almost 30 years ago, and he was another man, like your Dad, who worked hard and lifted his standard of living and that of his family. I can't help but wonder, however, about how your fathers employees feel about their future, and what they think about getting healthcare. There are always two or more sides to every story.

 

Your story is much like the privatize the profits and socialize the debt game that has gone around. What your father does is to a lesser extent what WalMart and other similar minimum wage employers do to take advantage of the system. They pay minimum wages and force the taxpayers to supplement that minimum wage with healthcare, food stamps, and section eight housing. It disgusts me, frankly. The way you want the world to be where one guy makes $300k a year and his employees make minimum wage and the taxpayers pay for their health care doesn't work for me and ultimately it doesn't work for them.

 

If my boss told me that a vote for Obama would mean less profit for our company and a less likelihood of any salary raise in the future, I'd vote for Romney.

 

No your absolutely right, it's not enough money provide for a family. I think you should respect for me for telling it how it ACTUALLY is though, I could have said they made 40,000 and still made the same point. I wish it was different, my dad does, we all do. But the that isn't the truth.


They run sewing machines and pour their daily lives into producing clothing. He sells that clothing and uses the money to pay employees and keeps about 10% for himself. Nearly all of his competitors pay their laborers far less, and they work in other countrys like Honduras for example ,healthcare is only the beginning of what these people don't receive. Customers may say they want clothes made in USA but unless the prices are similar they simply can't afford them. This simply means he doesn't make as much money as companies who chose to produce overseas.

The business model has allowed for very modest yearly raises of 1.25 per hour, so when I say many work for minimum wage I mean ,"far too many" as in it's not a desirable wage. Those who have been with the company make a bit more but I don't want to brag about how great of jobs they are. They simply aren't, Im just asking whether or not they are better than no job at all. Quite a few of the girls have used the job as a means of putting themselves through school, and have significantly increased their earning opportunities.

None of that is the point. The point is people are convinced that Obamacare will help low income earners. But I don't know how many people have worried about what it's going to cost? Is healthcare but no job better than job but no healthcare. It is quite possible that as a healthy young suburbanite I am confused when I think job is better than no job even if said job only pays 20k.

Some businesses aren't big lucrative companies but still employ well over 50 people. Is a company with a small margin just not worth running because it doesn't provide the business with enough profit to cover its employees health care cost. I believe these girls think they will keep their job AND get healthcare but if you take the time to google penalties for employers who's employees purchase subsidized HC you will see that is not possible. If a company only makes 2000 dollars profit off of you as an employee they cannot afford to pay 3000 for HC it's very simple math. We cannot raise our prices as that will result in zero sales, our competitors do not employ American factory workers and will not see this operational cost increase.

Jobs will be lost. I have shown you the math that proves this. The very people HC act is supposed to help will end up being hurt. I think many missed the point of the story.

I don't want sympathy for my dad. He doesn't need any. Financially he will probably end up doing better as overseas labor is much cheaper his margins will increase dramatically. His soul of course might fry in hell for failing so many who trusted him but other than somehow changing what a coverall is worth to customers there is nothing he can do to stop this.

The sympathy should be for those who will lose their job, none of which deserve to, the fact is they deserve more. They are indirectly competing against practically slave labor, this is the fault of big businesses with no concern to anything but the bottom line.

If you want to turn your nose up in disgust at the man because the coveralls aren't worth enough to pay the workers more then go right ahead. but it just seems kinda shortsighted, no one can control what they're product is worth. He can't control what insurance cost either. All he could do was sell the coveralls they sewed from the fabric he bought.

Your telling me It's disgusting that he employed people who couldn't afford insurance off their wage. Should he have gone to each and every one and personally told them I have to fire you because it's disgusting that we can't afford to provide you with health insurance? Are u mad at Whiney rich people or just mad at the way the world works. If he took all of his money 100% and gave equal shares to every single employee they would all get $2000 more per year. What would that change? Its still not enough to buy health insurance.

 

Why is that? Do you trust your boss more the the POTUS?

I'm starting to think that many people don't see a correlation between a company's bottom line profit and what they can afford to pay their employees. Anybody can start a business or start hiring people, that doesn't just make you wal-mart rich. I don't even understand how that line could be so blurred. It seems obvious.

 

So if your boss will not say anything, you will vote for Obama? Or you really intend to vote for Romney?

 

How much of a raise are we talking about?

 

I think the correlation that isn't so clear is the one between who is president and the company's bottom line profit. I don't think it is so obvious that Romney is going to be better for business than Obama. I don't even think it's clear that the burdens of Obamacare will ultimately be bad for business. So, when some business owner tries to sell me some facile explanation of what is bound to happen, I laugh it off. Their businesses are a lot more dynamic than they'd like to make out and they undersell their own ability to innovate a solution. The economy more broadly is also more dynamic than they'd want to admit, and they can't say with any real authority what Obamacare will do and what other presidential policy will do. And, even if they were completely right that they'd shutter the business and fire a bunch of people, they still haven't demonstrated that those workers are actually worse off for it. Business owners might be smart, hard-working people, but they can't predict the future any better than I can.

 

The ability to predict the future is a lot easier than you think. Just go read the law. There's plenty of sites out there that break it down to bullet points. Go see for yourself.

Them try to imagine how many people have ****ty jobs that don't make much money. Everyone of those jobs is tied to a a company that is going to have to pony up what is essentially a 3000 raise. Some company's can in fact afford this and many already do. Wal-marts of the world. How many businesses out there don't have wal mart level profit margins? How many have profit margins that translate to less than 3500 per employee? Maybe it's just my dads company, just those 185 jobs. You can use your common sense on that. If obamacare is left untouched, January 2014 we will be adding any person who's job fits that description to the unemployment list.

The only defense is if you told me that people are better off unemployed than working a job with no insurance. At that point are argument will be about opinion. And yours is worth the same as mine. I can respectfully stop the conversation at the impasse.

But those saying obamacare isn't bad for business, I've just described in detail, a business model that can survive today that will be crushed by obamacare. And I have showed you specifically why and how it will turn a business from profitable to a net loser overnight. If you want to say I'm lying then you have specific points that you can refute. You can confront the issue and tell me WHY I'm wrong not just that I am.

I will say this if obamacare placed employer mandates/penalties on part time employees and exempted companies who make less than 5000 per employee, then I would be fine with it. As it stands big companies like Darden have already said they will adapt by only hiring part time workers. This is attempt to circumvent the mandate not adapt to it, by a company nonetheless who's bottom line actually could support such an expense mandated or not. Theseare the "innovative solutions" companies come up with screw people because they are so big that they can. Like a bully, They just chose to make more money. I don't know if this modern healthcare can work but if they were to make this very slight change then I would embrace the HC act with open arms.

 

This is a winning issue for Democrats. This has nothing to do with free speech and it should be a federal crime.

 

If Obama is reelected the top tax rate is going up, which hits something like 90% of small businesses.

Reasonable to let employees know it might affect them.