Romney: OK for employers to influence employees' votes

Thank you so much for your reply. It was elequent and seemed very heartfelt and ginuine. I can tell you have read my story, given it sincere consideration, and even though you disagree with me, felt it warranted a well constructed reply. That is as much as I can possibly ask for. I hope you realize how thankful I am for that.

The effects of Obamacare will be very real on his business. This is a realit he has begun to repair for. Having only fired 3 people in his life my dad has always felt if a person is losing their job they deserve to hear it from the one making the final decision. It's the single worst part of his job, even when terminations are completely earned by the employees themselves.

Your concern for our family despite our political differences is exactly what truly makes our country great. Your compassion is obviously authentic. It would be easier for you to call me disgusting, so I appreciate that and would like to return well wishes. You'll be happy to know my dads future is very secure, he will not lose his company he will just have to significantly restructure his manufacturing strategies. This was always a more lucrative choice for him now it is just the only profitable choice. He is Sad, frustrated and scared, but in time this will pass. He and his business will survive.

The next step for him is to figure what it is he will need to tell his employees should Obama win. Judging by your comments I'm assuming you would suggest something along the lines of "this is just the first ugly step of what is ultimately going to be a much brighter future for you. Possibly bring some literature from government agencies aimed at helping the unemployed, and information on higher education that may be able to leverage some of their work experience.

Even If he were able to address these conversations with the dignity and respect they deserve in 15 minutes each. That would be a solid week of firing people he's known in many cases, for years. It's obviously something that makes his stomache turn, he's dreading it.

They have agencies that actually do this sort of thing professionally. Many of them don't believe the owner should be present for the firings most of their customers prefer this. That's not an option for my dad, he believes being fired by a stranger is impersonal an degrading.

Maybe you would like to sit in on these meetings, you seem to be able to justify and explain these things in such a graceful and inspiring way. Like I said its a weeks worth of work. Professionals are able to charge about $2500 a day for these services. Admittedly that's about 10% gig offer 90% sarcasm, just trying to have a sense of humor about it all. Kinda tough to do lately. Seriously though it is a very steep challenge to try to explain while firing a person that you are doing what's best for them, and you still care about them. Out of 175 people there are bound to be some people who will have a nasty reaction, that is hard to look forward to.

If the president were to acknowledge that businesses and jobs like ours exist and will intact be forced to close factory's and fire workers. If he were to reassume America that this side effect of obamacare has been considered and is factored in to his plan to create a net gain on jobs that will outweigh this effect. If he were to acknowledge this reality and extend any sort of olive branch or justification, like you were able to do here, then he would earn my vote. Probably my dads and many other business owners as well.

But so far all The public has heard is how much he cares for small businesses and promises of how many jobs his polices will create with no acknowledgement to the ones it will destroy. That is a slap in the face. He has an oppurtunity to demonstrate he actually understands how businesses work, assure me all effects positive and negative have been considered then he'd get many more votes. But so far it appears to me that its entirely possible he doesn't realize these ACA side effects and he may be guilty of making a terrible oversight. That has me scared.

 

It's sad to fire people. Can all the jobs be saved if Romney took over the ACA with his proposed changes? We were kind of screwed with ACA, when a rino like Romney was selected as the GOP candidate. We might have had a better chance of repealing it with a true conservative.

 

It's my understanding he is going to repeal it. And then put a decent amount of pressure on states to come up with their own health care plans using massachuchates plan as a model.

Looking at the massacuchates Plan. My dads employees jobs might remain feasible under a carbon copy of that. In all honesty I havnt looked at it closely enough to really say definetly though. Instead of a flat penalty for employers unable to offer insurance it uses something called a free rider surcharge. The fee is decided on a case by case basis. I feel alot more comfortable with that, but the truth is I'm not really sure how much less than 3000 it would be. The business could survive contributing around 1500 per employee any more than that and it becomes less and less possible.

Theorectically it is decided on a case by case basis in order to protect this exact scenario from happening, but I can't say that with much certainty, that's just my interpretation of the law.

 

1. Yes.

2.They are the largest employers of people in the nation. Their small size helps them give more personalized to their customers/clients.

2(2). I don't believe so.

3. This is all speculative, but the negative effect could be lack of the individualized attention the customers or clients received from the smaller companies. Some employees who may have been in line for a promotion might now be bumped down because of the new employees and hierarchy etc.

4. Tax issues would depend. Many small business owners file their business profits with the their personal taxes. I don't know if the 6 partners would be able to do that. It would all depend on how much their profit increased.

5. I don't think so, because whether the employees are here or overseas they are still employees.

6. No

Yes I think there's a huge amount of in between a Joe's Kolache shop and Walmart. There is a vast amount of mid-sized businesses, small firms that don't qualify as giant corporations. Companies of any size can struggle to make money. I'm well aware of that.

 

1. I agree

2. It's actually half of the jobs when uson the defintion pf 500 employees or smaller. (which is abritrary and nonsensical in its own right) but either way I agree with the sentiment that providing jobs is good for economy. I also agree that non corporate mega companies often provide better experiences for the consumer.I would also note that in personal experience southwest airlines is an example of a relatively small company that was known for great customer service and even after growing substantially they have mostly kept this reputation.

3. I disagree, fundamental nothing has changed except for this one business provides 300 jobs. The example was not for literal purposes only To illustrate that a 300 person business can operate fundamentally exactly the same way as any small business except it creates even more jobs. Which u listed as your number one reason why small businesses are good.

4. By now I hope u understand the analogy I'm drawing and I would contend that a 300 employee company scaled an proportioned exactly like a 50 employees company in the same industry could service 6 times the amount of customers with the exact same rate of attention and personalized service. As well as more importantly, adding more jobs to the economy. Your suggestion of likelihood of poor service and less likely promotions/raises strikes me not completely unlike an unfair stereotyping on your part.

5 well what you need to understand about overseas production is that companies rarely employ people overseas. Try opening a company in china, it won't happen. What more often happens is they purchase manufacturing services from, for example, a Chinese company. This form of labor doesn't actually translate to company employees for tax or identification purposes. A company replacing 250 employees through overseas labor would actually receive Obama tax benefits and other advantages by virtue of employing less people, 49 or under to be precise. Meanwhile after becoming a "small business" their profit margins will increase.

6 I completely agree. And I hope you understand how some of these Obama policies create a financial incentive that naturally (inadvertently or not) encourages and reward a company for doing this. The only people who lose here are American employees. They lose their jobs, but as many have argued that may be outweighed by gaining healthcare benefits who were earning on the bottom end of the wage scale.

But companies will be forced to fire and increase the unemployment rate and the consequence for the company will be advantageous recognition as a "small business"

We have been told ad nauseam how good small businesses are for America and I think it has created a widely held false perception of what exactly a small business is. And why they are important. I think its a dangerous misconception.

So basically if your too big a company to qualify for certain SB tax cuts and such in order to get off Obama's "naughty list", if u will, all you have to do is fire people. It strikes me as counterintuitive legislation

 

Also forgot to say thanks for the response an indulging me by answering my little impromptu questionnaire. The exercise definetly helped me understand your thought process and yielded some unexpected and enlightening answers. I hope you will gain as much perspective from my statements as I have from yours. Nothin but respect thanks again.

 

Thanks for the reasonable discussion.

I just want to say that if 6 small businesses each hired 50 people, or merger of 6 small businesses had 300 people the employment would be the same. It wouldn't add jobs to the economy.

I also agree that it was a stereotype or generalization of what could happen, because we were speaking in the hypothetical realm. Without knowing the company, product and or services offered it isn't really easy to say.

 

Yes I thInk we are pretty much on the same page with where each other stands. I'd just like to clarify one thing.

The merger analogy may have been misleading or illformed. I was jus trying to compare a 300 employee company to a 50 employee company.

It is my opinion it is possible for them to be the same on a fundamental level.

Like 2 pieces of limestone. One Is 50 pounds the other is 300 pounds. Molecularly they are identical.

If it was widely accepted that limestone was a good thing, then destroying the 300 pound rock in an effort to help the growth and health of the 50 pound rock would seem counter productive. Not saying that 50 pound rock or others like it should be discarded but that both should be protected equally.

I try to keep an analogy from becoming too abstract but I think this might actually communicate my point more accurately. I can think of logical retorts within this analogy that would undermine the true sentiment, but hopefully you can understand through a combination of my two analogies and your familiarity of the numbers from my real life example.

For example the analogy ask u to accept there is no inherent incentive for a rock owner to own a heavier rock. In many cases the heavier rocks may be more valuable but its just as possible that the only difference to the owner is it takes more effort to carry.

So if u will, can u see how the president may have created a dangerous set of rules for the 300 pound rocks of the country? And in turn all the jobs they create, when the consensus goal seems to be to create jobs overall.

 

This really comes down to what type of country we want to live in. Yes, it disgusts me that we have a system whereby you have employees for 20 years making poverty level wages while as an owner you make 300k a year off of that. You want to live in that country because you've profited off of it. You're in business to make money and you've done that. Now the rules are changing and that's the reality. You want to live in some fantasy world where any job is a good job except it's not. Especially when you are paying employees poverty level wages for 20 years without benefits. Minimum wage jobs are for people who are getting an education, people who are building a skillset in something, people that are in transition, seasonal work, second jobs, etc. It's not a career for people and that sounds exactly what you have there. That's not good for our society, that's bad. That's really bad.

You see the profits in your bank account but you don't see the costs, like I mentioned. So you have 200 employees, mostly women. Those women probably have children. So maybe two kids per employee. That's 600 people who may not have health care insurance? What do you think that costs? How does that impact their life expectancy do you think? It takes one of those people to get cancer or HIV or have heart problems for that to ring up millions in hospital bills. It amuses me about conservatives. They decry big government when in fact they're contributing so much to the causes of it. It's like unless they're physically making out that check to pay that specific bill, they don't think there's a bill. Everyone having health care coverage is better for this country in the long run. Yes, it costs money and yes it's money you see up front. The reality is that not having health care for everyone costs all of us more money in the long run. I'd prefer to have a single payer so that business doesn't have this on their plate but conservatives don't want a single payer. They want a for profit system because capitalism is the greatest thing ever invented even if you have to die so some CEO can boost profits and have that yacht and summer home. The fact is that my health and your health shouldn't be subject to someone's profit motive. It's far more important than that.

Sometimes what's best for you and your bottom line isn't what's best for the country. So yeah, it's a much more complicated situation than this any job is a good thing idea. It's a shame you don't realize that but I can see why. You've made money off of it. The days of big government covering your employees because of the way you've chosen to run your business should be over.

The issue of jobs and unemployment is something that I don't accept being tied to this health care issue. There are countries that make health care work. It's not a gigantic mystery and those countries have jobs and employment and the world didn't end suddenly when people got health coverage.

 

Philisophically I fear we are miles apart so I will just say a few more things with as much respect as possible considering our near polar opposite views. After that I would hope you will give me a response and I will leave it at that, I accept that whatever your opinion is I am positive you are no the only one who feels that way, ur views are likely shared by a substantially percentage of our people. I write back not to retaliate or bicker but because I believe the distance between us is scary for each other, maybe we can nudge ourselves a little bit closer to one another politically speaking. We are two Americans the further we place ourselves apart the worse we will be for it.

So... Fantasy world?

I think that is an odd way to describe what is currently reality for these people when your comparing it to a future where losing their jobs is somehow a good thing.

Speaking of fantasy world the yacht and summer home comment shows your lack of perspective. My dad would never be able to afford such extravagant luxuries, I believe that is a stereotype your subscribing to possibly because you make less than what I've told you his taxable income was in 2011.

What I've told you and what you seem to be either ignoring or refusing to accept, even though I've made the economics of it very transparent, is that once he fires these people against his personal will the business will actually make him more money. Using overseas labor is cheaper than running his own factor stateside, his product won't become any less valuable.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the situation you describe sounds alot like he forced his employees to work. Is that what you believe? I can assure you that every single person he has ever employed chose to come to the factory and work their ass off day in and day out, entirely under their free will.

I can tell you what is not a fantasy, every single one of those 175 women are unique and have different sets of obligations, responsibilities, aspirations etc etc.
Planning for an employees future is something the business has actively showed a willingness to help each individual employee with, ultimately that responsibility is an individual one. People go to jobs for various reasons, but what I can assure you is that no one chooses to work somewhere if it doesn't make sense for them or in most situations isnt their best option at the current time.

With your comments in mind, I find it very hard you will believe this but for these women their job is a source of pride. They are proud to call themselves workers, proud they can tell friends and family they have a job and that the are damn good at it. This company and town are a close knit community who yes have encountered situations that made it tough to make ends meet, when they leaned on each other to get through hardships financial and otherwise.

You have belittled their existence, and suggested that they are better off without jobs and that the person who will suffer financial is not them but their boss. This seems very stubborn on your part.

I understand that the security of healthcare coverage is not a luxury but a bare necessity. I agree with you on that. We should build towards a world where all the earths resources are shared evenly and no person should want for anything. But your way of building towards it ignores common sense, implementing programs that are aimed at accomplishing beautiful things doesn't neccessarily make them feasible.

You think that Providing an individual a job but not healthcare increases the publics burden to pick up the slack. If I can get you to agree with me on anything else than I hope that I can get you to see how this is flawed reasoning.

If u fire someone that is one less job. One more unemployed person, who's healthcare needs remain constant and completely independent from their employment status. Hiring a person does not increase this burden, if you can pay them enough to cover insurance that will in turn decrease this burden. But even if the job doesn't pay enough to get insurance the overall burden remains stable.

A low income earner and a zero income earner both need public help to get basic health care needs met. A zero income earner need help to get healthcare in addition to food, housing, basic communication devices, beer, children's birthday parties, television and basic entertainment, means of transportation, clothing, gifts for friends or family, travel expenses to see loved ones who live a distance away. All the expenses of life are impossible to meet for someone who is unable to find a job.

If you were my dad and you had to make a choice everyday, of keepin these people in low income category or forcing them into the zero income category even though they had done everything he asked of them, what would you do? Even if it meant sacrificing profits that could be used on such frivolous things as recreational boats and a part time home, I would hope that you; like my father, would chose to keep these jobs alive. Even if it wasn't perfect.

I know How unlikely it is we are going to agree, I'm trying to tell you of a potentially dangerous side effect of obamacare that has not been voiced by many others. Romney will not do this because undecided voters will be likely to see that as Romney protecting "rich people" just as many have done in this thread. I can think of several motives Obama would have to not disclose this information as well as the possibility he is unaware of this unintended effect. If you dont want to believe me, I implore you to read the ACA bullet points for yourself, but also I completely understand.

What I'm having more trouble with is your implications that jobless life is better than being employed for a low wage. I would wonder how many people you've met who have had No means of meeting even more basic needs then healthcare coverage.

I feel like I've defended my values in the best way I know how, given the confines of an Internet message board. That's all I can control, and like I said I hope to hear a response from you but will let your word be the last as I feel I have done a sufficient job of communicating my perspective. Thank you for listening.

 

my my my, lookie here....


Florida business owner who threatened layoffs if Obama was re-elected now doing better than ever

During the 2012 presidential race, which was not all that long ago and something you may still remember, wealthy Florida real estate person David Siegel got a bit of notoriety for sending his Westgate Resorts employees a maudlin form letter noting that while he couldn't "tell you whom to vote for," their jobs would be "endanger"-ed if the cruel President Barack Obama was not unseated by fellow wealthy person Mitt Romney. The ostensible cause was that his fragile empire could not possibly stand another four years of the sort of deeply onerous taxes that Siegel imagined Obama had been imposing, and that if he was going to be taxed anymore he was going to close his company and go be rich on a Caribbean beach.

Alas, his efforts were in vain. Barack Obama did indeed win re-election, ushering in the dark and communist-ish hellscape Siegel had envisioned.

Just over two years after penning that company-wide email, Siegel informed Westgate employees that instead of layoffs, he would boost their minimum wage to $10 per hour beginning in 2015.

In fact, according to Siegel, 2014 was a banner year. “We’re experiencing the best year in our history and I wanted to do something to show my gratitude for the employees who make that possible,”