The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

More from our great and glorious Job Creators, praise be unto them:

 

http://gawker.com/5950331/olive-garden-red...ealth-insurance

 

Though details were scant, the company did say there were no immediate plans to expand the "test," which is aimed at "help[ing] us address the cost implications health care reform will have on our business."

 

Starting January 2014, when most major provisions of the Affordable Care Act go into effect, companies with over 50 employees will be required to provide health insurance to employees working over 30 hours a week. Companies that flout the law will be fined $3,000 per uncovered employee.

 

Darden, which, ironically, bills itself as "the world's largest full-service restaurant company," made headlines last year when it started a "tip sharing" program requiring the waitstaff to share its tips with all other employees. According to the Associated Press, "That allows Darden to pay more workers a far lower 'tip credit wage' of $2.13, rather than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour."

[southsider2k5]

There's a bit of a difference in the power that the union holds and what the CEO/owner of a company holds. Teachers unions don't actually have the power to shut down the school and fire you because they don't like some political outcome.

 

edit: more bluntly, unions imploring their workers to vote what is (in their view) the workers' own economic interests is different from a CEO throwing a temper tantrum and telling his employees they'll be fired if Obama is elected. Not that I think this giant baby of a CEO would actually follow through on this; it seems like a version of "I'm moving to Canada!"

 

Union leaders tell their employees that their plants will be shutdown if they vote for Republicans all of the time. Just throwing in some propaganda isn't making it different.

 

[Jake]

Search google images for "completely wrong"

[StrangeSox]

Union leaders tell their employees that their plants will be shutdown if they vote for Republicans all of the time. Just throwing in some propaganda isn't making it different.

 

Union leaders, however, do not have the power to actually shut down the plant and fire workers.

 

Ignoring the actual difference in power and control doesn't make it go away.

[southsider2k5]

Union leaders, however, do not have the power to actually shut down the plant and fire workers.

 

Ignoring the actual difference in power and control doesn't make it go away.

 

They have the ability to shut down a plant. Its called a strike. They also don't have any capital at risk in 99% of cases, ignoring that also changes the scope of a CEO's rant.

[StrangeSox]

A strike isn't the same thing as actually firing workers and closing a plant. Stop making terrible arguments.

 

No, they don't have "capital" at stake. Instead, they have their livelihood, what they depend on to feed, clothe and shelter themselves. The CEO doesn't have that at stake and can live off of his accumulated wealth instead.

 

edit: and many unions require democratic votes by the workers to authorize strike actions. There is no single way in which your "unions=CEO's" argument makes sense.

Edited October 10, 2012 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

A strike isn't the same thing as actually firing workers and closing a plant. Stop making terrible arguments.

 

No, they don't have "capital" at stake. Instead, they have their livelihood, what they depend on to feed, clothe and shelter themselves. The CEO doesn't have that at stake and can live off of his accumulated wealth instead.

 

But he holds the stake of all of his employees at the same time. If a plan is coming in that will affect his cost structure, it is 100% relevant to whether that company can stay in business or not. Despite the myth, CEO's are not able to print money. I would tell you to stop making terrible arguments.

[StrangeSox]

But he holds the stake of all of his employees at the same time. If a plan is coming in that will affect his cost structure, it is 100% relevant to whether that company can stay in business or not. Despite the myth, CEO's are not able to print money. I would tell you to stop making terrible arguments.

 

Yes, he holds the stake of all his employees--he holds enormous power over them and can threaten their livelihood if he does not get his way.

 

The man was, in 2007, a billionaire in the process of building the largest home in the country. He seemed quite capable of amassing large fortunes. These profits came from the work of his employees, employees he apparently does not provide health insurance benefits to. He's going to throw a petulant temper tantrum and fire his employees instead of providing them with health coverage because he won't be able to literally buy anything he wants without a worry, including his 90,000 square foot home.

 

That is disgusting and immoral.

 

edit: it's also made funny by the fact that the bulk of the letter is cribbed from a dumb chain email circa 2008.

 

edit2:

When Mr Siegel founded Westgate Resorts, in the 1960′s, the top tax rate for earned income was 70%, the top corporate tax rate was 52.8% and the capital gains rate, where he makes most of his income, was 49.9%. Now he is claiming that should tax rates go up, his company would be unable to operate. This implies that either a) his company has a serious financial issue which he is using the tax code to dodge, b) he is taking huge sums of money out of his business, or c) he has forgotten his own corporate history and has bought into the garbage which the GOP has used for talking points. I suspect the answer is C.

 

Mr. Siegel makes the point that he signs the paychecks. This means that he is fully aware that employee salaries are considered expenses by the IRS, so are not taxed. He is also aware that reduced staff means reduced services, and reduced profits, so such a move would be cutting off his nose to spite his face. “Because I can’t buy that new 200′ fishing boat, I’m going to cut my business’s profit!” It is no different from a temper tantrum, and needs to be treated in the same manner one would a 2 year old.

 

Mr. Siegel joins Richard Lacks in showing that they did not at all build it on their own. And now that they have built it, thanks to the economic system enabled by our government put into place by we the people, they want to knock the ladder out from underneath them.

 

“I’ve got mine, screw the rest of you.”

 

Edited October 10, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

But I take it you're abandoning the silly notion that unions have anywhere near the same amount of power and control that the CEO/owner of a company does? I hope so.

[southsider2k5]

But I take it you're abandoning the silly notion that unions have anywhere near the same amount of power and control that the CEO/owner of a company does? I hope so.

 

I don't, but when the thread turns into class warfare terminology, and propaganda about how rich people should do as their told, it gets to be pretty pointless.

[StrangeSox]

This is the other douchebag CEO mentioned, Richard Lacks

 

He cited several reasons for this;

 

His decision to pass along health care costs to the employees

Implied that future bonuses would be cut to pay for “additional tax increases”

and “It is important that in November you vote to improve your standard of living and that will be through smaller government and less government”

 

What Mr Lacks left out was that the “additional tax increases” would not need to be paid unless he chose to extract them from the company for CEO bonuses, as taxes are on money not invested into the company. He also seemed to have missed what it is that his company actually does:

 

Yes, Lacks Enterprises makes automobile parts! Of course, Mr Lacks claims that the auto bailout had nothing to do with his companies 3 years of straight growth, stating “We survived because of our business model and the money we have in the bank to survive these downturns.”

 

"f*** you, I got mine" is a simple but exceedingly accurate summation.

[StrangeSox]

I don't, but when the thread turns into class warfare terminology, and propaganda about how rich people should do as their told, it gets to be pretty pointless.

 

so you believe that union reps literally have as much power to fire and shut down companies as CEO's. lulz. you're right, if you believe something that ridiculous on its face, it's pointless to keep discussing it.

 

that's almost as ridiculous as the time you said subsidies to ADM would be more beneficial to the poor than food stamps, but that'll be hard to ever top.

Edited October 10, 2012 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

so you believe that union reps literally have as much power to fire and shut down companies as CEO's. lulz. you're right, if you believe something that ridiculous on its face, it's pointless to keep discussing it.

 

that's almost as ridiculous as the time you said subsidies to ADM would be more beneficial to the poor than food stamps, but that'll be hard to ever top.

 

Fire, no. Shutdown, yes. You are the one who always said that without employees, there isn't a company, or is that no longer true anymore?

[StrangeSox]

Fire, no. Shutdown, yes. You are the one who always said that without employees, there isn't a company, or is that no longer true anymore?

 

You realize that striking requires a democratic vote by the workers, yes? And that CEO's firing people or slashing wages and benefits does not, right? That the two are not even remotely comparable in any possible way?

 

Teachers' union reps telling members "Vote Democratic because Republicans will slash education!" is political organizing, but there is no threat from the union implied in that message. The NEA won't go and slash education or get teachers fired or start strikes in some petulant cry-baby reaction because they can't. David Seigel, however, can fire his employees if Obama wins or they have an Obama bumper sticker on their car.

 

Do you really not see the difference in power and control here?

[southsider2k5]

You realize that striking requires a democratic vote by the workers, yes? And that CEO's firing people or slashing wages and benefits does not, right? That the two are not even remotely comparable in any possible way?

 

Teachers' union reps telling members "Vote Democratic because Republicans will slash education!" is political organizing, but there is no threat from the union implied in that message. The NEA won't go and slash education or get teachers fired or start strikes in some petulant cry-baby reaction because they can't. David Seigel, however, can fire his employees if Obama wins or they have an Obama bumper sticker on their car.

 

Do you really not see the difference in power and control here?

 

Right. So one side is just using their constitutional rights to inform, the other is a bunch of propaganda terms. My point exactly.

[StrangeSox]

One side is using their constitutional rights to inform you, the other side is threatening to fire you. There must be some sort of filter in place there where you're not able to actually see the difference between these two things. These two statements are not equivalent:

 

"Democrats will be bad for my business, therefore I will fire you!"

"Republicans will be bad for education, therefore budgets will be cut and teachers will lose their job!"

 

But, now that you understand that union reps can't act in the same manner as CEO's and can't unilaterally shut down plants, fire workers or reduce benefits, do you realize how bad that argument was?

Edited October 10, 2012 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

One side is using their constitutional rights to inform you, the other side is threatening to fire you. There must be some sort of filter in place there where you're not able to actually see the difference between these two things. These two statements are not equivalent:

 

"Democrats will be bad for my business, therefore I will fire you!"

"Republicans will be bad for education, therefore budgets will be cut and teachers will lose their job!"

 

But, now that you understand that union reps can't act in the same manner as CEO's and can't unilaterally shut down plants, fire workers or reduce benefits, do you realize how bad that argument was?

 

So the union leaders words have no power, they can't influence? Why do we have them then?

[StrangeSox]

So the union leaders words have no power, they can't influence? Why do we have them then?

 

Who is making that argument? It certainly isn't me! And it certainly bears no resemblance to why David Seigel is a douchebag and the ideology his letter represents is immoral. The issue isn't David Seigel putting up Romney signs at the office or even sending out an email asking for support for Romney, it's that he's doing so through the threat of taking away peoples' livelihoods if they don't agree.

 

Union leaders do not have the power to fire you, cut your wages and benefits or close the plant as political retribution. If a union was going to strike in response to an electoral outcome or some new US law or policy (has this ever happened anywhere? I'm guessing no, because it would be dumb!), they would have to have a majority of workers vote to strike. That part right there? It completely sinks the comparison because the workers themselves must choose to strike; it's not a condition forced on them unwillingly and without a say by an authoritarian power structure.

 

CEO's do have the power to fire you, cut your wages and benefits or close the plant as political retribution. If David Seigel wants to fire 10% of his workforce tomorrow because he suspects they voted for Obama, he is free to do so.

[StrangeSox]

tl;dr

 

Unions saying "these bad things will happen if you vote for Candidate Z!" is not the same as saying "I will make these bad things happen to you if Candidate Y wins"

[southsider2k5]

Who is making that argument? It certainly isn't me! And it certainly bears no resemblance to why David Seigel is a douchebag and the ideology his letter represents is immoral. The issue isn't David Seigel putting up Romney signs at the office or even sending out an email asking for support for Romney, it's that he's doing so through the threat of taking away peoples' livelihoods if they don't agree.

 

Union leaders do not have the power to fire you, cut your wages and benefits or close the plant as political retribution. If a union was going to strike in response to an electoral outcome or some new US law or policy (has this ever happened anywhere? I'm guessing no, because it would be dumb!), they would have to have a majority of workers vote to strike. That part right there? It completely sinks the comparison because the workers themselves must choose to strike; it's not a condition forced on them unwillingly and without a say by an authoritarian power structure.

 

CEO's do have the power to fire you, cut your wages and benefits or close the plant as political retribution. If David Seigel wants to fire 10% of his workforce tomorrow because he suspects they voted for Obama, he is free to do so.

 

Nice spin. Unions don't threaten anything, they just tell the truth! CEO's don't tell the truth, they just issue threats! Great circular logic there. If unions are as powerless as you are trying to make them out to be, there are a whole of stupid people out there paying dues for no good reason.

[southsider2k5]

tl;dr

 

Unions saying "these bad things will happen if you vote for Candidate Z!" is not the same as saying "I will make these bad things happen to you if Candidate Y wins"

 

And there you go in the fallacy. If the CEO states it, isn't the result of a policy in an election, it is the result of HIS OWN GOD LIKE POWERS. It isn't the result of the policy he is fighting against increasing his costs of doing business. It is his own fault somehow. I'm sure the b**** was asking for it for being rich.

[StrangeSox]

Nice spin. Unions don't threaten anything, they just tell the truth! CEO's don't tell the truth, they just issue threats! Great circular logic there. If unions are as powerless as you are trying to make them out to be, there are a whole of stupid people out there paying dues for no good reason.

 

I'm not saying "they just tell the truth!," I'm using the language you'd expect a typical pro-dem union rep to use. They make political statements and back them up with threats of what some certain politician or ballot measure will do to you. This CEO, on the other hand, backs it up with threats of what he will do in response.

 

This is not some esoteric distinction here. It's a pretty basic difference in what sort of power unions and CEO's actually hold and what they can do. While I do think that unions are unfortunately lacking in power, your statement here doesn't make much sense in context unless you assume that the union can and would act in a similar manner and exact political retribution on their members for election results in the same way that these CEO's are threatening to do. There's some pretty fundamental misrepresentations of the relationships between workers and unions and workers and capital/management on top of misrepresentations of what the different groups can actually do.

[StrangeSox]

And there you go in the fallacy. If the CEO states it, isn't the result of a policy in an election, it is the result of HIS OWN GOD LIKE POWERS. It isn't the result of the policy he is fighting against increasing his costs of doing business. It is his own fault somehow. I'm sure the b**** was asking for it for being rich.

 

What are you even talking about? He's saying he will be handing out pink slips if Obummer is re-elected. That is the result of "HIS OWN GOD-LIKE POWERS" to control the payroll of the company he owns and runs and has made hundreds of millions of dollars off of.

[StrangeSox]

And there you go in the fallacy. If the CEO states it, isn't the result of a policy in an election, it is the result of HIS OWN GOD LIKE POWERS. It isn't the result of the policy he is fighting against increasing his costs of doing business. It is his own fault somehow. I'm sure the b**** was asking for it for being rich.

 

 

Did you even read the letter, or is it more lib propaganda that you won't bother yourself with?

 

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

 

 

Poor baby, if taxes are raised to the 90's levels and he has to provide health insurance (to his lazy, unproductive workers??), his motivation to work will be destroyed and you'll all be fired. Sure sounds like he's done some serious cost evaluations and not at all like he's pouting like a 2 year old who can't eat all the cookies.

[southsider2k5]

What are you even talking about? He's saying he will be handing out pink slips if Obummer is re-elected. That is the result of "HIS OWN GOD-LIKE POWERS" to control the payroll of the company he owns and runs and has made hundreds of millions of dollars off of.

 

Except for when the federal government steps in and fines him out of business.