Not Hiring Until Obama Is Gone Is A Symptom Of Broader GOP Ignorance

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

announced the would cap all wells being drilled and not drill any more. . . the day after Obummer was elected.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Now you can eat your own HORSE SHIT.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearc...about-onshore/

I'll REPEAT - HORSESHIT!

He said they were capping ALL wells and not drilling any more and they made the decision the day Obama was elected! Get your story straight. He was elected on November 4, 2008 but wasn't inaugurated until January 20, 2009. Now go research the legislation he signed, what it covered and when it went into effect. Then, come back and explain the gaps in Iaintliein's story or in the company's reasoning.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

I'll REPEAT - HORSESHIT!

Don't pay any mind to IIFFORDB. He was last seen floggin' his dog with his right hand while holding a picture of Adolf Hitler with his left hand.

What do you expect from a damn nazi anyway?

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Don't pay any mind to IIFFORDB. He was last seen floggin' his dog with his right hand while holding a picture of Adolf Hitler with his left hand.

What do you expect from a damn nazi anyway?

LOL

It fits his replies.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

He did not say if he was giving plenty of overtime to the Employees he has now.

I look for the next big thing for the Democrats to push is penalizing Companies do have enough work to warrant more employees, but instead of hiring new people, they give their existing Employees considerable overtime.

They could do this by taxing any wage that is over the standard 40 hour week at a substantially higher rate. When the cost of overtime finally was more than the cost of employing someone, business's would hire more workers.

Of course, the men who are now enjoying the benefits of the overtime won't be happy.

The big unreported secret out there is many small businesses are doing just this. We hired one young man this year, a trade school graduate, but at this time it is much more profitable for us to just give our existing employees lots of overtime, we have been on 6 days, 10 hours a day for almost two years. It's a win-win, we don't have to hassle with someone new, we don't have to pay the health insurance of another employee, we don't have to pay the matching social security and other withholdings of another employee, and we don't have to worry about some dead beat just quitting and then we have to pay the matching unemployment benefits. The win for our employees is they get to enjoy a substantially better lifestyle.

Why isn't just the truth enough?
I can ignore the inherent stupidity in stating the democrats will try raise taxes on overtime wages when they can't get taxes back to where they were.
Overtime is hardly a secret. There is this practice of adding up all your expenses and seeing if overtime or new hires are the answer to your business issue. Bear in mind you get 10 fewer hours of work you have paid for per person, per week and that the average overtime hour of work only produces 75% of a regular hour. The number is about 88% for overtime of short duration but long term is less. I have a link somewhere around here for that.
If you have 4 people working that schedule, you are losing money on it.

Which brings us to the untrue portion of your story.
Where in the United States can you quit a job and collect unemployment?

[Jackie S]

A little over three years ago, we hired a man in his mid 30's as a Journeyman. We gave hime the usual 90 day trial, which went without a hitch.

We scored a good contract, and started working 6 days. The man stated that he did not wish to work Saturdays, and of course, we could not compell him to work past a 40 hour week.

There became some tension between him and the other men, as he was the only one not working Saturdays. He quit, on the assumption that he already had another job.

The other company called us, we said he quit because ofthe overtime situation and the tension between him and his fellow workers. They refused to hire him, he filed for unemployment. The Unemployment Commission said we created a unfavorable working climate, and gave him the benefits.

We did not fire him, he quit. The problem was not with us, it was with the other men. But we had to pay.

[budman33]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The other company called us, we said he quit because ofthe overtime situation and the tension between him and his fellow workers. They refused to hire him, he filed for unemployment. The Unemployment Commission said we created a unfavorable working climate, and gave him the benefits.

We did not fire him, he quit. The problem was not with us, it was with the other men. But we had to pay.

I call bullshit. You arent allowed to state anything other than dates of hire and a yes/no that he is eligible for rehire. If you actually said the shit you say you did then you are worthy of a lawsuit. wow. You tried to fuck him, your not allowed to do that.. even if they deserve it.

The problem was all with you in this case...

[Boltfan]

Not to go off topic...

No one ever goes off topic here

Many companies adhere to a policy of only stating whether or not someone is eligible for rehire. So to say you aren't "allowed" to state anything else is not factual. You can say whatever you like. When it comes to whether or not the wronged party can bring a lawsuit they would have to claim damages based upon "false" information being given to a potential employer. If he quit, and he put in writing or made statements as to why he quit, he would have a very hard time receiving damages because they simply repeated it. Furthermore, in the state of Texas rulings are very employer friendly. If we were talking about California on the other hand, the employer would likely be screwed.

[Jackie S]

The entire episode was quite a bit more complicated than I can write here, my whole point was the man quit, we did not fire him.

Yes, we were wrong in relaying the conditions of his departure, and there could have been consequences. But there were none. Probably because we stuck with the facts.

In reality, this is one of the few instances where we have ever had a problem with an employee. We pay top dollar, give top benefits, and for the past decade, aside from that one man, we have had no instances of disgruntled employees.

[candymansd]

That's scary to read, a lot of blue collar hourly workers manage to live well working over 40 hours a week. This would be a tough blow to the average worker. Not everyone is a college educated, salaried employee

Originally Posted by Jackie S

He did not say if he was giving plenty of overtime to the Employees he has now.

I look for the next big thing for the Democrats to push is penalizing Companies do have enough work to warrant more employees, but instead of hiring new people, they give their existing Employees considerable overtime.

They could do this by taxing any wage that is over the standard 40 hour week at a substantially higher rate. When the cost of overtime finally was more than the cost of employing someone, business's would hire more workers.

Of course, the men who are now enjoying the benefits of the overtime won't be happy.

The big unreported secret out there is many small businesses are doing just this. We hired one young man this year, a trade school graduate, but at this time it is much more profitable for us to just give our existing employees lots of overtime, we have been on 6 days, 10 hours a day for almost two years. It's a win-win, we don't have to hassle with someone new, we don't have to pay the health insurance of another employee, we don't have to pay the matching social security and other withholdings of another employee, and we don't have to worry about some dead beat just quitting and then we have to pay the matching unemployment benefits. The win for our employees is they get to enjoy a substantially better lifestyle.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by SkylarCruzWantsYou

I think a lot of people both Democrats and Republicans do this, they take the information they receive from the media at face value and run with it without doing their own research to back up the claim. If his company is doing fine and he doesn't feel the need to hire more employee's , there is nothing wrong with that. But if he is hurting, don't shoot yourself in the foot and try to put the blame on someone else.

I am tired of politics really, it has morphed from "How can me make things better?" to "Who's to blame for this shit." That is not the way to make progressive and grow as a country.

So your not just hot. I agree that there is entirely to much of people taking statements and creating solutions to back up their position even if it is illogical. Any business owner I know makes hiring decisions based on if the additional employee will improve their profit or possibly quality of life. It is fair to say government regulations or potential expenses will impact that decision but generic statements about Obama being out of office will make the difference is way to simplistic. Congress has a big role to play in this as well.

With that being said I sympathize with the business owners sentiments about Obama's failure to understand the economy and what the government should do to improve it.

[Sensia]

Originally Posted by Boltfan

BigLouie,

Cite your source if you are going to copy and paste.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/not-hiring-obama-gone

[Boltfan]

Is that what we have come to now? It is my job to determine if he is committing plagarism?

[CuteOldGuy]

It's a thankless job, Bolt, but someone has to do it.