Remember back, several columns ago when I said that 72% of small business owners wanted Romney to win the presidency? Well, I don’t know if you know this, but he didn’t win, and the effects of Romney’s loss are only beginning in the business world.
In my last column, I noted that a business man, named Frank Duffy had said that he would invest $50,000 into new hiring if Romney were elected, because he had confidence in a Romney economic recovery. Otherwise, he would not invest such an amount.
The trend is continuing. Today, a small business owner in Nevada, who employs 114 people, fired 22 of his staff. He claims that his reasoning behind the layoffs was because of the higher health insurance costs imposed by Obamacare. With those costs, he can no longer employ as many people and still keep his business thriving.
In a radio interview, he said this:
“I’ve
done my share of educating my employees. I never tell them which way to
vote. I believe in the free system we have, I believe in the right to
choose who they want to be president, but I did explain as a business
owner that I have always put my employees first. I always made sure that
when I went without a paycheck that [I] made sure they were paid. And I
explained that I always put them first and unfortunately I’m at a point
where I’m being forced to have to worry about me and my family now and a
business that I built from just me to 114 employees.
“I
explained to them a month ago that if Obama gets in office that the
regulations for Obamacare are gonna hurt our business, and I’m gonna
have to make provisions to make sure I have enough money to cover the
payroll taxes, the additional health care I’m gonna have to do, and I
explained that to them and I said you do what you feel like in your
heart you need to do, but I’m just letting you know as a warning this is
things I have to think of as a business owner.
“I
had to lay off 22 people today to make sure that my business is gonna
thrive and I’m gonna be around for years to come. I have to build up
that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way.
Elections do have consequences, but so do choices. A choice you make
every day has consequences and you know what, I’ve always put my
employees first, but unfortunately today I have to put me and my family
first, and you watch what’s gonna happen. I’m just one guy with 114
employees — well was 114 employees — watch what happens in the next six
months. The Dow alone lost 314 points today. There’s a tsunami coming
and if you didn’t think this election had consequences, just wait.”
More @ Last Resistance
As a businessman, this is something I don't get. If you can get by without those employees, why aren't you more efficient in the first place? I could see firing them all and liquidating the company's assets and expatriating, but I don't understand how the above action could actually help the company's bottom line. If companies are seen doing this out of spite, it's going to lend more credence to the notion that business owners are greedy. This is going to backfire for many.
ReplyDeleteWIII
Obviously, private enterprise is more efficient than government, but when push comes to shove, you give those who want to do more than is expected of them, the right to stay, and those that don't, go. That's the way I would handle it. Now, if this was a *government office, I would use 50%. Another words, those who want to stay would be expected to pick up the workload of the other half and the first 1/2 who put up their hands stay, the rest go.
ReplyDelete*I was a funds manager for the government for many years.
Anonymous, what is wrong with you, all of you with this belief. I keep seeing this statement over and over. At what point did PRIVATE for profit capital enterprise become social work or welfare? PRIVATE enterprise is created to make a profit, that is its SOLE purpose. It is not Easter Seals, the Salvation Army or Goodwill. If that profit is threatened, that enterprise realigns itself to absorb the threat and continue its SOLE purpose. You're a businessman? Really? Greedy? Good god, take an econ class. The government will pay for it and you might understand "how the above action could actually help the company's bottom line." This country operates on capitalism. The laws on the books, at least for now, primarily protect that capitalism. There are no laws, for now, allowing socialism over capitalism, for the most part; therefore, no matter how many "orders" the government issues, PRIVATE enterprise and the citizens of this country still, at this point, can say no and operate as they have prior to this election. You cannot force socialistic ideals onto a capitalistic society. It is not going to work. Additionally, with the checks and balances still in place in Washington on both sides, there will continue to be a stalemate and we are ALL going to suffer economically for many, many years to come. It is you, and all those like you, not the government, that horrify me the most.
ReplyDelete