One wonders? A WARN Act warning?

CEO threatens layoffs if Obama gets reelected

Big Bad CEO threatens to fire workers

Ok, the above links provide differing views of the chief executive officer of a company that sells time shares and hosts resorts who e-mailed his employees, presenting them with a stark view of the future. His employees were told that should President Barack Obama be re-elected, he may be forced to lay off employees in order to be able to afford the taxes and other requirements that the Obama Administration has indicated it wants to implement. Obviously, if Mitt Romney is elected, the chances of those taxes and other requirements being implemented go do, and hence their jobs might not be at risk.

In a sense, the business person, whose business employs some 7,000 workers, might just be following the dictates of the WARN Act that requires employers over a certain number of workers to give at least 60 days warning to their employees if they are planning any large layoffs. You know, the law that the Labor Department under President Obama told defense contractors they could ignore. They are considering issuing such warnings because the sequestration of the federal funds that will go into effect Jan. 2, if a budget deal isn’t made.

Now the company, which happens to be the largest privately-held company of its kind in its field, is drawing flak from people who don’t like it when companies oppose President Obama. They think it is unfair.

Well, sorry folks, but it is a privately-held company. There is no law that says the owner(s) of that company can’t shut the doors if they feel it is necessary. Now, under the WARN Act, they can’t do it tomorrow, but they could do it in 60 days. But then again, how many companies in the current economic world actually have just shut their doors and given up. Quite a few, I imagine. That happens in a recession and we have been in a big one.

So, the CEO made it clear he wasn’t telling his employees whom to vote for. He only was warning them that should Obama be reelected, the company would be forced to downsize in order to meet the increased overhead.

Now, I know this gets the progressives, like those people at the Huffington Posts, panties in a wad, but when did we start requiring employers to employ people. Oh, I know that those under union contracts do have certain obligations, and we do seem to be requiring our governments to employ more and more people, along with paying people who can’t or out of work a stipend in order to permit them to survive.

I am not knocking that per se, since I am myself disabled and get some of that money, but then I was working for the government and you know all those rights those government workers have. You can accuse me of hypocrisy, but look: I am playing by the rules and did pay into the system for 40 years before my health collapsed. So, it is not really hypocrisy to point out that maybe the system needs to be changed. Granted, the government did screw me over big time, but that is only from my perspective.

Now, I have no problem with an employer warning his employees of the unfortunate political realities out there. It may not be a pretty picture, but at least it is being honest.

So, two points to the CEO for at least being boldly honest. You do know that he still does have that right and will, until the progressives make it a crime to shut a business down because the overhead has eaten up the profits. Remember, the world is supposed to be non-profit and it should be to each according to their indefinable and unlimited needs and from each according to the their maximum but necessarily limited efforts.