questionsis it right for employers to fire you becauseā€¦


I think it's fair, simply because an employer should have the right to rebalance his/her employee levels as needed. Though I was under the impression ultimately the concern here was Obamacare & further taxes that will be levied as a direct result, not strictly the president's reelection. Personally I'm happier employers are being honest about the costs and having to rebalance instead of lying about it - I like the more transparent society and business decision process than the more opaque. And let's be clear here - employment is by no means a right, as many people that work for themselves will happily tell you as they boss themselves around.

Though of course, everyone has the right to not like the reason, and not do business with an establishment that doesn't suit their personal beliefs/practices, and I fully support you if that's your decision. Goodness knows I do the same thing.


The reason someone owns a company is not to provide employment options, benefits, or tax revenue, they own a company to make MONEY, pure and simple. In this instance it was well known ahead of the election that if Obama won and his health care tax and his regulations were allowed to continue forward the business community would react accordingly. The warnings have been in place since the healthcare tax was passed in 2010
and new this week


It really depends. If they're arguing that Obama won and it's going to have such and such proposed negative consequences and they can back it up, then yes. Totally fair. If it's more or less just political though, saying Obama won and they're unhappy and because of that you're fired, that's probably not okay.


I don't think businesses are using the firing of employees to punish people for voting for Obama. I think they foresee a large increase to the cost of full time employees, so they are trimming who they can. Spending and taxing in an attempt to achieve prosperity is not exactly helpful to small businesses.

Does it suck? Yes. Do we need to find a way to make sure people have access to affordable care/food/housing, yes. Until we do, we'll see a lot of experimentation that goes sideways.

As to whether it's fair or not? Probably not. Not fair to anyone involved.


Business exist to make money. When the cost of business goes up, then cuts have to be made somewhere. Sometimes all that is left to cut is headcount.

If the employer needs to reduce headcount to survive, anticipating increasing costs of business due to higher taxes and obamacare, isn't it better that some headcount is cut so that the company survives rather than the employer keeps everyone on and in the ed goes out of business with unsustainable costs?

BTW while growing their businesses many small business owners take little or no salary themselves pouring what profit they have back into their business.


There are way more companies than those listed that have started laying people off.
I would expect many more as we end this calendar year.

Some of the reason defense contractors are laying workers off now is due to the Obama administration asking them to hold off with layoff notices until after the election.


@miquinn: Thank you. I can feel my jaw unclenching as I type. :) As for the OP, anything meaningful that I might add has already been mentioned above me.


Joh Schnatter AKA "PAPA JOHN" lives in a 40,000 square foot CASTLE with a 22 car garage, private golf course and a private lake.......with a DRAW BRIDGE. He says the Afforable Care Act will increase his business costs and will result in hours being cut, because he can't afford the 14 cents per pizza to cover the employee healthcare costs......REALLY?????


Business have a right to do what's necessary to stay in business.

I agree with some of the news reports that the employment picture will change to more part-time employees rather than full-time employees due to the requirements of Obamacare for full-time employees.

It's not unlike the shift in the 90s (?) to using temporary/contract employees to manage peaks rather than hiring full-time staff.


@thunderthighs: I'm hoping for more outsourcing to one man S corps like myself. I do not have to carry workers comp or general liability (just E&O) and the company(s) contracting to me do not have to pay benefits. Keeps the costs down all around.


Papa John Schatter took the risks opening his business and he is reaping the rewards of his hard work and risk taking. He started with exactly one store and a ton of personal debt to start his business.

You have the same opportunity as he did. That is what America offers opportunity. Not guarantee of success or outcome.

You have no right to complain about Schatter's success and demand that because he's made a ton of money he has to pay more taxes or keep on employees. His success has been based on making the right moves at the right time and being aware of the ever changing business climate.

By the way Papa John has given a ton of money away too. Off the top of my head he gave $10 million dollars away to UofL to build their football stadium. He has been very very good to the city of Louisville.


@hessem: I agree with the first half. I disagree with the second. Anyone has the right to complain about anything just as you have the right to complain about their complaint.


Show me numbers that prove this is not a political temper tantrum and I will begin patronizing these businesses again. Until then, I see millionaires using their employees as hostages in national discourse, and that is reprehensible. Without those employees, it doesn't matter how many risks you took or how hard you worked, you'd just be another small business struggling to survive in an ever-incorporating world.

I'm not saying this to be contrary, real figures on this would actually change my mind.


Here's the thing: Obamacare is terrible. It's a ridiculous stop-gap measure that won't do much of anything. But: if we had genuine national healthcare, NO BUSINESS WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ITS EMPLOYEES. I've never understood why businesses (except for the health insurance industry) are so against it. It would save them so much money in the long run. Didn't Nixon want a national health care plan back in the '60's?

Anyway, this is the United States and you do can what you want to, for the most part, with your money and your time. If a company wants to fire employees, more power to them. If it's a company I patronize, I may choose to no longer do so. But I would never argue that they have an obligation to keep anyone on staff on principle. Honestly, they're probably just firing full-time people because the economy's crap and they can pick up good people part-time, cheaply, and taking the opportunity to blame the President.


I don't want national healthcare because the government has no business making decisions for my body and with national healthcare my body is their business. Hands off my body just like hands off my reproductive rights.

Obamacare is enough government intrusion. Each of us will get a new government healthcare ID number and have an additional tax form to file on account of the insurance requirement.

Hands off my healthcare.


I think it is childish for businesses to say, "The election didn't go the way I wanted it to so I am cutting my workforce." They don't have any obligation to make any public statement about their reason for workforce reduction, but if they want people to respect their reason, then it should be fact-based rather than "the bogey man is still under the bed". So if the minimal cost increase related to national healthcare is the reason for the cuts, so be it. But regardless of whether you want to blame a singe man for it or recognize that it is a whole lot more complex than that, the economy is in the crapper. Odds are employers would be cutting jobs regardless of who won the election. I feel these are business decisions they would have made either way , but they see it as an opportunity to be sore losers in the national news. It's an indictment of our political environment that people actually want that kind of press.


@hessem: Nationalized health care is a minimum level of care that everybody gets. If you don't like the minimum, then you buy private insurance that you control. If you don't like what the government will pay for, then you get your insurance to pay for it. That's the way places like the UK do it - the NHS is the single payer for most things, but you have open options.

I can't understand why the business community in the US is so incredibly stupid about this. If they supported a similar system, it'd remove the costs from their backs.

An example of how well the UK system works: while on a trip there, my daughter got sick. We saw a doctor who took care of her. When I asked how much I owed, his response was that he had no idea and no way to collect even if he wanted to. Rather than paying him per procedure, he's paid a salary, meaning that useless "tests" aren't done just to increase his income. That lowers costs for everyone (see the Kaiser model in the US, for example.)


rhmurphy: I'm glad your daughter is fine. The cost for your daughter's care was passed on to the government (i.e. taxpayers) even if you didn't pay for it. Healthcare is not free.

I know a US college student (a relative) who currently lives in The Netherlands. He's had diarrhea since he arrived in August. 4 months of daily diarrhea. Went to the NHS clinic about the diarrhea. No treatment. They say he's not sick enough.

Neighbor got sick on a cruise so bad she had to be deboarded in Finland. Admitted to the hospital, given an IV 8 hours a day. Why not 24 hours a day as in the US? Their NHS only allows for 8 hours a day of fluids and nutrition. She got sicker and was asked about her end of life plans. She requested to be flown back to the US at her expense. She's fully recovered.

Friends of from Sweden lived for two years here in the states. They were amazed at how quickly their son was seen at the hospital, saying it is nothing to wait 8 hours to be seen in the hospital in Sweden.


Throwing another example of the disaster that is an NHS system onto the fire:

No thanks.