Mitt Loses: Coal Co. Firing Workers

[Covenant]

It's really understandable to see how businesses and business leaders slip into these thought-bubbles, especially when they look at the big picture so much and see how the cost per-pizza going up 11 cents is going to cut into their price-dropping measures. I mean, from the taste of them, Papa Johns is already making their pizzas using sawdust crust and rat-milk cheese, so the pennies or fractions of pennies they've saved per-pizza and felt tremendously good about have to look pretty small compared to the colossal 11-14 whole fucking cents that they need to increase costs by. It's like a swimmer being requred to wear actual swim trunks and seeing his times go down 3 seconds. May not seem like much to us but it adds up.

That said, this cannot be good PR and I think it's pretty crazy to think people wouldn't pay an extra 11-14 cents for a shitty Papa John's pizza. Every time I go out I end up tipping the people there far more than I feel like and every time I go to Taco Bell because I'm picking my GF from the Theatre at 2:00 in the morning I pay a dollar for their "Feed Someone Somewhere or Something" campaign and I don't bat an eye. If Papa Johns had a "Pay a Quarter to Support your Local Pizzeria" on every pizza I think people would go "Sure, I'll support them," and 25 cents is 11+14 cents so why not. Hell, I'll pay a dollar to support seven employees especially if it gets me a punch on a punch card or something. Bam! Now you've gone from making it a PR disaster or whiny little baby-fit to a positive way to handle his rich man's diaper baby tantrum and also a good way to encourage people to come back. People fuckin' love punch cards.

Honestly, It is already probably one of the worst Pizzas I've ever had the misfortune of eating, and among the over-priced in terms of general price-to-pizza ratio, so they can't be hurting that badly in terms of profit margin. His competition will be doing the same thing he will, so it should all even out anyway, unless he acknowledges that all his competitors are all going to take under-handed methods of screwing their employees out of benefits and he doesn't want to allow an Asshole Gap--which is pretty damned vile.

Before I went entirely self-employed my jobs would ask me to be on-call, short-term notice, and always available. When I worked more than 40 hours a week they got mad if I reported it and repeatedly instructed me to doctor the books by moving the hours around until I never had a timesheet with more than 30 hours on it.

At one point I had about 100+ hours on the "Pay me later" sheet so I wasn't called in for a bit and got paid to stay home. It's insanity. I would have rather been working, but they'd rather pay me not to work so long as I don't get any benefits.

Businesses complain about low retention rates, lack of employee loyalty... and well, I think they don't have to look far to see how the current culture of job-hopping got started. They also trumpet the value of competition in a Free Market blah blah, but as soon as you ask them to compete in a system that also doesn't fuck over their workers they complain. Well shit, if it's just a race to the top for the corporation, and the thing that's standing in their way isn't competition but worker's compensation then I'm really fucking sorry for them but part of the ground-rules for doing business in America should be that you're not allowed to use your employees as disposable machinery.

[Sidewinder]

It would be just as legal for him to say "my favorite baseball team lost the world series - I'm firing 150 people in protest". And yes, that IS perfectly legal under US law. It's stupid and asinine but it's legal.

Additionally, in related news, other companies are following suit to lay off people or cut hours in response to Obama's reelection, with some businesses even targeting people they think voted for Obama's reelection.

With shit like this going on, it's a miracle the US hasn't had a Communist revolution.

[Edi]

It would be just as legal for him to say "my favorite baseball team lost the world series - I'm firing 150 people in protest". And yes, that IS perfectly legal under US law. It's stupid and asinine but it's legal.

Additionally, in related news, other companies are following suit to lay off people or cut hours in response to Obama's reelection, with some businesses even targeting people they think voted for Obama's reelection.

With shit like this going on, it's a miracle the US hasn't had a Communist revolution.

Do you have anything but useless one-liner spam to contribute to this discussion? Anyone who is even remotely conversant with US politics knows that actual communist ideas are a complete non-starter since half the body politic already considers several ideas that work in a free market situation to be communism if they are not far enough to the right to their liking.

Please just fucking cut the crap.

[Simon_Jester]

I agree with Edi- look at it like this.

Communist revolutions start in countries where the masses are starving rural peasants, usually in a war zone. Russia had to go through total military disaster in World War One to get there. China had to go through a civil war and Japanese invasion.

There has never been a communist revolution in a prosperous or developed country. Why? Because people don't decide to risk getting their heads blown off in a war against the status quo. Not unless the status quo is already trying to kill them. Which, in the US, it isn't. "Overworked" is not the same thing as "worked to death." "Lack of health insurance" is not the same thing as "starvation."

Nobody signs on for a revolutionary overthrow of society as they know it without one heck of a good reason.

But I think there's this weird fringe of first-world leftists who just don't get this for some reason. Or seem not to get it here.

[Zaune]

There has never been a communist revolution in a prosperous or developed country. Why? Because people don't decide to risk getting their heads blown off in a war against the status quo. Not unless the status quo is already trying to kill them. Which, in the US, it isn't. "Overworked" is not the same thing as "worked to death." "Lack of health insurance" is not the same thing as "starvation."

The word "yet" springs to mind, but maybe that's just because I'm a cynical bastard.

[Simon_Jester]

I suspect that you can't work a predominantly white-collar population to death; the labor just isn't physically exhausting enough. And that you can't really cause starvation in a civilization where agricultural efficiency is as high as in the Western world; it's just too damn easy to grow the crops.

There's a small percentage of people in the developed world who may be in personal danger of death because 'the system' didn't provide for them. But I don't expect to see governments breaking down to the level where large scale peasant uprisings can happen. That requires normal citizens to make a calculated decision that spending many months fighting a civil war against a heavily armed government is safer than returning to their normal lives and working like things were normal.

[Lord Zentei]

And that's even more true when YOU, personally, are a great example of the theory's ideal success story. The average CEO would probably love to believe that corporate executives are automatically the best at running everything, and that the market will fix everything. If such theories are true, then the CEO can feel good about being one of the greatest heroes of the free world. If they're not, then the CEO might have to question the justice and wisdom of his own actions. No one likes doing that.

Yeah, no one is claiming what you are implying. The concept is as follows: the free market causes stupid behaviour to punish itself in a karmic manner. In particular, that includes sub-optimal decisions like firing workers for arbitrary reasons. The idea that the free market trends to more optimal solutions does NOT hinge on the fact that CEOS are magically more brilliant than others, but that a CEO who does sub-optimal things suffers for his own stupidity.

The caveat is that smart behaviour and optimization is not always humanitarian. But as far as the story in the OP is concerned, that's not the problem that we're talking about since the CEO in question was not optimizing his efficiency, but being a vindictive little dick.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I suspect that you can't work a predominantly white-collar population to death; the labor just isn't physically exhausting enough.

What about mental exhaustion? You can have white collar jobs where the hours are long enough and the pressure is high enough that it causes mental breakdown and suicide; can that scale up to mass levels if it's turned up?

[LadyTevar]

Okay, how can he possibly justify the layoffs as a result of the election?

Strictly speaking, he doesn't have to justify them at all. He's the CEO and all states involved are presumably employment at will states. In "at will" states (pretty much all of them) an employer can fire anyone he wants for any reason he wants (outside of a very few exceptions).

It would be just as legal for him to say "my favorite baseball team lost the world series - I'm firing 150 people in protest". And yes, that IS perfectly legal under US law. It's stupid and asinine but it's legal.

It helps that the miners he's laying off work at Non-Union mines. WV is not an 'at will' state to my knowledge, but a lot of dirty shit goes down wherever the miners are not UMWA. They have the most violations, the most fines, and the worst safety scores, but miners who complain are laid off. These are also the mines most likely to be idled whenever the Baron has a bad day.

[Knife]

It is ironic that some of those workers being laid off are from Utah, a enormously red state that voted pretty much 66% for Romney.

[Ahriman238]

Yes, Obama has spoke out and acted against coal, in fact his 2008 campaign made an explicit call to bankrupt the coal industry with cap and trade on CO2. That of course did not happen because it would have to be an act of congress, but under his administration the EPA has attempted to impose a number of major reductions on allowable non CO2 emissions on coal plants. Most of that has not been implemented because it is still tied up in court, or was already ruled illegal extensions of EPA power, but now he has another four years to keep trying.

Meanwhile use is down around IIRC 9% in the last five years, but this is almost entirely because of very low cost natural gas from fracking, and is is projected to loose another 9% of tonnage consumption in the next ten years from the same reason, all totally independent of enhanced environmental policies which could see reductions in addition to this. The power companies don't really seem to care either, you can build a fairly high (though not equal) capacity brand new gas turbine plant for the kind of money it takes to upgrade the emissions controls on a typical old coal fired plant. When you add cheaper fuel on top of that, and reduced maintenance costs, and the best possible startup-shutdown times of any form of power plant other then hydro, it makes precious little sense to upgrade coal even to meet current emissions standards. Meanwhile construction of new coal plants, while going along, certainly isn't picking up ground.

Natural gas fired gas turbines do really well in terms of CO2 emissions too, something its like 1 carbon atom per 20 hydrogen atoms, vs 2 carbon per 1 hydrogen for brown coal on average.. plus higher thermal efficiency, so the companies don't have to worry about a possible future cap and trade regime either. Solar, yeah that might happen, but right now the power industry is much more focused on natural gas fired plants as its future. It could change, but right now natural gas is so cheap the drilling companies are actually going bankrupt from the depressed price and inability to get it out of the state of Pennsylvania quickly enough. I dunno how the other fracking centers are doing on that note.

I stand corrected. Obama is against coal. Still don't think having an anti-coal president alone justifies the layoffs.

[Broomstick]

It would be just as legal for him to say "my favorite baseball team lost the world series - I'm firing 150 people in protest". And yes, that IS perfectly legal under US law. It's stupid and asinine but it's legal.

He's the CEO of a private company, but he's still required to obey the company charter, which is almost certainly to maximise returns to shareholders. Unless he has a majority shareholding, he can be voted out of the CEO position if he pisses off the shareholders enough. If he blatantly sacrifices the future profitability of the company for personal reasons he would be liable for prosecution by even minor shareholders for breech of fiduciary duty (in failing to execute the company charter and look after their interests). Not relevant in this case since the layoffs were happening anyway and the election-related grandstanding is just irrelevant hot air.

In the US anyone can sue you for any reason - it's irrelevant to my point that in an at-will state it is (outside of a very few protected categories) legal to fire an employee for ANY reason, or no reason whatsoever. An employer doesn't have to justify firing an individual under the law.

Unless you can PROVE that his firing of these people is detrimental to the company any suit against him is baseless.

[Block]

It would be just as legal for him to say "my favorite baseball team lost the world series - I'm firing 150 people in protest". And yes, that IS perfectly legal under US law. It's stupid and asinine but it's legal.

He's the CEO of a private company, but he's still required to obey the company charter, which is almost certainly to maximise returns to shareholders. Unless he has a majority shareholding, he can be voted out of the CEO position if he pisses off the shareholders enough. If he blatantly sacrifices the future profitability of the company for personal reasons he would be liable for prosecution by even minor shareholders for breech of fiduciary duty (in failing to execute the company charter and look after their interests). Not relevant in this case since the layoffs were happening anyway and the election-related grandstanding is just irrelevant hot air.

In the US anyone can sue you for any reason - it's irrelevant to my point that in an at-will state it is (outside of a very few protected categories) legal to fire an employee for ANY reason, or no reason whatsoever. An employer doesn't have to justify firing an individual under the law.

Unless you can PROVE that his firing of these people is detrimental to the company any suit against him is baseless.

That is not correct. Contract law within the US states that even if you're in an at-will state, all published guidelines such as an employee handbook must be followed on the part of the employee and the employer. So any company that has a handbook or memos regarding behaviour or anything written at all, and technically it doesn't have to be written it can even be a reasonable expectation of behaviour based on previous patterns, can't just fire someone for no reason. A layoff is fine in almost all cases, but that does leave the company vunerable to having its methods questioned in open court as well.

[Broomstick]

That is not correct. Contract law within the US states that even if you're in an at-will state, all published guidelines such as an employee handbook must be followed on the part of the employee and the employer. So any company that has a handbook or memos regarding behaviour or anything written at all, and technically it doesn't have to be written it can even be a reasonable expectation of behaviour based on previous patterns, can't just fire someone for no reason.

Incorrect. That only applies to at-will states that also recognize implied contract. 13 states do not recognize that: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia. In those states a published employee handbook,.memos, "expectations", etc. does NOT provide an implied contract and, again, and employer can fire you for any goddmaned reason he/she cares to give, or no reason at all.

In other words, as usual, the law varies depending on which US state you reside or work in.

[Block]

That is not correct. Contract law within the US states that even if you're in an at-will state, all published guidelines such as an employee handbook must be followed on the part of the employee and the employer. So any company that has a handbook or memos regarding behaviour or anything written at all, and technically it doesn't have to be written it can even be a reasonable expectation of behaviour based on previous patterns, can't just fire someone for no reason.

Incorrect. That only applies to at-will states that also recognize implied contract. 13 states do not recognize that: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia. In those states a published employee handbook,.memos, "expectations", etc. does NOT provide an implied contract and, again, and employer can fire you for any goddmaned reason he/she cares to give, or no reason at all.

In other words, as usual, the law varies depending on which US state you reside or work in.

Nope. A handbook or memo is an express written contract and MUST be followed in all states. Implied is when both parties act like one is in place without it ever being written, so the reasonable expectation part may not apply, but any sort of written code of conduct becomes a contract, it's part of why they make people sign them so that they can show proof that the employee was made aware of the standards.

[Broomstick]

No, kid, it does NOT apply in those 13 states I listed. It's been tested in their state courts. It doesn't apply. All your bleating about "contract law" does not change the fact that in those 13 states an employee handbook is NOT a contract.

[Soontir C'boath]

How about one or both of you provide the law/regulation stating your case, already?

[Broomstick]

How about a court case?

In Matagorda County Hospital District, Petitioner v Christine Burwell the Texas Court of Civil Appeals upheald the judgement of a lower court that provisions in an employee handbook did not alter the "at will" status of employments, meaning the employer could dismiss an employee for any reason and, despite what the employee handbook said, no cause need be given.

[Knife]

In Utah, a right to work State, most employee handbooks actually spell out and say that anything written in that book should not be constituted as a contract between said employer and employee.

[The Yosemite Bear]

makes me happy to live in Cali, even though there's still the lawsuit against Hyatt, over sexual harrassment of union shop stewards (two middleaged hispanic stewards found flyers of their heads photoshopped onto playboy pics.)

[Ritterin Sophia]

They have the most violations, the most fines, and the worst safety scores, but miners who complain are laid off.

I know that's the reason my dad gave for not putting in his bossing papers or apply to instruct safety at Brody Mining; as much as I might begrudge him for many things I do admire that despite a mining engineering degree from Tech, being a certified safety instructor, and thirty years in the industry he'd rather work as a black hat belt inspector than stake his reputation on a mine like that.

[LadyTevar]

They have the most violations, the most fines, and the worst safety scores, but miners who complain are laid off.

I know that's the reason my dad gave for not putting in his bossing papers or apply to instruct safety at Brody Mining; as much as I might begrudge him for many things I do admire that despite a mining engineering degree from Tech, being a certified safety instructor, and thirty years in the industry he'd rather work as a black hat belt inspector than stake his reputation on a mine like that.

I don't blame your dad one bit. There's better things to risk your neck and livelihood over, especially since he'd be the fall guy for whatever fucked up shit the Mine Owners pulled.

[K. A. Pital]

But as far as the story in the OP is concerned, that's not the problem that we're talking about since the CEO in question was not optimizing his efficiency, but being a vindictive little dick.

To be fair, if the selection process demands certain features that people who routinely beave like dicks without remorse or empathy (we call them psychopaths), then in the CEO's own world efficiency and general assholinshness would be tightly connected. His critical thinking skills which have been discussed in the thread so far have little to do with it.

However, none of this applies to this guy, who is a fundie retard. Which means he's not a smart dickhead, he's a dumb dickhead, an idiot essentially. Anybody who ends with this:

Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corporation for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build.

Is in the cuckoo land, and that's clear.

Why are people in this thread making global statements about things based on the actions of a crazy asshole?