Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
If rage firings do happen, hopefully there will be organization out there to form new companies from the firings that take advantage of the free market. A company that fires workers for no reason, terrifying the rest into seeking safer employment, seems inherently less fit for any industry.
Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?![]()
![]()
![]()
Too bad it either won't get reported or people won't care. Then there will also be those that think this behavior is justified.
My message would be for them to lower their fucking pay a little if they think their company doesn't make enough money.
![]()
?
I think the word you're looking for is fascist. Nothing about this strikes me as communistic since they don't even have private enterprise to begin with.
edited 18th Oct '12 7:20:42 PM by Kostya
Looking at Murray's Wikipedia page I found this quote by him:
"We produce a product that is essential to the standard of living of every American because our coal produces 52% of the energy in America today, and it is the lowest cost energy, costing 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of energy from natural gas, nuclear and renewable energy resources. And without coal to manufacture electricity our products will not compete in the global marketplace against foreign countries because our manufacturers depend on coal, low cost electricity and people on fixed incomes will not be able to pay their electric bills. Every one of those global warming bills that have been introduced into Congress today eliminates the coal industry and will increase your electric rates, four to five fold."
While I believe Murray is grossly exaggerating his claims that global warming legislation will kill the coal industry, his claims hold some legitimacy in that most Global Warming Legislature does hurt the coal industry in some way.
While I detest voter intimidation, its unfair to tell your employees that there job will be unaffected regardless of who becomes the president if that is not in fact the case. Oil and Coal companies should be able to tell there employees that things will probably get tougher for there company (and by extension them) if Obama is reelected president, so long as they present proof to back there claims up. Similarly the EPA and PBS can tell there employees what the effects of Romney becoming president would be since he has promised to cut the money both groups receive from the government. However the main problem is that most of allegations being made are rather outlandish if not outright lies and implied threats.
On a side-note, I personally have no sympathy for Mr. Murray due to the Crandall Canyon Mine accident.
edited 18th Oct '12 7:33:52 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
IIRC they (coal industry) were "up in arms" against Obama years ago because of some environmental policies that they ended up producing less energy for the US than before? And to offset the decrease in local demand they decided to ship coal across the Pacific and into China? So how come now they're suddenly claiming that they're "big" in the US in terms of energy production when years ago they're complaining that they're "getting small"?
Here it is.
If only he had said this:
He would at least be a slightly more reasonable jerk.
But no.
Someone please make a public fuss about these two words.
Well, some people were talking in terms of "why does the CEO's taxes matter", so that's the answer.
I'm getting sick of this discussion. People are determined to think what they want to think, and we really aren't getting anywhere, so I'm going to drop it at this point.
edited 18th Oct '12 8:09:24 PM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><If he owns it, that means the profits are his, correct? Meaning that if his taxes are raised, he had no reason for his company to be successful... except that he runs it and running it into the ground will ruin his income... er.
Then again, there's the fact that apparently we're more productive than ever and making more profits than ever due to making fewer people do more to keep their jobs, so he's just going to continue to do what everyone has been doing throughout the recession...
I'm actually curious, and interested in having a realistic discussion, about why his being owner of the company makes a difference.
Is he saying that new taxes would leave him with no take-home pay?
See, this would be odd if he were talking about personal income taxes. No tax rates are going up to 100%, or anything close; just that top-bracket rate is going up to 39%. So it would not be because of income tax increases that he'd end up with no take-home pay. Even if I assumed that his ENTIRE income is taxed at that rate, he'd still have at least 61% of his income left. Unless he's making a paltry sum—less than roughly $50,000 a year, I don't see how this is a problem. Does anyone have information on how much his salary has been? (It's gotta be somewhere out there if this is a publicly traded company...)
So he's probably talking about some other tax. Now I guess as CEO he would have the option to cut his own pay to help the company stay afloat, if need be. Is this what he's talking about? If so, what sorts of tax policy changes is he thinking of that would lead to this?
Please, no frivolous or dismissive answers. I want realistic answers.
As to Murray and coal country, Murray's company pursues a policy of coercing its employees into donating to its political endeavours...which are entirely geared towards supporting the Republican party. Citation.
(The article largely concerns the Koch brothers but there's a bit about Murray near the end)
We've had laws on voter intimidation since the 19th century. Doing it through a thin degree of separation is still doing it.
edited 18th Oct '12 8:19:08 PM by drunkscriblerian
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

Here's my message to the CEOs: I'd like to see you try, and if you do, you're an idiot, because you're harming your business by getting rid of your employees.
Not many would want to go to your business if they learn that you fired their employees for not voting your way.
edited 18th Oct '12 7:16:32 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.