I wonder if the 22 who he fired had Democratic leanings.

Sure he did. Mr. Snuggles, Muffin, Winky, Dr. Bobo and the rest of the stuffed animals were devastated, but he just couldn't afford to sew on any more button eyes or keep the doll hospital open any longer.

Englebert Slaptyback: Right to work = employer can fire an employee for any reason as long as that reason is not related to any of a number of protected classes

Examples:

a) firing an employee specifically for being handicapped, gay, straight, black, white, etc is illegal

b) firing an employee for being late, wearing brown shoes, whining, or because someone got elected is not illegal

If these firings actually happened (which is highly suspect) then they ostensibly fell under b).

Um, no.

What you're describing is "at-will employment," which is what you are pretty much anywhere in the US if you don't have a contract. You can quit for any reason, and you can be fired for virtually any reason (including no reason at all).

"Right to work" is the euphemism that stands in for anti-union laws. If your state makes it difficult or impossible to form a union, or for your union to collect dues, or for your union to spend the dues it collects, you live in a "right to work" state.

The reason you might be confused is that for most of us, joining a union is the only thing keeping us from "at-will employment."

Wook: LOL @ you farkers. You guys doing the criticizing are obviously all successful businessmen that have built companies from the ground up....

Back in he real world.... My friend has 17 employees. He was planning to purchase 200K in equipment and hire 3 more people. However, his premiums to pay for Obamacare for his employees rose 40%. He is not hiring the 3 people and he's not buying the new equipment.

Elections do have consequences.

Go ahead and proudly wear your ignorance on your lapel and /mock away.

Your friend needs to fire his accountant.

If he was planning on hiring three more employees and buy $200,000 in new equipment, it's because he was planning on getting more business where that new equipment and these new hires would more than pay for themselves, or else he wouldn't have made that investment in the first place.

Also, the insurance premiums going up 40% means they went from being 5% of an employee's salary to being 7% of an employee's salary, or something equivalent.

If he's willing to forego $300,000 in increased revenues over a 2% increase in expenses, he's a moron.

Godscrack: The Butthurt Remains The Same
And Butthurt Goes On
Endless Butthurt
Whole Lotta Butthurt
Smells Like Teen Butthurt

Butthurt and Confused

So for those of you keeping track at home, it's now:

Obamacare - 22
Global Economic Meltdown Caused By Mega-Banks Playing Fast And Loose With The Subprime Mortgage Markets: 2.6 million

We'll be right back after this brief message from Bank of America.

Well the good thing about B-Rock the Islamic Shock being re-elected? While the market has been tanking, my stock in Ruger rose 4 bucks a share!

way south: What the US has now bears little resemblance to a free market.

Don't bother.

HAMMERTOE: mccallcl: Good. Forcing somebody else to pay for your Health care is more important than equipment. If he can't afford to provide insurance for the employees he already has then he shouldn't be hiring new ones.

Shouldn't the Affordable Healthcare Act have actually done something to make healthcare more affordable, rather than just shuffle money around as usual, all the while absorbing a good chunk of it to grease the government's wheels?

Every time the government gets involved in an enterprise, the cost of goods or services associated with that enterprise escalate. Watch and see.

You mean like limiting insurance companies profits, making them refund excessive administration costs to the insured, capping premium increases, reforming medicare, creating exchanges to allow for more easily selection of plans forcing more competition between companies, requiring insurance so providers have to pick up less in unpaid treatments (which get passed on to everyone else with more overhead costs added), and requiring the plans available to actually cover shiat so people aren't paying into scam plans that do nothing? Just to name a few. God damn you people go straight from 'why don't they make health care more affordable' to 'every private company won't be able to provide healthcare are the reduced cost' so fast, PICK ONE.

BgJonson79: In what way?

Jesus, dude, the difference is 3 people, not 20 people. Likewise, an employer can reduce pay to balance out benefit contributions... but no it is all "OMG nothing's changed I have to fire half of my staff!"