• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

CEO Threatens to fire workers if Obama is reelected

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
  • The CEO of a massive timeshare company sent an email about the upcoming election to his employees yesterday, threatening to fire some of them if President Obama wins re-election.

    David Siegel, who owns Florida-based Westgate Resorts, sent an email to all his employees yesterday to discuss the upcoming election. "The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job," Siegel wrote, noting that the company is "the most profitable [it's] ever been." "What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration." He went on to say that although he "can't tell you whom to vote for," if Obama is re-elected, it would mean "fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."

    Here are a few select paragraphs from the email:

    Subject: Message from David Siegel
    Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
    From: [David Siegel]
    To: [All employees]

    To All My Valued Employees,

    As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

    However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.

    [...]

    So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

    So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

    You can view the email in full here.

    Siegel earned national notoriety this year for his quest to build the biggest house in America, "a sprawling, 90,000-square-foot mansion inspired by Versailles."

    In a bizarre twist, Siegel's email was modeled after a fake letter that made the rounds on the internet during the last presidential election. He confirmed his own email's authenticity in a phone call to Gawker, saying that "it speaks the truth" and gives employees "something to think about when they go to the polls."

    ThinkProgress reached out to Siegel for comment, but no response was given.

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/09/978211/david-siegel-fire-employees/?mobile=nc

    Full Email
    Spoiler:

    Corporate greed at it's finest peeps. He's willing to ruin the livelihoods of a lot of people, just to save himself money that he would never have a need for anyway.
     
    Last edited:
    14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • And yet half the country will still for a man much similar to this guy.


    This is also the guy from that documentary last year who built a house akin to the Versailles Palace in France. Good to see the that the big business sector is in the charge of such admirable and thoughtful men like this.
     

    LividZephyr

    Oxymoron, not a moron, thanks
    445
    Posts
    11
    Years
  • He makes sense, really, but the way he's going about it is foolhardy and appears to be greedy. He's simply pointing out that he'd need to lay off a lot of people if this administration continues, but doing so in an extremely politically-charged way that is almost forcing his employees to vote the way he wants them to. Due to its nature, I believe this is illegal. He can't tell them who to vote for, but he's telling them who NOT to vote for. Isn't that the same thing?

    I do agree that the unemployment or jobless numbers are heavily due to the current administration and its inability to do anything about it. But each person should decide for themselves - do they want another four years of this, or do they want to take a risk with Romney? Either way... it might not be pretty...
     

    Mr. X

    It's... kinda effective?
    2,391
    Posts
    17
    Years
  • Explain to me, just how higher taxes would harm him.

    He'd still be a billionaire, he'd still be making way more money then he, or any single person, would ever need. And, he'd still be able to invest money in his company and still have more spendable income then the entirety of of some towns.

    I'll tell you. It's nothing more then greed, plain and simple. All that they give a **** about is the green paper, nothing more. They will do anything to get more, even if they will never use it, and they will do anything to prevent it from leaving their bank accounts, even if they will never use it.

    Can you justify their greed?
     

    Bounsweet

    Fruit Pokémon
    2,103
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Seen Sep 17, 2018
    This part is what kills me
    However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.

    That's his cocky way of saying, "I'm telling you who to vote for, even though I'm being the 'nice-jackass' pretending to give you an option, but you really don't hahahaha."
     
    589
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Seen Mar 29, 2015
    Corporate greed at it's finest peeps.

    Finer words have never been spoken than this. People like them need to know that there are better ways to get around these problems, while still making money. Also, they really should pay attention to their profits, & if they don't lose all of it, there's very little reason to lay people off, other than the owner being greedy.
     
    14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • He makes sense, really, but the way he's going about it is foolhardy and appears to be greedy. He's simply pointing out that he'd need to lay off a lot of people if this administration continues, but doing so in an extremely politically-charged way that is almost forcing his employees to vote the way he wants them to.

    The CEO of a Billion dollar Real Estate company doesn't need to lay off anyone for "budget cuts", and The Obama Administration has nothing to do with that. Seigal had some money issues because of A, he built his business on easy money during the years before the Real Estate bubble burst (Before '08), and B, he blew a ton of capital on some ridiculous pet projects of his.

    Due to its nature, I believe this is illegal. He can't tell them who to vote for, but he's telling them who NOT to vote for. Isn't that the same thing?

    It's basically extortion.

    I do agree that the unemployment or jobless numbers are heavily due to the current administration and its inability to do anything about it. But each person should decide for themselves - do they want another four years of this, or do they want to take a risk with Romney? Either way... it might not be pretty...

    You mean the steadily falling jobless numbers, the improving economy, or how the House of Representatives blocked the Jobs Bill? (along with everything else)
     

    Mr. X

    It's... kinda effective?
    2,391
    Posts
    17
    Years
  • I'm just waiting for the lawsuits from when someone does get layed off.
     

    Riku

    Who cares to know, eh Bubbles?
    419
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Feb 22, 2021
    Another thing that should be pointed out I should think, if anyone intends on defending the man's character, is the slip of the tongue statement he made that, when pressed further upon, basically had him admit that he helped Bush win and, to quote: "...it may not necessarily have been legal."

    What the details for how he did this are, I've yet to find out, but I'm working on it. However, I felt it appropriate to tie in to the OP to further show that the man has a questionable history already. Source for it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/david-siegel-george-w-bush-election_n_1725152.html

    You can find it everywhere though I'm sure, not just Huffington.

    Now, as far as this goes, I'm pretty sure this is illegal, because to my knowledge of it, this is textbook extortion. A vote may not be a physical item, but it is still the property I would think of each individual. Threatening to fire someone in response to them not giving you their vote, or rather the group you support's vote, is straight up extortion I'd think. :/ The man is an idiot who was lucky and made his money in a boom and lost it due to his own fiscal irresponsibility (which he hasn't learned from, iirc. Pretty sure he's resuming or about to resume construction on his palace) as well as the 2008 bust, and he's taking it out on his employees. Greed and ignorance and bigotry is all it is, nothing more and nothing less, aside from the potential legal involvement that may arise from it.
     

    LividZephyr

    Oxymoron, not a moron, thanks
    445
    Posts
    11
    Years
  • The CEO of a Billion dollar Real Estate company doesn't need to lay off anyone for "budget cuts", and The Obama Administration has nothing to do with that. Seigal had some money issues because of A, he built his business on easy money during the years before the Real Estate bubble burst (Before '08), and B, he blew a ton of capital on some ridiculous pet projects of his.
    I don't like this guy, because his methods are greedy for sure. He's probably exaggerating what he'd have to do due to his own personal wealth. A lot of corporate bigshots work like this and give themselves bonuses while their employees take paychecks. I know he's a loser. I don't like him.


    You mean the steadily falling jobless numbers, the improving economy, or how the House of Representatives blocked the Jobs Bill? (along with everything else)
    The unemployment rate is only down because so many people quit looking and therefore are not a part of the work force. That means the economy is improving? News to me!
     

    LividZephyr

    Oxymoron, not a moron, thanks
    445
    Posts
    11
    Years
  • Got any figures to demonstrate that? The Bureau of Labor Statistics says otherwise.
    And those stats can't be rigged to hide the truth? Show me your proof that your stats aren't fake.

    Also, how far down is the average person's income compared to cost of living? Inflation is killing our income, and people aren't buying things like they used to. This economy is clearly going even farther downhill because nobody's able to spend money on extras - they're too busy buying petroleum and food and necessities. You can't deny that.

    Rising Cost of Living:
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...er-price-index-rose-in-august-most-since-2009

    http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_ne...-spending-more-but-making-about-the-same?lite

    Do you have anything to disagree with that?
     

    Ivysaur

    Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
    21,082
    Posts
    17
    Years
  • And those stats can't be rigged to hide the truth? Show me your proof that your stats aren't fake.

    Uhh... I think it works the other way. I mean, a respected non-partisan office that has never been proven wrong (it's true that they update their numbers once they have definite info, but they do it themselves, and sometimes for better, not always for worse, so you can't find a pattern) doesn't need to prove they are telling the truth, because general consensus says that what they say IS the truth. If you want to argue they are lying this time, go ahead, but you are the one who needs to show the proof.
     

    TRIFORCE89

    Guide of Darkness
    8,123
    Posts
    20
    Years
  • The unemployment rate is only down because so many people quit looking and therefore are not a part of the work force. That means the economy is improving? News to me!
    There will be a revision to the unemployment rate in December. There always is one a few months later. Will it be up or down is unknown.

    And, while what you say is true, it has also always been the standard. That is how it was calculated is the past. Should we discredit all the previous reported rates from past administrations because it doesn't include people who quit looking for work? Same standard for all, sorry.

    Regardless. What the CEO dude is saying is "true" (if you have increased costs, you seek to cut them. That usually means layoffs). I just don't think it is appropriate - in both what he assumes will happen with a second Obama term or in his professional conduct (why would you send this message?)

    The part that gets me though is: "If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans"

    If the company is taxed, okay I get that. But if he is taxed? If his personal income is tax, as opposed to his company's, why the hell would he lay people off? It is a bit like a hostage situation
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
    13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    And those stats can't be rigged to hide the truth? Show me your proof that your stats aren't fake.

    Also, how far down is the average person's income compared to cost of living? Inflation is killing our income, and people aren't buying things like they used to. This economy is clearly going even farther downhill because nobody's able to spend money on extras - they're too busy buying petroleum and food and necessities. You can't deny that.

    Rising Cost of Living:
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...er-price-index-rose-in-august-most-since-2009

    http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_ne...-spending-more-but-making-about-the-same?lite

    Do you have anything to disagree with that?

    1. It's impossible to prove something isn't fake. You can try to prove it is fake though!

    2. What does inflation and the cost of living have anything to do with a man that has so much extra money he made himself his own Versailles clone? He is well above inflation and the average cost of living.
     
    14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • And those stats can't be rigged to hide the truth? Show me your proof that your stats aren't fake.


    Do you have anything to disagree with that?


    Come back to reality please and grab an economics textbook while you're at it. Obviously since you don't agree, the nonpartisan Bureau of Labor Statistics is clearly fabricating their results based on months of findings.

    BLS website

    September 2012 jobs report

    Unemployment trend since 1/09 through 10/12

    121005080915-chart-unemployment-rate-2-story-top.jpg


    Here's some hard facts for you:

    BLS said:
    Each month the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program surveys about 141,000 businesses and government agencies, representing approximately 486,000 individual worksites, in order to provide detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls.

    Here's some actual numbers:

    BLS said:
    Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-12-1981
    until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, October 5, 2012

    Technical information:
    Household data: (202) 691-6378 * [email protected] * www.bls.gov/cps
    Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * [email protected] * www.bls.gov/ces

    Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * [email protected]


    THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- SEPTEMBER 2012


    The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm
    payroll employment rose by 114,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
    today. Employment increased in health care and in transportation and warehousing
    but changed little in most other major industries.

    Household Survey Data

    The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 7.8 percent in September.
    For the first 8 months of the year, the rate held within a narrow range of 8.1
    and 8.3 percent. The number of unemployed persons, at 12.1 million, decreased by
    456,000 in September. (See table A-1.)

    Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.3 percent),
    adult women (7.0 percent), and whites (7.0 percent) declined over the month.
    The unemployment rates for teenagers (23.7 percent), blacks (13.4 percent), and
    Hispanics (9.9 percent) were little changed. The jobless rate for Asians, at
    4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted), fell over the year. (See tables A-1, A-2,
    and A-3.)

    In September, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
    decreased by 468,000 to 6.5 million. (See table A-11.)

    The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks declined by 302,000 over
    the month to 2.5 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for
    27 weeks or more) was little changed at 4.8 million and accounted for 40.1
    percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

    Total employment rose by 873,000 in September, following 3 months of little
    change. The employment-population ratio increased by 0.4 percentage point to
    58.7 percent, after edging down in the prior 2 months. The overall trend in
    the employment-population ratio for this year has been flat. The civilian labor
    force rose by 418,000 to 155.1 million in September, while the labor force
    participation rate was little changed at 63.6 percent. (See table A-1.)

    The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
    referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August
    to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because
    their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
    job. (See table A-8.)

    In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
    essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally
    adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were
    available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months.
    They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work
    in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

    Among the marginally attached, there were 802,000 discouraged workers in
    September, a decline of 235,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not
    seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking
    for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining
    1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in September had
    not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such
    as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

    Employment by field + wage increases and July/August revised numbers

    Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 114,000 in September. In 2012,
    employment growth has averaged 146,000 per month, compared with an average
    monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011. In September, employment rose in health care
    and in transportation and warehousing. (See table B-1.)

    Health care added 44,000 jobs in September. Job gains continued in ambulatory
    health care services (+30,000) and hospitals (+8,000). Over the past year,
    employment in health care has risen by 295,000.

    In September, employment increased by 17,000 in transportation and warehousing.
    Within the industry, there were job gains in transit and ground passenger
    transportation (+9,000) and in warehousing and storage (+4,000).

    Employment in financial activities edged up in September (+13,000), reflecting
    modest job growth in credit intermediation (+6,000) and real estate (+7,000).

    Manufacturing employment edged down in September (-16,000). On net, manufacturing
    employment has been unchanged since April. In September, job losses occurred
    in computer and electronic products (-6,000) and in printing and related
    activities (-3,000).

    Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction,
    wholesale trade, retail trade, information, professional and business services,
    leisure and hospitality, and government, showed little change over the month.

    The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by
    0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in September. The manufacturing workweek edged up by
    0.1 hour to 40.6 hours, and factory overtime was unchanged at 3.2 hours.
    The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private
    nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

    In September, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
    payrolls rose by 7 cents to $23.58. Over the past 12 months, average hourly
    earnings have risen by 1.8 percent. In September, average hourly earnings of
    private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 5 cents
    to $19.81. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)


    The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from
    +141,000 to +181,000, and the change for August was revised from +96,000 to
    +142,000.



    Also, how far down is the average person's income compared to cost of living? Inflation is killing our income, and people aren't buying things like they used to. This economy is clearly going even farther downhill because nobody's able to spend money on extras - they're too busy buying petroleum and food and necessities. You can't deny that.

    The economies overall health isn't measured by just the cost of living or average income, or just inflation. You neglected to mention the record profits in the private sector (Forget Exxon Mobil's 11 billion profit?) or the strong stock numbers from the DOW and Nasdaq which have continually closed higher since Obama took office. Shows the reality of the income inequality here in the States. Show me a national figure from a reputable poll/source that explicitly states that most middle class people can't "buy extras" because they can only afford necessities. It doesn't exist. I could see if that was true in the lower tax bracket, but not for the average middle class family. That also varies from place to place. Not every state has it as bad as Wisconsin. The economy is far from being as strong as it was pre-2006, but it has slowly and steadily improved since 2009. We were on the edge of an economic abyss, losing 800,000 jobs a month. We are not there now. Therefore, the economy has improved. Deny if you wish.

    Now I don't know about Wisconsin, I don't live there. Your recovery (in comparison with the other 49 states) has been pretty bad and painfully slow. You need only to look at your Governor & your collective bargaining debacle and your House of Reps for who to blame. There's a reason why even with Ryan as the V.P nominee, Romney's behind and/or tied with the President there, even after all that.
     
    10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • Coming this fall, from the people who brought you voter fraud, birtherism, and obstructionism: Intimidation 2012.

    Sometimes I can't believe that such stuff happens and people get away with it.
     

    LividZephyr

    Oxymoron, not a moron, thanks
    445
    Posts
    11
    Years
  • Now I don't know about Wisconsin, I don't live there. Your recovery (in comparison with the other 49 states) has been pretty bad and painfully slow. You need only to look at your Governor & your collective bargaining debacle and your House of Reps for who to blame. There's a reason why even with Ryan as the V.P nominee, Romney's behind and/or tied with the President there, even after all that.
    I seem to have proven my point that you're a closed-minded Democrat who is not worth debating with. You're blaming the governor for everything when it was the unions who chose to tear the state apart and blame him for it, when they prevented him from being able to do his job since they couldn't wait for the four years to be up. That's ALL Democrats do these days - blame, blame, blame. And that includes you.

    Guess what? Get a dose of reality. NO politician is perfect. We can't ask for a godly president because no such man exists. And Obama's strategy is incredibly flawed, and it's only getting better because the Republicans in Congress are stopping him from throwing money everywhere like he was. BOTH parties are bad in various ways, and they need each other to disagree with in order to ensure this country isn't destroyed. Thanks to Obama's first two years, though, it's probably going to be.

    That's all I have to say.
     
    14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • I seem to have proven my point that you're a closed-minded Democrat who is not worth debating with. You're blaming the governor for everything when it was the unions who chose to tear the state apart and blame him for it, when they prevented him from being able to do his job since they couldn't wait for the four years to be up. That's ALL Democrats do these days - blame, blame, blame. And that includes you.

    Guess what? Get a dose of reality. NO politician is perfect. We can't ask for a godly president because no such man exists. And Obama's strategy is incredibly flawed, and it's only getting better because the Republicans in Congress are stopping him from throwing money everywhere like he was. BOTH parties are bad in various ways, and they need each other to disagree with in order to ensure this country isn't destroyed. Thanks to Obama's first two years, though, it's probably going to be.

    That's all I have to say.

    lol

    You can ignore the numbers if you want. Doesn't change their veracity.
     

    Ivysaur

    Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
    21,082
    Posts
    17
    Years
  • I seem to have proven my point that you're a closed-minded Democrat who is not worth debating with.

    No you haven't.

    Unless everyone who doesn't blindly agree with your accusations of a very reputed non-partisan agency making up numbers out of the blue to favour Obama is a close-minded Democrat who is not worth your time.

    Then I'm sure you won't find many people to debate with.

    Guess what? Get a dose of reality. NO politician is perfect. We can't ask for a godly president because no such man exists. And Obama's strategy is incredibly flawed, and it's only getting better because the Republicans in Congress are stopping him from throwing money everywhere like he was. BOTH parties are bad in various ways, and they need each other to disagree with in order to ensure this country isn't destroyed. Thanks to Obama's first two years, though, it's probably going to be.

    That's all I have to say.

    Don't worry, in two months, Bush's tax cuts for billionaires will end. That will give something close to 2-3 trillon dollars in restored revenue. If the cuts to middle-income groups are also removed, it will be up to 5 trillion, but I would advise against that in such a weak economical moment. But I'm sure that the Government will be able to pay for stuff with that extra $2-3 trillion available.

    It's pretty fun that you blame the Democrats for "fixing stuff by throwing money at it" when the US deficit sky-rocketed with a Republican in the White House from a surplus when Clinton was in. Have you read Romney's fiscal plan? It's pretty fun.

    Also I love how your message tries to include a not-too-successfully hidden subliminal "both parties are equally as bad, but your party is more equally bad than mine" idea.
     
    Back
    Top