talkpolitics | Poor Widdle Billionaire

Remember back in July, when Mike Huckabee sent a shout-out to employers to threaten to fire employees if Obama wins a second term? Well, it looks like at least one member of the 1% was listening. Time-share billionaire David Siegel, borrowing heavily from a 2008 chain letter, has sent a message out to his employees:

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…

Nice little job ya got here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.

…Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for….

Luxuries? You mean like food? Shelter? Healthcare?

Or have people been out in the streets, camping out in front of banks and demanding homes with ice-skating/roller rinks, bowling allies and health spas?

David Siegel and his wife Jackie are the subjects of a documentary called The Queen of Versailles, which documents a few of those “luxuries (Siegel) earned and sacrificed 42 years of (his) life for.” The following video begins with a revealing clip from the film, which includes a tour of the fabulous mansion they were in the process of building down in Florida. Sadly, they've had to put it on the market, unfinished. Looks like Mr. and Mrs. Siegel are guilty of just a wee bit of overspending:

Jackie Siegel: I said, 'I'd like to have a bowling ally, and he says, 'I want a health spa,' and then I said, 'We need maids' quarters.' I forgot how many kitchens. Ten kitchens. We have a sushi bar."

David Siegel: Two tennis courts, one movie, a stadium court, full sized baseball field, which will double as a parking lot when we have parties.

But back to the letter:

…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?

Honest. He’s really worried about his employees. And if President Obama is elected to a second term – well, it’s really going to wreck poor David Siegel’s motivation. His feelings will be so hurt!

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

It will break his spirit. Just...break...it.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel

Just in case any of them forgot.

Seriously, the sense of entitlement this reveals on the part of Siegel is pretty damned staggering. "Versailles" definitely comes to mind, and not in a good, "spectacular-architecture-and-beautiful-art" way. More like, "How dare the peasants who work for me presume to vote for a candidate I dislike. Better give them a 'friendly' reminder about my ability to turn their lives to sh*t if the election doesn't go the way I want it to."

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

aelf.livejournal.com

Should an employer not let his employees know what's likely to be the outcome if particular events come to pass?

I work in a job that's dependent on government funding. Because we knew what was going on (we knew our funding was on the table, we knew Congress was likely to cut it, we knew without funding we wouldn't have jobs), we were able to prepare resumes, make contingency plans, figure out our own risk tolerances, and so forth. Even after (some) funding was restored, some people moved on to different jobs hoping for a more stable economic environment.

My husband's (small, private industry) employer has been working towards ensuring his company will survive. Every dime he has is wrapped up in it & so he is reasonably concerned about any costs that may be increased. Should he not let the employees know that if X happens, Y is likely to be the result? Is that automatically a threat? Or is it giving people information that can let them prepare for a potentially negative outcome, or determine whether they're capable of dealing with the risks involved in staying at their current job?

From:

paft.livejournal.com

a: Should an employer not let his employees know what's likely to be the outcome if particular events come to pass?

An employer should not threaten to fire employees if an election doesn't go the way he wants it to.

And somebody who blew money on the stuff that he did has no business sneering at people asking for basics like healthcare, affordable housing, etc.

Edited Date: 10/10/12 18:55 (UTC)

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Poor Widdle Billionaire

(frozen) (no subject)

(frozen) (no subject)

(frozen) (no subject)