Comcast and AT&T laying off thousands after claims that tax discounts will create jobs
-
@dustinb3403 There are seasons and cycles that play out. Decisions are made months in advance and cannot be avoided. Let it play out, don't get caught up in the emotion.
-
@scottalanmiller or @popester did either of you read the article?
The jobs that were cut are being replaced with automated workers (machines) or by single people that manage the entire area.
This is fine, but it's a slap in the face to everyone who was told that the businesses would be producing thousands of jobs and then cut of the same people that were told they were safe because of these required expansion plans.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Comcast and AT&T laying off thousands after claims that tax discounts will create jobs:
@scottalanmiller or @popester did either of you read the article?
The jobs that were cut are being replaced with automated workers (machines) or by single people that manage the entire area.
This is fine, but it's a slap in the face to everyone who was told that the businesses would be producing thousands of jobs and then cut of the same people that were told they were safe because of these required expansion plans.
Did you read what I wrote? You can't look at the actions of two companies and use that as a statement about the country's tax policy.
Imagine if the government said this, then the restaurant down the street went out of business because their food sucked or the owners retired. Then you say it is a slap in the face to the population that the government doing one tiny thing to try to boost the economy that a restaurant made a business decision?
This is not, in any way, related to the tax cute or a slap in the face to anyone or even connected to anything.
-
To think that this is a slap in the face to the public requires you to assume a huge amount of self destructive malace on the part of these companies (basically the opposite of being greedy, and contradicting your "keeping money for themselves" statement) and a willingness to be involved in fiduciary culpability for no benefit only to spite the people. It makes no sense to accuse them of this. You think that they hate being profitable that much? You think that their shareholders really want to lose money just to mock the American tax system? That's absolutely crazy.
-
@scottalanmiller I've not said that corporations hate making money. I'm saying that the timing of this tax overhaul and these layoffs in relation to the tax overhaul is incredulous.
That if anything these corporations were just waiting to layoff these people to improve their profit margins that much more. And then tell the same people to apply for the approximately half of the available positions that remained.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Comcast and AT&T laying off thousands after claims that tax discounts will create jobs:
@scottalanmiller I've not said that corporations hate making money. I'm saying that the timing of this tax overhaul and these layoffs in relation to the tax overhaul is incredulous.
Saying it is incredulous IS saying that they don't like making money. You can't say one and not mean the other.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast and AT&T laying off thousands after claims that tax discounts will create jobs:
@dustinb3403 said in Comcast and AT&T laying off thousands after claims that tax discounts will create jobs:
@scottalanmiller I've not said that corporations hate making money. I'm saying that the timing of this tax overhaul and these layoffs in relation to the tax overhaul is incredulous.
Saying it is incredulous IS saying that they don't like making money. You can't say one and not mean the other.
It's incredulous to say "we're going to keep and create jobs" and then fire over 1000 of the jobs you said were going to be keeping.
Have you read the article?
-
@dustinb3403 said in Comcast and AT&T laying off thousands after claims that tax discounts will create jobs:
That if anything these corporations were just waiting to layoff these people to improve their profit margins that much more.
Right, this is the "hate making money" thing that I was pointing out. You don't "wait" till you have more profits to lay people you don't need off, to do so would require you to "hate making money." Because it means that they were overstaffed and paying too much, and losing money until they could provide the slap in the face and laugh at Americans after the tax reduction was announced.
No matter how you try to spin it, if you think that they did this in this way, it requires that you believe that they were intentionally wasting money up until this point in order to insult the public now. Anything else, and you the two things are just coincidencences, which obviously they are.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Comcast and AT&T laying off thousands after claims that tax discounts will create jobs:
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast and AT&T laying off thousands after claims that tax discounts will create jobs:
@dustinb3403 said in Comcast and AT&T laying off thousands after claims that tax discounts will create jobs:
@scottalanmiller I've not said that corporations hate making money. I'm saying that the timing of this tax overhaul and these layoffs in relation to the tax overhaul is incredulous.
Saying it is incredulous IS saying that they don't like making money. You can't say one and not mean the other.
It's incredulous to say "we're going to keep and create jobs" and then fire over 1000 of the jobs you said were going to be keeping.
The government said that they were going to keep and create jobs. Comcast and AT&T are laying people off. You can't conflate the one with the other. Companies and the country are different things.
-
It's shitty that they layed people off, but anyone that believes companies asking for tax cuts claiming that it will do good things for other people DESERVES to get screwed. "Give me money, it'll benefit you." If people don't see those sales goons coming a mile away, I hope that they get screwed.
-
The article says that people were fired, not layed off. Very different things. Fired means that they weren't doing their jobs, or were getting in trouble. Not that they were no longer needed. To fire someone requires a very different reaction to the IRS than laying them off. You lay people off when you re-org. So something fishy with the article.
-
The article doesn't talk about the total employment size of the companies, only the layoffs or firings. In companies of this size, a few hundred people is nothing. That's one department that was caught gambling or stealing. These are companies that hire and fire hundreds every day. In finance, I've worked for companies that turned over a minimum of 33% per year (by policy) and in reality was way higher, more like 45%. That would account for a turnover of 358 people every day in a company of this size. Not that they do that there, otherwise they'd be in the news every, single day. But the point is, firing 500 people in a company of this size isn't something that anyone internally would even notice, it's a "business as usual" number and they easily hired just as many that same day.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast and AT&T laying off thousands after claims that tax discounts will create jobs:
The article says that people were fired, not layed off. Very different things. Fired means that they weren't doing their jobs, or were getting in trouble. Not that they were no longer needed. To fire someone requires a very different reaction to the IRS than laying them off. You lay people off when you re-org. So something fishy with the article.
Yes, the article is using click bait terms of course.
While firing and laying off are very different things to the IRS, that does not mean that firing is only done to people that were not doing their jobs or were getting into trouble.
If a firm wants to simply get rid of a person or persons, they can simply fire them for no reason if they so desire in most states.
But on the subject of the linked article, the people were giving severance packages and required to sign NDAs about them. So layed off is not what happened. Employment was terminated, so fired is a correct term, if someone baited in this instance.
