Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on October 10, 2012 By Draginol In Business

This week, the hard hitting reporters from Gawker bring you:

“The CEO Who Built Himself America’s Largest House Just Threatened to Fire His Employees if Obama’s Elected” [actual headline]

http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected

This bad BAD man also has a LARGE house. What a monster.

[editor’s note: Sure, we could have simply stated that this man sent an email to his employees explaining that if the company’s taxes go up that it will reduce working capital which could result in job cuts but we’re all about the page views]

UPDATE:

Now that everyone has finished writing their hate male to this guy we have the actual email. Unfortunately, it’s long and nuanced so we have taken the liberty of highlighting the parts that should make you very VERY mad.

“Huge mansion. Huge fortune. Profitable company. What could David Siegal have to complain about? Well, the demonization of the 1% by Barack Obama, for one thing. This truly amazing email went out to all Westgate employees yesterday. Bolding is ours.”

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.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.

I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.

Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.

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. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.

Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore – to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.

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 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.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel

COMING UP NEXT on “THE BAD BAD CEO”

The BAD BAD CEO who went on a VACATION to a FOREIGN COUNTRY while raising insurance premiums on his employees.

Remember readers: Rich, Successful people are BAD people and we will continue to dig deep to show you just how terrible they are. How dare people start their own businesses and believe they have any rights to express their opinions.  We will continue our hard-hitting reporting that we expect will damage those businesses through ill-informed boycotts by making sensational, irrelevant headlines.


Comments (Page 13)
on Dec 02, 2012

Alstein
Life without parole is more inhumane than the death penalty.  Dying in prison after 50-60 years , it's less cruel just to shoot or hang the guy.

(I'd replace the chair/injection with shooting and hanging, which is less cruel, but shooting would be reserved for ex-military who served honorably)

 

Makes sense.

Are bullets more expensive than rope btw? Or is the idea to reuse the same rope several times?

on Dec 11, 2012

this would be like if i invented the cure for cancer.

 

Then, i create 5 copies, go on live tv and destroy 3 of them. I announce the other 2 are now up for auction starting at 200 billion dollars a piece, and each one has been infused with a modified nanofabric that will self-destruct on any attempt to deconstruct/bust the formula; holding the cure hostage to my greed.

 

This is the entitlement that disgusts me about republicans.

on Dec 11, 2012

Tasunke

Quoting Alstein, reply 176Life without parole is more inhumane than the death penalty.  Dying in prison after 50-60 years , it's less cruel just to shoot or hang the guy.

(I'd replace the chair/injection with shooting and hanging, which is less cruel, but shooting would be reserved for ex-military who served honorably)

 

Makes sense.

Are bullets more expensive than rope btw? Or is the idea to reuse the same rope several times?

 

It's tradition to allow a military vet the option of being shot instead of hung.

on Dec 24, 2012

Frogboy
My jet fuel doesn't pay foR itself.

 

Now that is the truth. hehe

 

bosses should be able to do what they want with their business. It's up to the consumer to buy or to boycott that company.

on Jan 06, 2013

bosses should be able to do what they want with their business. It's up to the consumer to buy or to boycott that company.

 

Does that mean that if your boss wants to put you in an unsafe environment with locked emergency doors, the only recourse should be consumers voting by walking to another company?

 

Because this has happened, repeatedly.  Just curious about your take on this.

on Jan 06, 2013

Glazunov1
Quoting Solam, reply 185bosses should be able to do what they want with their business. It's up to the consumer to buy or to boycott that company.

Does that mean that if your boss wants to put you in an unsafe environment with locked emergency doors, the only recourse should be consumers voting by walking to another company?

You are making strawman. An employee's body is not the property of a business and as such your "example" has no relation to the argument at hand. Furthermore, even in the given hypothetical the EMPLOYEES will REFUSE to work in such an environment. You outright exclude it as an option (by saying "only recourse") while Solam's statement does not exclude such a thing. 

And before you try, criminal activities such as selling drugs or a theft ring would also be a strawman; those things are already illegal to do.

on Jan 06, 2013

Glazunov1



Quoting Solam,
reply 185
bosses should be able to do what they want with their business. It's up to the consumer to buy or to boycott that company.


 

Does that mean that if your boss wants to put you in an unsafe environment with locked emergency doors, the only recourse should be consumers voting by walking to another company?

 

Because this has happened, repeatedly.  Just curious about your take on this.

Customers don't get to have a say in how a Company is run.  If they don't like it they can walk.

Trades Practises, Unions and other 'regulatory' bodies [depending where you are and what country, profession, etc] DO get to have a say.

Legislation may tell a business owner what he can or cannot do...but such an entity is not 'the customer'....

on Jan 06, 2013

Legislation is necessary in companies that don't have adequate competition.   See big cable in the US- who finds it easier to buy legislators to stifle competition  than to buy better equipment and improve service.

 

 

on Jan 06, 2013

Customers don't get to have a say in how a Company is run. If they don't like it they can walk.

Trades Practises, Unions and other 'regulatory' bodies [depending where you are and what country, profession, etc] DO get to have a say.

Legislation may tell a business owner what he can or cannot do...but such an entity is not 'the customer'...

And again the consumer is shafted and given little or no consideration.  Sadly, this is precisely the poor attitude of such business entities as Woolworths and Coles: "We will do what the frack we like, and if you don't like it, just leave your money at the checkout and get the frack out."

Frankly, customers should be able to hold businesses accountable... because all too often, unions and other regulatory bodies just sit on their hands and merely collect dues or taxes.

on Jan 06, 2013

starkers
Sadly, this is precisely the poor attitude of such business entities as Woolworths and Coles:

You mean multi-national duopolies that undermine local business by such as the $1 milk.

I happily spend $3.50 or whatever at the local...because the local is manned by real humans....not self-sevice check-out chick-machines.

Any customer can vote with his feet.

If enough of them had the BALLS Woolworths and Coles, et al would be dead in the water.

on Jan 06, 2013

Customers don't get to have a say in how a Company is run.  If they don't like it they can walk.

I can't see running a successful business like that.  Maybe you can afford to treat people like that after your first million or so, but, is it right. 

And bouncers are usually in hotels, Maybe if the manager or employer doesn't like it he can leave and give the job to personnel dept. Someone who can deal with situations as they arise other than. 

F off if you don't like it. Again a junk yard, wrestling matches, mechanics, is where you could expect this reaction. It's like I give up, yeah. 

on Jan 06, 2013

If enough of them had the BALLS Woolworths and Coles, et al would be dead in the water.

So where else do you propose they shop, then? While some areas have alternatives such as IGA or ALDI, many are serviced only by Coles and Woolworths... and thus are dependent on them for their grocery needs... cos most can't grow tea, coffee or sugar in their back yards.

So it's not as black or white as having the "balls" for millions of Aussies... and that's where the duopoly has the public by the balls: "You either shop with us or go without.".  And while Coles and Woolworths will vehemently deny it, they strategically place their stores to inhibit and/or wipe out competition... and let's not forget the predatory pricing policy that sees them undercutting the local competition, then price 'gouging' once those competitors have gone broke and shut up shop.

I was once a Woolworths insider and I know stuff - much of which should be criminalised - and yeah, the customer should have greater say/input as to how it does business.  For example, if a customer can prove predatory pricing and/or gouging on various items, then those items under law are free.  That'd soon stop the bastards!

on Jan 06, 2013

starkers
So it's not as black or white as having the "balls" for millions of Aussies... and that's where the duopoly has the public by the balls: "You either shop with us or go without.".

Yes it is....WAS.

Once upon a time there were countless general stores and independent 'grocers'....now they were systematically eradicated with the HELP of idiot customers who were sucked in by cheap prices undermining local production and business.

The effing 'customer' is the FAULT machines such as the Woolworths conglomerate were allowed to rape and destroy local industry.

Too many idiots are sucked in by Status Quo prostituting themselves and will blindly sell their soul for 5 cent discount.

Good luck to them...they now have the shit farming industry they deserve.

on Jan 06, 2013

You vote with your feet....you fuck off if you think you are being fucked over.

Customers cannot have a say in private industry...simply because it is private....but they certainly can allow them to fail through boycotting....and thus 'suggesting' to the businesses that they change/improve.

Again, customers don't decide how a business owner runs his business...BUT poor commercial success [due to bad choices of practise] will convince a business owner to either do it 'better' or find another industry.

on Jan 06, 2013

You vote with your feet....you fuck off if you think you are being fucked over.

I do... and did that!  I refuse point blank to shop in either Woolies or Coles, but [as I alluded to before] it wasn't always that easy.  I have lived in areas where there was either one or the other or both, and to shop elsewhere meant costly trips that added way too much to the weekly grocery bill.  Thankfully I now have an ALDI and an IGA store conveniently situated not far too from home... and all is well in the world again.

However, we're more or less saying the same thing again, and largely for the same reasons.  I mean, it is not logical to think that the customer can dictate how and when Woolies or Coles purchase their stock, or how they divvy up their profits, etc, but the customer should have greater say in how the retail aspect is run.  For example, if I wanted a 2.5kg bag [and not pay extra for fancy packaging] of rump steak I should be able to get it, but that's not how it works.  Sure, the butcher can cut me up 2.5kg of rump, but he still puts it in two of those plastic trays, despite my request not to do so, and it costs me an extra $1.20 [60c per tray] I need not have paid.

There are dozens of other practices that customers should be able to address with these supermarkets, and I could go on for a month of Sundays about stuff I know to be wrong in grocery retail, but I think you get my point.

Meta
Views
» 74052
Comments
» 207
Category
Sponsored Links