Newspaper publisher: Obama won, I'm out

[heyabbott]

Still waiting for Rush to leave the U.S. after health care passed.

Ted Nugent is on the clock

 

[Captain Obvious]

Still waiting for Rush to leave the U.S. after health care passed.

Ted Nugent is on the clock

I remember when Art Bell left.

 

[Azrael]

It was her paper and her business. Funny how all the people that think the "rich" owe something to other people as a result of their success find it troubling when one of those people decide the price of success is too steep and choose to step away.

So she has no responsibilities to her employees?

 

[Armchair_QB]

Still waiting for Rush to leave the U.S. after health care passed.

Ted Nugent is on the clock

I remember when Art Bell left.

Yeah but he was abducted by aliens.

 

[BenPoquette]

It was her paper and her business. Funny how all the people that think the "rich" owe something to other people as a result of their success find it troubling when one of those people decide the price of success is too steep and choose to step away.

So she has no responsibilities to her employees?

Yes, she must compensate them for work performed. Is she responsible to ensure they have a place to work? Not at all. It was all on her dime, and if she thinks the cost of doing business in the future is not going to be worth her time and effort she is well within her rights to close up shop. If there is a pressing need for a local paper in her market, another person should/will come along and start one.

 

[BTExpress]

So she has no responsibilities to her employees?

Of course not. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings we have on this board, I believe.

You hire people for one reason: Because you decide you have a need for the work they do. Once you decide that need no longer exists --- for whatever reason --- you aren't obligated to do anything.

If I hire a full-time cleaning lady, and 7 (or 77) months later decide I no longer need a cleaning lady, I have no responsibility to keep this person employed.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

It was her paper and her business. Funny how all the people that think the "rich" owe something to other people as a result of their success find it troubling when one of those people decide the price of success is too steep and choose to step away.

So she has no responsibilities to her employees?

Yes, she must compensate them for work performed. Is she responsible to ensure they have a place to work? Not at all. It was all on her dime, and if she thinks the cost of doing business in the future is not going to be worth her time and effort she is well within her rights to close up shop. If there is a pressing need for a local paper in her market, another person should/will come along and start one.

But unless she financed the paper with money she already had, if it wasn't for her employees, she would haven't had a paper, or at least one that she didn't put out herself in its entirety.

 

[Alma]

I rarely stoop to foolish profanity...but this lady is an imperious asshat. The whole conservative yada yada I'm seeing in this thread? Die on a better hill.

 

[Tom Petty]

So she has no responsibilities to her employees?

Of course not. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings we have on this board, I believe.

You hire people for one reason: Because you decide you have a need for the work they do. Once you decide that need no longer exists --- for whatever reason --- you aren't obligated to do anything.

If I hire a full-time cleaning lady, and 7 (or 77) months later decide I no longer need a cleaning lady, I have no responsibility to keep this person employed.

sure, but we can still agree that she's a forking horrible human being:
"She was the main financier of Steve Pappas's two failed runs for 3rd District supervisor in 2008 and 2012, spending $580,500 on the campaigns."
obviously, ends meet for this forking horrible human being.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

So she has no responsibilities to her employees?

Of course not. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings we have on this board, I believe.

You hire people for one reason: Because you decide you have a need for the work they do. Once you decide that need no longer exists --- for whatever reason --- you aren't obligated to do anything.

If I hire a full-time cleaning lady, and 7 (or 77) months later decide I no longer need a cleaning lady, I have no responsibility to keep this person employed.

sure, but we can still agree that she's a forking horrible human being:
"She was the main financier of Steve Pappas’s two failed runs for 3rd District supervisor in 2008 and 2012, spending $580,500 on the campaigns."
obviously, ends meet for this forking horrible human being.

Now, now, Tom, remember, we're not supposed to tell the rich what they should do with their money. Even when their shirtty decisions fork up the lives of others.

 

[BTExpress]

Even when their shirtty decisions fork up the lives of others.

Sometimes these discussions remind me of the endless "when does life begin" debates.

When does an employer's responsibility to his/her employees begin (if it does at all)?

If I simply consider opening a business and hiring 50 people . . . and then later decide "Nah, not worth all the trouble," nobody says a thing.

But if I start this business, hire 50 people, then decide down the road, "Meh, not worth all the trouble" and close up shop . . . I have "forked up the lives of others."

Same result either way. But how/when did I cross the bridge from offending no one to forking up people's lives? Just because I hired them for a period of time? Seriously?

Changing jobs is not automatically a "my life is forked up" situation. Especially, it seems, for the 99.3 percent of people on here who claim to be happier since they got out of the business.

 

[Uncle.Ruckus]

If I simply consider opening a business and hiring 50 people . . . and then later decide "Nah, not worth all the trouble," nobody says a thing.

But if I start this business, hire 50 people, then decide down the road, "Meh, not worth all the trouble" and close up shop . . . I have "forked up the lives of others."

Same result either way.

Holy forking fork. Does this really have to be explained to you, comrade?

It's not the same result either way.

In your first scenario, there was no action taken. No offers made. No soul searching and hard decisions. No one left his or her previous job or moved hundreds or a thousand miles for a job. No one established a new lease with a landlord. No one asked his or her spouse to relocate and possibly quit their job.

In your second scenario, all of that happened, and more.

Jesus Christ. It's just forking ponderous.