Would you work here? (Page 2)

But that's different.

Unfortunately Westgate Resorts is a private company and so douchebag Siegel can do what he wants with it and his employees.  As to the douche thing, you tell me...

Unites States of America versus Westgate Resorts Ltd
 
On January 20, 2009 Westgate Resorts Ltd. was found guilty and had to settle with the US Government for its violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, including the National Do Not Call Registry provisions. As part of its settlement with the US Government, it had to pay a $900,000 fine.
 
Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
 
Westgate Founder David Siegel was found guilty of sexual harassment in a lawsuit brought by former Westgate employee Georgette Meyers.  Meyers worked for Westgate for 14 years. She claimed that Siegel offered $1 Million to have sex with her. Meyers claimed that she had to repeatedly fight off unwanted advances from Siegel, and a Florida court awarded Meyers $5.4 Million in damages in February 2008.
 
Queen of Versailles
 
In 2012, filmmaker Lauren Greenfield released a film entitled Queen of Versailles, based on a series of interviews with Siegel, his wife Jackie Siegel, and their attempt to build a 90,000 square foot mansion modeled after the famous French original. In the film, David Siegel is shown struggling (and ultimately failing) to secure funding for Westgate's Las Vegas high-rise resort, the Ph Towers Westgate. Siegel's son and senior Westgate executive, Richard, is quoted as saying that David Siegel's determination not to lose the Ph Tower was a major source of the company's financial troubles in 2009-11. On November 22, 2011, a controlling interest in the property was sold to Resort Finance America LLC.

I actually commend him for speaking the truth.  He may come across as a D-Bag, but quite simply the actions of the current government to vilify the 1% and make them "pay their fair share" has consequences.  The consequences are jobs, plain and simple.  If you raise his taxes by $1M per year then that's $1M that he is either going to cut out of his companies bottom line or $1M that he is not spending on luxury items that will effect other businesses.

Most people who support hammering the rich choose to ignore this aspect and get their feathers ruffled when somebody dares say he'd actually lay people off.

So, yes I'd work for him. (at least until he fired me)  

I saw this article and immediately thought I would try to find another job ASAP.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/09/news/economy/siegel-email-employees/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I find it hard to believe that he literally spends every dollar (or million) that comes his way. There is no other investment or saving going on? 

If you can afford to spend $1M on luxury goods, then you have money that can be used for other things. And if the country is in debt, I believe you have an obligation to make sure the system that allowed you amass that kind of income remains intact for those that come later. 

I am sure that he could close up his businesses, and be fine financially for the rest of his days. And if he chooses to do so because he wants to do so, more power to him. Take your marbles, and live in your American Versailles. But to threaten to do so because he might be asked to pay taxes that are no longer the lowest they have been since the 1950's? Douche move. What he is really saying here is that I have lots of money, I want more, and I don't want to have to pay taxes to support doing so at rates higher than my lowest paid employees.

But if they raise his taxes by $1 million, then he will not be able to pay his employees $1 million for sex.

I find it hard to believe that he literally spends every dollar (or million) that comes his way. There is no other investment or saving going on? 

If you can afford to spend $1M on luxury goods, then you have money that can be used for other things. And if the country is in debt, I believe you have an obligation to make sure the system that allowed you amass that kind of income remains intact for those that come later. 

I am sure that he could close up his businesses, and be fine financially for the rest of his days. And if he chooses to do so because he wants to do so, more power to him. Take your marbles, and live in your American Versailles. But to threaten to do so because he might be asked to pay taxes that are no longer the lowest they have been since the 1950's? Douche move. What he is really saying here is that I have lots of money, I want more, and I don't want to have to pay taxes to support doing so at rates higher than my lowest paid employees.

I read the letter/email and immediately thought "this is a guy I would want to work for".

He seems pretty arrogant but makes some very good points from the business owner's perspective.

What does the size of his house have to do with anything? Would he be less of a douche if it was the 2nd or 3rd largest house in the country? Are we not allowed to spend money we earn now without massive criticism? 

Yeah my point was I'd start looking for a new job ASAP, not quit. If he truly thinks that he can't run his business because of who is in the presidency, then I'm thinking I need a more secure job.

"You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive," he concludes. "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.

So..........

It's ok when the Unions pressure members to vote for their candidate, but not a CEO?

SHHHHHH!!!  Nobody wants to answer that.

That sounds more like veiled encouragement than a veiled threat.

The law is clear, you cannot attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce anyone in the decision for how to vote for president {42 US 1971(b)}. 

So..........

It's ok when the Unions pressure members to vote for their candidate, but not a CEO?

The law is clear, you cannot attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce anyone in the decision for how to vote for president {42 US 1971(b)}. 

The man tells his employees "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." 

It's a matter of opinion on whether you'd consider this intimidation or not, but I bet there's a line of lawyers willing to represent any Democrat employed at Westgate.

I'm going to start posting this on every single idiotic election post on Facebook.