You don't see why people might get annoyed by a corporation lying for political gain?
As I've understood, the company line is that government policies have worsened the case for coal to a substantial degree, and since there is no prospect for those policies to be overturned under a second Obama term, they have no choice but to announce those layoffs. This may be an exaggerated and biased account that does not give the whole picture, but it may actually be true to an extent when seen from a certain point of view. So I'm not sure the company is factually lying, more like they are portraying events in a light which they think is the best for them.
Now, I can see how this might irk people off. Some because they've done their research and have solid arguments pointing to the conclusion that the company story is a gross misrepresentation, and others because the story conflicts with their own preconceived notions of rapacious and soulless corporations exploiting the little guy and hijacking the political process.
As I see it, the fact of the matter is that about 160 people lost their jobs, and I think a case has been made that the layoffs may have been in keeping with perfectly regular business procedures. Concentrating on who said what and whose version of the events is more correct may be interesting from a 'truth commission' point of view, but if the layoffs were genuine, then it may not amount to much more than an evaluation of the accuracy of the used rhetoric. Could be somebody's cup of tea, but I kind of take it for granted that every side of the matter with an interest at stake is polishing their own shield and pushing their own agenda.
Honesty? The way the statement is made matters.
Yes, it matters at least from a PR point of view. On the whole, honesty seems to me a rather kantian notion, a bit too absolute and universal to have extensive utility in a business or political environment, outside of what is required by law and/or suggested by prevailing practices.
Using that as a guideline, I assume the company followed the law in these layoffs, and, if there were legitimate business realities at play, then that would satisfy the 'prevailing practices' part as well. What is left is the company's account of what led to these business realities forcing the layoffs, which may be subject to differing points of view.
Especially when it's the same guy who (a) forced his employees to take unpaid leave to attend a pro-Romney rally, (b) told them via company memo that he'd be forced to cut jobs if Obama was re-elected, and (c) allegedly forced his employees to donate 1% of their pre-tax revenue to a PAC he created.
Okay, I'll take all of those to be correct, and label them a, b, and c as indicated in the quote.
a) Sounds to me like coal isn't selling the way it used to. Otherwise, letting your whole staff essentially have extra time off instead of, well, working, doesn't seem like a smart move. Telling them what to do while unpaid does seem like a dickish move, though. Do US labor laws permit an employer to send employees on leave without pay for a while instead firing them in case of a temporary reduction in business (finnish labor laws do)? The company or a part of it might have basically closed down for a day, in preference to sending a handful of people home for weeks of unpaid leave (or firing them). Doesn't change the fact that telling unpaid people what to do is a dickish move, though.
b) That might be in keeping with the company story of the reason behind the business realities forcing the layoffs. Did the memo say "if Obama is re-elected", or did it say something like "if the energy policies of the current administration continue" or some such? In any case, I think it is necessary to give employees advance notice before you fire them, so some sort of a memo would probably have been needed anyway.
c) If that affected their take-home pay without their consent, then that is crossing a few lines. If it was one of those tax-deductible loophole kind of things that some company accounting wizard noticed and worked their magic to shift a few figures around, then it is dubious and, particularly if done without the knowledge and consent of the employees, might be illegal. But not necessarily something that directly affected the pay of the workers.
Well, you clearly have a certain narrative you want to put forth and you'll view this any way you can to make it work. So bully for you, then.
Not really. I'm just of a mind to explore alternative explanations to the narrative I'm being fed.
The prayer basically saying Obama is of the devil didn't help either...
I view that as propaganda. Might resonate with more religious communities, and thereby bring added weight to bear on public representatives.
When are republicans going to realize that corpratism is not capitalism. A free market can not flourish without some form of regulation to make it a level playing field for the forces of supply and demand to work. There's a reason there are anti-trust laws.
Wouldn't an ideal efficient free market be devoid of government interference in pricing, allowing supply and demand to decide the outcome? In such a case with the absence of government subsidies and disincentives, coal might actually be a very competitive form of energy production.
It's not just Republicans. The "Democrats" (more DiNOs than real Democrats) have run WV since the beginning of time, and have been completely in thrall to the Friends of Coal the entire time.
If coal is removed from it's place of power here by anything but force of arms, it will be a complete shock to me.
Yeah, it's probable that the coal and related industries employ a lot of people there, and further jobs in the service sector live off of that. If coal were removed, then the effects might be devastating to local economies. Which is why I'd expect many people there to fight for coal tooth-and-nail, as the livelyhoods of very many probably depend on it.
But damned if I actually know anything about local economies over there.
I actually heard a guy on POTUS (a Sirus XM station) say "Who put the fossil fuels in the ground and why would they do that if we weren't meant to use them".
I feel that it is a bit quaint to ascribe some higher meaning for their existance. That being said, people use what they can to achieve what they feel they need. And coal apparently does help in that, given it's large market share in energy production and the self-sufficiency of domestic coal reserves in the US.
