An ad against Whitman say she was paid $120 million shortly before 10% of the employees at eBay were laid off. Does anyone have any information on this? I need an answer to respond to someone that says this ad has changed their vote away from Whitman.
For the sake of argument, let's say it's true. SO WHAT? What does one have to do with the other? If eBay laid off 10% of their employees, the evidently felt they didn't need them anymore. Again, SO WHAT? Were they supposed to keep them employed simply for the sake of giving them a check to do nothing of value? THAT'S WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES AND ONE BIG REASON WE HAVE A HUGE DEFICIT! Private enterprise companies have to compete. eBay made a strategic decision to cut their workforce by 10%. Again, SO WHAT? They also liked the job Whitman was doing, so they paid her what they thought she was worth and to keep her around. Again, SO WHAT? Ask your idiot friend this question - "IF YOUR BOSS CAME TO YOU AND OFFERED A NICE BONUS OR A RAISE, WOULD YOU TURN IT DOWN IF YOU KNEW THEY WERE LETTING A FEW EMPLOYEES GO?" Of course not!
posted on 10/12/2010 10:06:54 PM PDT
"IF YOUR BOSS CAME TO YOU AND OFFERED A NICE BONUS OR A RAISE, WOULD YOU TURN IT DOWN IF YOU KNEW THEY WERE LETTING A FEW EMPLOYEES GO?" Of course not!
I don't have to ask him that question. I already know the answer. If my bonus was $120 million and I was already very well off and I knew 10 percent of the workforce was going to be laid off, I would not take the bonus.
Do you have a better answer than that? The one you offered is not going to work.
posted on 10/12/2010 10:12:29 PM PDT
(Conservative is not a label of convenience.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson