DOWNLOADS: (336)

PLAYS: (4782)

Embed

The Young Turks Cenk Uygur with some follow up to the story Karoli wrote earlier this week, on the CEO's having fits over Obamacare -- Papa John’s owner can afford a turntable for his limousines, ‘but he doesn’t have enough money for health insurance for his employees’:

Cenk and Current TV correspondent Jacki Schechner call out Papa John’s Pizza owner John Schnatter for claiming he can’t afford Obamacare. Schnatter took home almost $3 million in 2011 alone, and holds Papa John’s stock worth $297 million. “He has a moat! This dude has a moat on his house,” Cenk says, and but he’s still complaining about needing to pitch in for his employees’ healthcare.

As Cenk rightfully pointed out, maybe they could afford to pay for health insurance if they just quit giving away so many of those free pizzas.

And as this article from Forbes reported, the cost per pizza may be quite a bit lower than was originally estimated -- Breaking Down Centi-Millionaire 'Papa' John Schnatter's Obamacare Math

Here's more from The Daily Show where, as Cenk opened with above, Jon Stewart tore into the CEOs as well -- Jon Stewart Rips Attempted Secessionists And CEOs For Whining About Obama's Re-Election.

DOWNLOADS: (626)

PLAYS: (6114)

Embed

DOWNLOADS: (244)

PLAYS: (2684)

Embed

Here we go with another CEO pushing the boundaries of what's legal when it comes to attempting to coerce their employees into voting for the candidate of their choice -- Exclusive: CEO suggests employees' jobs may be at stake if Romney doesn't win:

Westgate Resorts CEO David Siegel came under fire this week for sending an email to his employees demanding that they vote for Mitt Romney and threatening to downsize the company if they don't. But Siegel's email isn't an outlier. It fits a pattern of imperious CEOs attempting to marshal the support of their employees in pursuit of their own political interests.

Up w/ Chris Hayes has exclusively obtained an email sent by the CEO of a Florida-based software firm, ASG Software Solutions, to his over 1,000 employees asking them to vote for Romney for president and suggesting that their jobs may be at stake if Romney doesn't win. The subject line of the email, sent by ASG President and CEO Arthur Allen on Sept. 30, asks: "Will the US Presidential election directly impact your future jobs at ASG? Please read below."

Allen then suggests that the company may have to downsize, or be bought by a larger company, if President Obama is re-elected, and suggests that massive cuts and layoffs would ensue if that occurs.

"We have been able to keep ASG an independent company while still growing our revenues and customers. But I can tell you, if the US re-elects President Obama, our chances of staying independent are slim to none," Allen writes. "If we fail as a nation to make the right choice on November 6th, and we lose our independence as a company, I don't want to hear any complaints regarding the fallout that will most likely come.

Allen adds: "I am asking you to give us one more chance to stay independent by voting in a new President and administration on November 6th. Even then, we still might not be able to remain independent, but it will at least give us a chance. If we don't, that chance goes away."

Up w/ Chris attempted to contact Allen several times via phone and email during business hours on Friday. His outgoing message said he was out of the country, so Up w/ Chris also placed calls and sent emails to several other officials at ASG during business hours on Friday as well. We have not received a response.

The full text of Allen's email is available at the link above.

DOWNLOADS: (514)

PLAYS: (7193)

Embed

Jon Stewart took the members of the United States Senate Banking Committee to task after their disgusting display this week where they were fawning all over JPMorgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon. Not surprising, as Stewart pointed out, given Dimon is one of their largest campaign donors. As Stewart concluded after going through the list of reforms that these Republicans have opposed in regulating the banks:

STEWART: Must be nice to be a Republican Senator sometimes, because you get the fun of breaking sh*t and the joy of complaining the sh*t you just broke doesn’t work.

Here's more from TPM on this week's hearing: Senators Fawn Over JPMorgan CEO After Massive Trading Debacle:

The long-shot big hope for Wall Street reformers Wednesday was that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon would trip up before the Senate Banking Committee and expose the need for tighter rules governing big banks. His firm, after all, recently lost billions making risky bets with depositor funds on the line.

Instead, with some notable exceptions, the senators themselves turned the cross-examination into a coronation, and exposed the extent to which elected officials still feel compelled to genuflect to powerful financial interests.

“You’re obviously renowned, rightfully so I think, as being one of the most, you know, one of the best CEOs in the country for financial institutions,” crooned Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN). “You missed this, it’s a blip on the radar screen.”

Most of the fawning came from GOP senators who in addition to relying on Wall Street largesse remain engaged in a political campaign against President Obama’s 2010 financial reform law. But some Democrats also treated Dimon if not quite like royalty then perhaps as a trusted confidant. [...]

His exchanges with GOP senators were even more saccharine. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) — a tea party hero — gave Dimon a full pardon. “I really appreciate you voluntarily coming in to talk with us,” he said. “It is important that we talk about things happening in the industry. It helps us as we look forward and, hopefully, it will contribute to best practice scenarios in industry. I appreciate your emphasis on continuous quality improvement. We can hardly sit in judgment of your losing $2 billion. We lose twice that every day in Washington.”

Stewart went after DeMint for that ridiculous remark, asking if he thought spending money was the same as losing money.

DOWNLOADS: (178)

PLAYS: (402)

Embed

As The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur rightfully pointed out in the segment above, here's another glaring example of just what's wrong with our society, where the rich rig the system to their benefit and leave the 99 percent with nothing in return.

Newspaper Giant Gives CEO $32 Million Severance Package After Laying Off 20,000 Workers In Six Years:

When Craig Dubow resigned as CEO of the nation’s largest newspaper conglomerate amid health problems last year, he ended a six-year stint that “was, by most accounts, a disaster.” Gannett, the parent company of the USA Today and 80 other American newspapers, had seen its revenue plummet $1.7 billion and its stock price fall 86 percent, from $72 a share to just over $10.

To counter those losses, Gannett shed jobs, and a lot of them. Industry estimates say the company has laid off at least 20,000 workers since 2005, reducing its workforce from 52,000 to roughly 32,000. Despite those losses, Gannett awarded Dubow a severance package worth $32 million, NPR reports:

Dubow’s final compensation package includes $12.8 million in retirement benefits, $6.2 million in disability benefits and a $5.9 million severance payment, according to the filing. Gannett stock options and restricted stock, which Dubow had accrued during his years of employment with the company, were also part of the package. Those stock awards are valued at nearly $7 million.

Separately, Gannett will pay $25,000 to $50,000 annually for a $6.2 million life insurance policy covering Dubow and another $70,000 annually for benefits such as health insurance, home computer and secretarial assistance and financial counseling. He will receive most of these benefits for three years unless he goes to work for a competitor, according to the filing.

The lavish severance package Gannett is giving Dubow stands in stark contrast with how it treated many of the 20,000 employees it let go. Read on...

DOWNLOADS: (341)

PLAYS: (3356)

Embed

From this Sunday's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Paul Krugman pointed out why Mitt Romney's claims that his experience as a CEO would not help him were he to become president. As Krugman noted in his column this week, America is not a corporation. To the contrary as Krugman noted here, were we unfortunate enough for Mitt Romney to have a chance to follow through on his campaign promises about cutting the size of government, it would be "a total disaster."

ROBERTS: One thing that happens though is that people always talk about these business men like they are some big saviors. And they run for governor all the time. They've run for Senate from time to time and gotten elected.

But by and large, we don't elect them. By the time the election day comes along, enough has been said about their businesses that disturbs people, but even more so, their sort of lack of political ability disturbs people. And so you have to be careful about running as a businessman.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And that does to a big --

ROBERTS: And generally, we don't vote for them.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That leads to a big development. The cover of this week's "Economist." It's got Mitt Romney up there, under the headline "America's Next CEO."

Paul, you weighed in on this this week in "The New York Times", saying America is not a corporation.

KRUGMAN: Yes, it's, you know, even if we had Steve Jobs running instead of -- instead of Mitt Romney, you know, or Gordon Gekko, whoever we're getting here, those are not the same skills that are required. It's not the same -- it's not even intellectually the same thing.

The things that you have to run an economy are very, very different from things you have to do to run a corporation. And, you know, the thing about Romney is his opponents don't have to make a case that he was evil. They just have to cast doubt on his case, which is I know how to run this thing because I ran a successful business.

And, of course, you know -- we have a situation which is macroeconomic problems. And macroeconomic problems are almost exactly the kind of thing we're thinking like a corporate leader, is all wrong.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (613)

PLAYS: (1034)

Embed

Fox News has found yet another way to claim that unemployment benefits make people too lazy to find jobs.

Bill Auchmoody, CEO of Partnership Staffing Inc., told Fox News' Brian Kilmeade Thursday that he has a hard time finding workers because so many are receiving unemployment benefits.

"We'll hire 200 to 300 people every month and about five percent of those folks may tell us that because of their unemployment benefits, it's not worth them taking a job," said Auchmoody.

Raw Story's Ron Brynaert noted:

Auchmoody apparently can't keep his talking points straight, because he was quoted in the Wall Street Journal -- which is also owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. -- last week tossing off a different figure.

Auchmoody told WSJ's Sara Moody last week, "We only get about 2% or 3% who use the excuse to us, blatantly, face-to-face, 'You know, that's not enough money, I make more money on unemployment."

"You have to explain to them a $9 or $10 an hour job is really better for them to take it because when they get their unemployment benefits their taxes aren't being taken out of that and so when they see their net check, they think they're better off but the opportunity in taking a job and potentially moving up or going full time with one of my clients is far more upside to that than sitting at home on the dole," he said.

"Some people say that's callous to think that if you don't extend unemployment benefits, one of the reasons you don't extend unemployment benefits is because people lose the incentive to get a job," said Kilmeade "It's easier to stay home. You're saying that's reality."

"That is reality. And we have people now in the last couple of weeks where their unemployment benefits are running out that I've spoken to personally who say I have to have a job next week. Why can't you send me to work? My question is why didn't you register a month ago and try to find work a month ago rather than you are running out of benefits and you need to get to work tomorrow," replied Auchmoody.

It's not the first time that opinion has been heard on the conservative network. Earlier this month, Nina Easton expressed a similar view. "In the past, what has happened is it actually extends unemployment because people wait till the last minute before their benefits run out to find a job, to relocate to take jobs that they really didn't want to take," she told Fox News' Major Garrett.

Unemployment benefits expired in June so if Auchmoody is right he may soon have all the workers he needs. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Wednesday that he would hold a vote next Tuesday on resuming those benefits. Republicans and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) have been preventing a final vote on the bill.

The Huffington Post's Arthur Delaney reported:

There are currently five people looking for work for every job opening, according to the Department of Labor, and only 67 percent of the nearly 15 million unemployed receive benefits in the first place. For all the anecdotes about business owners having hiring trouble, there are job ads flatly stating that the unemployed need not apply. But suspicion of the unemployed, coupled with wariness of the deficit, has led to an epic holdup in Congress over reauthorizing benefits for people who've been jobless for six months or longer. The benefits lapsed at the end of May, causing some 2.1 million so far to miss checks.

"Now it looks like they're not going to get extended," said Kilmeade. "Maybe the [expiring] unemployment benefits will get people to sober up and take some of your offers," he told Auchmoody.

DOWNLOADS: (2004)

PLAYS: (2027)

Embed

At least one of the eleven men that died in the initial explosion that triggered a disaster in the Gulf expressed concerns about safety practices on the oil rig.

Transocean toolpusher Jason Anderson told his wife, Shelly, that he was concerned about BP's safety practices on the rig. Anderson was so worried about an accident that he spent his last trip home getting his affairs in order.

"Everything seemed to be pressing to Jason about getting things in order. In case something happened. Teaching me how to do certain things on the motor home so that I could go and do things with the kids, make sure that I knew how to do everything," an emotional Shelly Anderson told NBC's Lisa Myers.

Her husband drew up a will and talked about his hopes for their daughter and son.

The last few times Jason called her from the rig he was was clearly worried.

"They were getting pressure from someplace higher up to do things that maybe weren't exactly the way Jason thought that they should be," she said. "It was a safety issue."

"Jason's father told us Jason was concerned that BP, which controlled the rig, kept wanting to stray from procedures to finish the well faster, which Jason considered unsafe," Myers reported.

The Transocean CEO sat in the Anderson kitchen and told Shelly how he would take care of her family. But even before the memorial service could take place, Transocean went to court to limit their overall damages.

"They haven't even let us say good-bye to at least have closure for his memory a little bit, to have time to explain to a 5-year-old that her daddy is in heaven. They're filing these lawsuits to limit us. They need to just slow down. Back up," said Anderson.

DOWNLOADS: (465)

PLAYS: (613)

Embed

Boy this guy's batting 1000 isn't he?

BP CEO: We Have Got To Stop This Spill -- I Want My Life Back!:

Tony Hayward announced over the weekend that while he's "sorry for the massive disruption" the oil spill has caused, "there's no one who wants this thing over more than I do."

"Y'know, I'd like my life back," he said. "So there's no one who wants this thing done more than I do, and we are doing everything we can to contain the oil offshore, defend the shoreline and return people's lives to normal as fast as we can."

Tell that to the people who's lives you've destroyed Mr. Hayward. He told the CNN reporter in the same press conference that they're doing a good job of containing the oil offshore. So let's see, first he said that the oil spill impact was "very modest". Then he admits that it is an environmental catastrophe.

But he's also saying that the sickened cleanup workers probably have food poisoning. Heaven forbid it's the toxins in the oil and dispersants that are making them sick. And he's denying that the giant underwater oil plumes exist.

We may need BP's engineers and experts to help get the oil well plugged but Hayward and their attorneys are doing nothing but damage control. Personally I'd rather be seeing this guy take a perp walk than doing any more television interviews.

Linda McMahon has begun airing tv ads in Connecticut in her quest to secure the Republican nomination and take on Chris Dodd for the U.S. Senate next November. When she recently stepped down as the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) it was known her approach would be a little different. And from not bothering to vote, to publicly supporting Democrats from time to time, not to mention her own wrestling antics, her entering an already crowded Republican field guarantees Connecticut politics won't be boring.

DOWNLOADS: (2519)

PLAYS: (5411)

Embed

CPR's Rick Scott twists in the wind as he tries to explain how he as the CEO of HCA had no idea his former company was participating in the practice of upcoding, where they defrauded the Medicare system for more than a decade and were forced to pay a $1.7 billion fine, the highest in U.S. history.

SANCHEZ: It sure looks to me like he's pointing his finger right at you. Do you think he is?

SCOTT: I think he was.

SANCHEZ: Yes, yes. Do you -- do you take credit -- I was just having a conversation with Eric Boehlert and they said, look, this guy has got this Web site. In fact, I'll show it to the viewers again. There's your Web site right there. We'll take it all the way to the very top. People can see it. It's CPR, Conservatives for Patients' Rights.

And there, you tell people where they can go, to these town-hall meetings. You tell them what they can do. You show them videos of what's been done so far.

Some people have used the word "orchestrated." I'm not sure what word you would use. But do you take credit for making sure this is going on? SCOTT: It would be nice to, right? But -- because I believe that people ought to show up to these meetings. They ought to be nicer about it. But they ought to show up to these meetings and tell them what they think.

I think they ought to show up whatever side you're on. You ought to let people know. I mean, we're going through a significant debate about what ought to happen in health care. Show up and tell them what you think.

SANCHEZ: But -- but you're -- but -- but let's be fair about this. You're not trying to get everybody to go. You're trying to gin up the people who are going to be on your side. I mean, you've got a lot to gain from this, don't you?

SCOTT: Well, I believe -- I clearly believe that government-run health care will be bad for you as a patient. It will be bad for you as a taxpayer. It will be bad for our country. But most importantly, bad for you as a patient.

Now, would I rather people show up that care about the debate on -- the way I believe? Absolutely. But when I'm on radio -- I'm on a lot of talk radio. I say show up, read the bill.

SANCHEZ: But you know, let's talk about this, though. I mean, the accusation that the White House was essentially making, one that you haven't challenged yet to my knowledge. Maybe you will here now.

Columbia Hospital Corporation, which you founded...

SCOTT: Absolutely.

SANCHEZ: ... which later became HCA, which made you, from my understanding, incredibly wealthy, was charged with defrauding the government for more than a decade and had to pay a record fine of $1.7 billion.

I mean, some would argue, and it would be hard to say they're wrong, that you would be the poster child for everything that's wrong with the greed that has hurt our current health-care system. People would ask, why should they listen to you?

Continue reading »