Rockets Owner Lays Off 40,000 workers

[Ballerhogger]

If they are fired they can apply for Unenployment at this point . A lot workers are temporary workers but yea this sucks.

[Falstaff]

I don't see anything morally wrong with this at all. He has a fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders. He needs to protect the business first and foremost.

You may not like this reality of capitalism, but it's the truth.

Then no company should get this stimulus money...because that goes against capitalism

Well if you want companies that employ millions of Americans to go under, then don't provide the stimulus. When a company goes under, those jobs die. They aren't reallocated to another organization where that worker can get re-hired.

It's normal business practice to reduce the burn of your company when your organization is facing an economic crisis.

Gee, I would have thought by your own arguments that if the company couldn’t stay afloat without stimulus money that they deserved to go under. “That’s capitalism,” right?

You talk about leaving people unemployed during a crisis as “reducing burn.” What an incredibly dehumanizing way to look at the situation. You seem to have a pretty lopsided view of whose needs take priority here. Why are the employees less deserving of consideration than the share holders? I suppose the “fiduciary responsibility” to the shareholders trumps the ethical responsibility of the super-wealthy to give back to the society that keeps them in business in your view? I think the wealthy business owner’s obligation to keep their workforce secure during a pandemic would be the least they could do, since as you so astutely point out, they’d be out of business without support since they can’t seem to plan adequately for a crisis. I’m not sure what use these poor, suffering billionaires are to society if they’re taking charity from the public without actually delivering the supposed benefits they claim to provide - if they lay off their workforce, what good are they?

[First Step]

Gee, I would have thought by your own arguments that if the company couldn’t stay afloat without stimulus money that they deserved to go under. “That’s capitalism,” right?

As I mentioned, many businesses are going to go under from this disaster. Stimulus money is used to save companies that are foundational to the American economy. The stimulus money is there to help American workers keep their jobs so they can feed their children and make rent

You talk about leaving people unemployed during a crisis as “reducing burn.” What an incredibly dehumanizing way to look at the situation. You seem to have a pretty lopsided view of whose needs take priority here. Why are the employees less deserving of consideration than the share holders? I suppose the “fiduciary responsibility” to the shareholders trumps the ethical responsibility of the super-wealthy to give back to the society that keeps them in business in your view?

Jobs only exist because there is some form of economic activity that requires labor. As soon as a restaurant closes it's doors to customers, things like cooks, waiters, cleaners, etc. are no longer required to run the operation.

You are making a moral argument as to why a business owner should continue to pay these employees. I am trying to explain to you how business works, and what an employee's function within an organization is.

I think the wealthy business owner’s obligation to keep their workforce secure during a pandemic would be the least they could do, since as you so astutely point out, they’d be out of business without support since they can’t seem to plan adequately for a crisis. I’m not sure what use these poor, suffering billionaires are to society if they’re taking charity from the public without actually delivering the supposed benefits they claim to provide - if they lay off their workforce, what good are they?

Can you explain to me how a guy who owns a bunch restaurant can prepare for a government forced shutdown of his operation due to a black swan pandemic?

It sucks that people get laid off during a pandemic. The whole world is feeling this right now. Rich billionaires have been paying their staff long after they have been out of work. Pretty much all NBA owners were paying staff... until a certain point. Wealthy people don't have the endless bankroll to pay people who aren't working. There is also government assistance to help support workers until the restaurants open back up and people get re-hired to do work.

[valrond1]

I don't understand why this is wrong. Business is business.

It is wrong because lots of people will lose their jobs, and some of them will have a hard time during the CV crisis.
But I really don't know what can, not this Fertita dude, but any company, be it 2, 100 or 10000 employees do. If they pay people for not generating income they will go under and the jobs will be lost. It is a tough situation, lose-lose.

[lamscott]

I don't understand why this is wrong. Business is business.

It is wrong because lots of people will lose their jobs, and some of them will have a hard time during the CV crisis.
But I really don't know what can, not this Fertita dude, but any company, be it 2, 100 or 10000 employees do. If they pay people for not generating income they will go under and the jobs will be lost. It is a tough situation, lose-lose.

This all day

[JN61]

Easy to complain but even if those workers only make an average of $200 each a week that’s 8 mil on salary per week for nothing.

Exactly. Even though he is very wealthy most of his money is most likely invested into the business. It's very doubtful he has bigs amounts of money just sitting in bank so no way he could pay potentially hundreds of millions for very little to no return. Some of these people need a reality check in this forum.

Poor multi billionaire Hes a greedy scumbag

He's smart business guy.

[Pg81]

It is not just the airlines, any major company does it.

Then we should own these companies who run to the taxpayers for bailouts

Why? So we can consistently lose money on them even when they are guaranteed more customers with better rates that privately owned companies are allowed to offer like the USPS against UPS and FedEx? OR Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? I have found that the more someone deals with the government the more they realize that the government is a mess and is not someone you want running your life or businesses.


We should not be bailing out companies in most situations. Today because of this virus and companies being forced to close, then the government should be helping to alleviate the fall out, but in 2008 they all should have been allowed to fold.

I would rather have the goverment run things inefficient than big companies screw us over and over and over.

[Quattro]

I didn’t need another reason to dislike this franchise but here it is anyway.

[The Rebel]

Then we should own these companies who run to the taxpayers for bailouts

Why? So we can consistently lose money on them even when they are guaranteed more customers with better rates that privately owned companies are allowed to offer like the USPS against UPS and FedEx? OR Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? I have found that the more someone deals with the government the more they realize that the government is a mess and is not someone you want running your life or businesses.


We should not be bailing out companies in most situations. Today because of this virus and companies being forced to close, then the government should be helping to alleviate the fall out, but in 2008 they all should have been allowed to fold.

I would rather have the goverment run things inefficient than big companies screw us over and over and over.

If you have ever dealt with the government as a whole you will realize why that is such an ignorant statement, and if you study any history you would realize why it was so dangerous for the government to own our businesses.

[Pharmcat]

Why? So we can consistently lose money on them even when they are guaranteed more customers with better rates that privately owned companies are allowed to offer like the USPS against UPS and FedEx? OR Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? I have found that the more someone deals with the government the more they realize that the government is a mess and is not someone you want running your life or businesses.


We should not be bailing out companies in most situations. Today because of this virus and companies being forced to close, then the government should be helping to alleviate the fall out, but in 2008 they all should have been allowed to fold.

I would rather have the goverment run things inefficient than big companies screw us over and over and over.

If you have ever dealt with the government as a whole you will realize why that is such an ignorant statement, and if you study any history you would realize why it was so dangerous for the government to own our businesses.

Then these businesses shouldn't run to the govt for bailouts ...these companies want it both ways: keep govt away , yet still use govt for money whenever they need it . That's not a fair relationship for the govt and it's taxpayors

[First Step]

Why? So we can consistently lose money on them even when they are guaranteed more customers with better rates that privately owned companies are allowed to offer like the USPS against UPS and FedEx? OR Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? I have found that the more someone deals with the government the more they realize that the government is a mess and is not someone you want running your life or businesses.


We should not be bailing out companies in most situations. Today because of this virus and companies being forced to close, then the government should be helping to alleviate the fall out, but in 2008 they all should have been allowed to fold.

I would rather have the goverment run things inefficient than big companies screw us over and over and over.

If you have ever dealt with the government as a whole you will realize why that is such an ignorant statement, and if you study any history you would realize why it was so dangerous for the government to own our businesses.

The problem is you have these socialist professors on college campuses that indoctrinate students with their BS.

[Pharmcat]

I would rather have the goverment run things inefficient than big companies screw us over and over and over.

If you have ever dealt with the government as a whole you will realize why that is such an ignorant statement, and if you study any history you would realize why it was so dangerous for the government to own our businesses.

The problem is you have these socialist professors on college campuses that indoctrinate students with their BS.

We just had a huge socialism bill that passed which is filled with corporate welfare and pork ...it's amazing how people rail against socialism except when they need it

[California Gold]

I'm one of the biggest critics of Fertitta and I really don't even like the guy. But a lot of people here are failing to understand economics, the job market, and business in general. Everyone who is looking at this negatively towards Fertitta is only looking at the fact that people lost their jobs.

1) They probably could've been furloughed though I'm not sure that's always a feasible option especially if healthcare expense is involved. But that also might mean that once this crisis winds down a bit more most of these folks will get their job back. That's a lot of employees, I'd venture to guess unless he's closing shop most of these people will be back.

2) Which leads me to this -- all of these employees can now collect unemployment insurance. The govt has issued $600 extra a week + state unemployment which for anyone min wage or even above min wage is a lot more than what they would've been getting anyway. I mean for some folks it's going to be like a 60k pay check for 4 months without working (should all of this last for 4 months). It's not as if they're going to be left high and dry.

3) As someone in this thread already mentioned it isn't really going to be sustainable for Fertitta (no matter his net worth) to pay payroll on businesses that aren't generating any revenue. That's business 101. If he wanted to be the extreme moral businessman sure he could sell some of his stocks and assets to liquidate and then pay his employees. But again, when #2 is an option why even go there? Not many of us would in his position

So all in all, as much of a dbag as Fertitta is, logically speaking there is nothing wrong with what he did. I do feel terrible for the people that have lost their jobs over this entire crisis because regardless of unemployment insurance there's nothing worse than not knowing if you'll have a job in a few months once this is all over and especially when you have a family/bills/etc.

[First Step]

If you have ever dealt with the government as a whole you will realize why that is such an ignorant statement, and if you study any history you would realize why it was so dangerous for the government to own our businesses.

The problem is you have these socialist professors on college campuses that indoctrinate students with their BS.

We just had a huge socialism bill that passed which is filled with corporate welfare and pork ...it's amazing how people rail against socialism except when they need it

What you are describing is not socialism. We've lived in a mixed economy for a long time. This discussion has been about the private sector and how jobs are created. If you would like to have a discussion on whether or not there should be a private industry or whether the government should own all the means of production, we can. But currently, it's a strawman argument.

It appears you don't understand how the bailout works, and how it helps workers make ends meet during this crisis. You seem to suggest with no evidence that this only helps the wealthy.

[lamscott]

The annoyance level at BBall dudes talking about Socialism, Government owning businesses, how billionaires are the devil is through the roof. Lets stick to BBall.

Nothing is as black and white as it seems.

[Pg81]

Why? So we can consistently lose money on them even when they are guaranteed more customers with better rates that privately owned companies are allowed to offer like the USPS against UPS and FedEx? OR Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? I have found that the more someone deals with the government the more they realize that the government is a mess and is not someone you want running your life or businesses.


We should not be bailing out companies in most situations. Today because of this virus and companies being forced to close, then the government should be helping to alleviate the fall out, but in 2008 they all should have been allowed to fold.

I would rather have the goverment run things inefficient than big companies screw us over and over and over.

If you have ever dealt with the government as a whole you will realize why that is such an ignorant statement, and if you study any history you would realize why it was so dangerous for the government to own our businesses.

If you have ever payed attention just how brutal rich f**** exploit their workers, taxpayers, manipulate goverments, suppress/assassinate opposition like union leaders, etc. you would stop saying that nonsense.

[NPZ]

Why on earth would you wish the Rockets never win a title? The fans have nothing to do with this.

If you're going to wish for something, you can wish for anything. Wish for his personal wealth to disappear, forcing him to sell the team.

That's like taking offense to a fan who says he hopes the Astros don't win another because it was management's idea to steal signs. Fans can take out their umbrage w/ sh management onto the teams they own. Not that difficult. And what are the Rockets winning to the other 29 bases? They all hate the Rockets when conditions are NORMAL, too.