After a Romney Deal, Profits and Then Layoffs

If Romney get the Republican nomination the public will get to know this side of him and it's not very pretty - greed and avarice shine though with his work as the leader of Bain Capital.

how Gordon Gecko-esque. but i'm sure, as president, Lucy will let us simple working folks kick the ball this time.

I am not a Romney supporter, but after reading that article, I noted somethings.

Romney's company bought it out because it was failing, it analyzed it, restructured it and made it successful.

Some of the layoff being quoted actually took place after Romney's company sold out.

The buy back program that took the $242 million out of the company was after Romney retired, yes he profited from it because he still owned substantial stocks, however, it was not his decision that brought this about.

Anytime a manufacturing company buys a competing business, they will have redundant employees and factories, they are not going to keep them all. The article pointed out 4 workers that originally worked for Dade and either quit or got layed off. Of course people got "fired", duh, the company is not going to keep paying for redundant employees or factories. If a company can, they are going to cut the least efficient employees and the least profitable factories that have become redundant. One of the employees mentioned wasn't even a full-time or permanent employee but a temporary hire, duh, what did she think the term temporary hire meant, life time employment?

One individual quit because of cuts to pay and benefits, nothing was said about what those benefits and pay cost the company or if they were necessary to bring about the turn around. One statement in the article did have someone pointing out that if the actions taken by Romney's company had not taken place then everyone at Dade would of been worse off. I take this to mean that it would of failed completely, thus causing the loss of all jobs at that company.

Although the article is quick to point out the total number of employees cut, it does not clarify which were let go under Romney and which later, however, it did say that during Romney's time that the total number of employees rose to 7400. The article doesn't say how many employees they started with, only that the number swelled. While some were fired when the entire plant shut down, it does not explain why certain people were fired at the plants that the company kept. Was it "last hired, First fired" favored by unions or was it "lowest performers out the door"?

While I certainly cannot approve of everything that Romney did or what was done under his management in this affair, that article is way too biased, misleading and does not give an accurate picture. The article is quick to point out "look who Romney hurt" by putting profit over people but totally ignores the fact that a company must remain profitable to stay in business, and it will only have any employees if it is in business. While 1700 workers lost their jobs, 5700 kept jobs or got jobs.

Here is a quick business lesson for you "people over profit" left wingers. All companies exist to make money (profits) for the people who own them. Companies do not exist to provide employment. Employment of workers is necessary to make products/provide services to make profits. A company will hire the number of employees needed, not extra just to provide employment. Providing employment is NOT the primary function of a business. No Profit = No Employment.

i'm not against capitalism. however, i reject the proposition that the only responsibility a corporation has is to deliver a profit to shareholders.

capitalism is the most successful economic system because it enables the greatest amount of people to have a higher standard of living. however, as oligarchs remove rungs of the ladder to shift wealth to those at the very top, capitalism gradually morphs into feudalism. it's not in the best interest of anyone to have a socioeconomically immobile permanent underclass.

pbrauer said:

If Romney get the Republican nomination the public will get to know this side of him and it's not very pretty - greed and avarice shine though with his work as the leader of Bain Capital.

By the green-hued yardsticks of Wall Street, the 1990s buyout of an Illinois medical company by Mitt Romney’s private equity firm was a spectacular success.

Mr. Romney’s company, Bain Capital, sent in a team of 10 turnaround experts from Boston to ferret out waste, motivate executives and study untapped markets.

By the time the Harvard M.B.A.’s from Bain were finished, sales at the medical company, Dade International, had more than doubled. The business acquired two of its rivals. And Mr. Romney’s firm collected $242 million, a return eight times its investment.

But an examination of the Dade deal shows the unintended human costs and messy financial consequences behind the brand of capitalism that Mr. Romney practiced for 15 years.

At Bain Capital’s direction, Dade quadrupled the money it owed creditors and vendors. It took steps that propelled the business toward bankruptcy. And in waves of layoffs, it cut loose 1,700 workers in the United States, including Brian and Christine Shoemaker, who lost their jobs at a plant in Westwood, Mass. Staggered, Mr. Shoemaker wondered, “How can the bean counters just come in here and say, Hey, it’s over?” [clip]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/us/politics/after-mitt-romney-deal-company-showed-profits-and-then-layoffs.html​

Click to expand...

Known for a long time really. His "business credentials" are mostly made up and false.. he killed and exported jobs out of the US, not created jobs.