uFly fires flight simulator who appeared on CNN

sooooo he waits till AFTER CNN is done paying them gazillions of dollars for full time exclusive use of the simulator and giving their firm more advertising than they could possibly imagine THEN fires the guy...what an A$$ wipe!

How 'bout..."hey we are gonna be on national TV, tuck in your shirt" on day one!
 
Crap. Jeans plus a t-shirt with a plaid shirt over it is hipster dress style now? Now I have to throw out almost all of my clothes.
 
Shawn said:
sooooo he waits till AFTER CNN is done paying them gazillions of dollars for full time exclusive use of the simulator and giving their firm more advertising than they could possibly imagine THEN fires the guy...what an A$$ wipe!

How 'bout..."hey we are gonna be on national TV, tuck in your shirt" on day one!
Click to expand...

Yeah. I agree that the dude was an embarrassment, but the company should have addressed it on day 1.
 
If they had an issue with him on day 1, then why not use someone else from day 2 onwards, rather than wait until CNN decides to stop using them.
 
It sounds like this was a 'last straw' situation. Many small business owners don't like to fire people, it disrupts the 'family' feeling that can be a big asset to the company.

If you've got an employee who isn't reliable and doesn't want to comply with the desires of the owner you really have to let that fellow go find a place where he can be happier.

My sympathy is with the business owner.
 
JimNtexas said:
It sounds like this was a 'last straw' situation. Many small business owners don't like to fire people, it disrupts the 'family' feeling that can be a big asset to the company.

If you've got an employee who isn't reliable and doesn't want to comply with the desires of the owner you really have to let that fellow go find a place where he can be happier.

My sympathy is with the business owner.
Click to expand...

Really ? If this employee was that bad, then why did the business owner pick him to be the public face of the company on CNN for 30+ days , or not replace him after day 1.

Sorry, but the business owner has some fault here as well.
 
JimNtexas said:
It sounds like this was a 'last straw' situation. Many small business owners don't like to fire people, it disrupts the 'family' feeling that can be a big asset to the company.

If you've got an employee who isn't reliable and doesn't want to comply with the desires of the owner you really have to let that fellow go find a place where he can be happier.

My sympathy is with the business owner.
Click to expand...

The quotes of the owner are pretty ridiculous and not very classy IMO. If he decided to let him go, and the media contacted him as to why, he should have simply said no comment and left it at that.

Even though I let him be on TV he shamed us Canadians and shamed my company with the way he was dressing like he was 15 years old
Click to expand...

"I am the boss. I am the owner. I put in the money. It has to be my rules. If you don't agree with them you have to find another job,"
Click to expand...
What an ego.
 
I find it weird they think what he's wearing is such a big deal in this day and age while the whole showing up to work late thing is almost mentioned as an afterthought.
 
I'm with the boss on this one.
 
Boss can fire who he likes. Boss can also be an ass.

I got a kick out of Jesse getting it right about that "family feel" being complete fabricated BS though. I doubt the last guy I heard give a "family" company speech would consider using the $3.5M bonus he got to fund the 1.5% lower 401k match his employees took to pay for it.
 
JimNtexas said:
It sounds like this was a 'last straw' situation. Many small business owners don't like to fire people, it disrupts the 'family' feeling that can be a big asset to the company.

If you've got an employee who isn't reliable and doesn't want to comply with the desires of the owner you really have to let that fellow go find a place where he can be happier.

My sympathy is with the business owner.
Click to expand...

I found the guy to be an overwhelmingly normal person, kinda refreshing actually. But we'd rather be lied to and shown shiny things.

Perhaps they should have put a teleprompter in front of an actor.
 
jesse said:
What an ego.
Click to expand...

That isn't an ego, it's a pretty accurate assessment of the situation, especially with regard to a business owner. The owner has all the risk, all the responsibility, and justifiably all the authority.

While I would agree that personnel matters should normally remain private, perhaps one reason why public comments were made in this situation was the visibility of the individual provided by the recent coverage.

It appears that the employee was terminated for repeated tardiness and absenteeism, not appearance. However, it is at least somewhat curious that the boss would allow an underperformer to represent the business on live TV, unless he didn't have anyone with similar qualifications. The other possibility is that after his 15 minutes of fame, the employee tried to use some leverage with the boss that he really didn't have.


JKG
 
I always get a kick out of the phrase "the owner takes all the risk"... which simply isn't true.

I've had significant personal damage more than once to my finances from working for morons. The sad part is, they hide it well sometimes.

Working for idiots, or fiscally unsound businesses with no real contingency plans, is a huge risk. Size of company doesn't matter either... most companies, they'll try to fire someone to avoid paying unemployment... after that, they'll fire up the bankruptcy car wash and return to business the second they went out of it, "DBA" the original company legal name.

Seen worse that that, too... so... the phrase is unsound. But it always brings a chuckle.
 
denverpilot said:
I always get a kick out of the phrase "the owner takes all the risk"... which simply isn't true.

I've had significant personal damage more than once to my finances from working for morons. The sad part is, they hide it well sometimes.

Working for idiots, or fiscally unsound businesses with no real contingency plans, is a huge risk. Size of company doesn't matter either... most companies, they'll try to fire someone to avoid paying unemployment... after that, they'll fire up the bankruptcy car wash and return to business the second they went out of it, "DBA" the original company legal name.

Seen worse that that, too... so... the phrase is unsound. But it always brings a chuckle.
Click to expand...

The next time some business owner says he taking all the risk, ask him if he pays his employees in advance.
 
jesse said:
The quotes of the owner are pretty ridiculous and not very classy IMO. If he decided to let him go, and the media contacted him as to why, he should have simply said no comment and left it at that.




What an ego.
Click to expand...

:yes:
 
denverpilot said:
I always get a kick out of the phrase "the owner takes all the risk"... which simply isn't true.

...

Seen worse that that, too... so... the phrase is unsound. But it always brings a chuckle.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

As an employee, you have very little risk. If you are marketable, you can simply walk away and find another job. Your liability and responsibility are very limited. You have nothing invested in a business except time, for which you are compensated starting on day one. If you decide to live paycheck to paycheck, that's a separate problem unrelated to the employer

A business owner has no such luxury. Most of them put significant assets at risk in order to start a business, with no expectation of return often for years. While you can walk away, they cannot. They have to hire good people, make payroll, deal with bureaucracy, comply with regulation, answer to investors, and set and maintain the vision, and they have ultimate accountability to do so. All of that must happen in addition to actually performing for the customers. Owners (or CEOs) have ultimate liability for everything the business does, every day, and that liability often doesn't go away the day they decide to resign.

If you think it's so easy, perhaps you should put up or shut up. Risk is the main reason why folks who are otherwise unhappy working for someone else don't just quit and start their own businesses. Most of us are plenty smart enough, but it's hard to put everything you've worked for on the table for something that statistically is quite likely to fail.


JKG
 
Canada, you're still all right in my book. :)

not to get too nit-picky, but:

"Casado declined to comment when reached by AP, saying "I'm not interested in talking to you." "

tecnically that IS a comment. :)
 
jesse said:
"I am the boss. I am the owner. I put in the money. It has to be my rules. If you don't agree with them you have to find another job,"
What an ego.
Click to expand...
Ego? That's the person in charge. He should let the employees run his company?

Clip4 said:
The next time some business owner says he taking all the risk, ask him if he pays his employees in advance.
Click to expand...
The next time a business goes belly up, ask an employee how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they invested in the company.
 
He should have the right to fire him - I'm not saying him terminating him was wrong and believe me I am not one to put business owners in an evil light.

He shouldn't have told the media jack and should have kept the matter private. My comment about his ego was because of the quotes he made that served nobody and made him look rather immature.
 
So, taking on a big student loan for a degree isn't a risk??


JGoodish said:
You have no idea what you're talking about.

As an employee, you have very little risk. If you are marketable, you can simply walk away and find another job. Your liability and responsibility are very limited. You have nothing invested in a business except time, for which you are compensated starting on day one. If you decide to live paycheck to paycheck, that's a separate problem unrelated to the employer

A business owner has no such luxury. Most of them put significant assets at risk in order to start a business, with no expectation of return often for years. While you can walk away, they cannot. They have to hire good people, make payroll, deal with bureaucracy, comply with regulation, answer to investors, and set and maintain the vision, and they have ultimate accountability to do so. All of that must happen in addition to actually performing for the customers. Owners (or CEOs) have ultimate liability for everything the business does, every day, and that liability often doesn't go away the day they decide to resign.

If you think it's so easy, perhaps you should put up or shut up. Risk is the main reason why folks who are otherwise unhappy working for someone else don't just quit and start their own businesses. Most of us are plenty smart enough, but it's hard to put everything you've worked for on the table for something that statistically is quite likely to fail.


JKG
Click to expand...
 
QuiQuog said:
Ego? That's the person in charge. He should let the employees run his company?


The next time a business goes belly up, ask an employee how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they invested in the company.
Click to expand...

Your not going to even listen to your employees input at all?? Did you even consider that the workers in the field that interact with the customers every day might know a thing or two about what they want??
 
JGoodish said:
You have no idea what you're talking about.



As an employee, you have very little risk. If you are marketable, you can simply walk away and find another job. Your liability and responsibility are very limited. You have nothing invested in a business except time, for which you are compensated starting on day one. If you decide to live paycheck to paycheck, that's a separate problem unrelated to the employer



A business owner has no such luxury. Most of them put significant assets at risk in order to start a business, with no expectation of return often for years. While you can walk away, they cannot. They have to hire good people, make payroll, deal with bureaucracy, comply with regulation, answer to investors, and set and maintain the vision, and they have ultimate accountability to do so. All of that must happen in addition to actually performing for the customers. Owners (or CEOs) have ultimate liability for everything the business does, every day, and that liability often doesn't go away the day they decide to resign.



If you think it's so easy, perhaps you should put up or shut up. Risk is the main reason why folks who are otherwise unhappy working for someone else don't just quit and start their own businesses. Most of us are plenty smart enough, but it's hard to put everything you've worked for on the table for something that statistically is quite likely to fail.





JKG
Click to expand...


Nor do you. Are you speaking about small privately held firms, or public companies, for one. No "owner" on many public firms, but founder's shares usually win in bankruptcy court. Most public firms know good and well their assets will either cover the founders, or they get golden parachute clauses and know when to "leave to pursue other interests and spend time with family."

Next, if you're talking privately owned, is the business paid off? I've got friends who's profits paid back their personal investments long ago. The business for them is simply a cash cow, after that, as long as expenses are manageable. They have virtually no risk. They cover themselves and partners with life insurance enough to shutter the business if they keel over dead and cover the partners. The most recent one had his investment covered in three years, and the business was already break-even when he bought it. He just made it more efficient and brought in new technology.

As far as liability goes, don't do stupid negligent crap, pretty much alleviates that... But there's also plenty of places that retain attorneys to mitigate the cost, and who consider that an investment, and a sunk cost, pre-profit, and still turn a profit. They also buy insurance for negligence. Gross negligence usually needs to be proven (negligence and gross negligence are different legal terms in most jurisdictions) to go after personal assets of CxO and Board members. Liability riders for personal assets are incredibly cheap, unless you're in a medical type field.

So... you may be projecting the state of the balance sheet of a particular business you know or own, but there's plenty of businesspeople who have very little risk when compared to some poor guy working paycheck to paycheck. In younger employees, they don't usually choose to live paycheck to paycheck, they're just less marketable at first. Huge risk for them, but they typically don't have a choice. It may not be the business owner's problem, but I've known many to use that to their advantage to over-work certain employees.

I've worked for folks who had all their I's dotted and T's crossed when the SHTF. One particularly spectacular self-destruction chopped 400 of 500 employees from the roles in one day, the owners sold it for $3M each (two owners) three years later. They never had more than $350K each at risk, and certainly didn't wait until it ate more.

Shoved the staff out the door, limped it along for 3 years with a skeleton crew, and found a buyer. Might I add this place was one of those rah-rah build it quick so we can go public places, red herring printed and everything, then the investors (three large banks) called it off. I was employee 42, and was dumped in the 400 person massacre. "Family values" and "we're all a big family" and all that Bull****. Learned never to do 70+ hour weeks for anyone ever again on promises that they didn't have personal control over.

So... Plenty of places where my assertion was true. The employees take a larger risk than the owner.

My advice to those who can't afford a year off...

(That's what my situation was back then, hammered my savings, but we never missed a mortgage payment, and through a strange turn of events where I probably should have sued the asses off of a recruiting firm and an IBM contractor, I never drew a dime of unemployment, either... But that's a different story that is sung to the tune of "We don't know why that manager has done it, but she's offered four jobs to people she wasn't authorized to hire, but we don't want to lose that account.")...

... "If you can't figure out what your employer's contingency plan is, it's dumping you. Plan accordingly."

PLENTY of risk there. Way more chance of personal bankruptcy for the majority of employees than business owners.

As far as "put up or shut up", most of the systems I've worked on are either directly inside or adjunct to natural monopolies in telecom, and that's the stuff I enjoy working on. I'd need about $250M in assets to even be a tiny player in that game. Never going to happen. I'm an operations guy by nature... Make the stuff run and keep it running. My skillset is overhead if the income stream stops. I'm quite aware of this, so I do my best to save folks a bundle... It comes in handy that they know exact how much, in lean times.

The only two people I know who made tiny telecom work, one was completely subsidized by government in a rural area, the other had three angel investors, and broke even after ten years.

Not a chance in hell I'd start a business for that, especially not in the telecom world.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top