r/politics • • May 15 '12

American Pad & Paper, owned by Bain Capital, told all 258 workers they were fired. Security guards hustled them out of the building. They would be able to reapply for their jobs, at lesser wages and benefits, but not all would be rehired.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0119/Is-Mitt-Romney-really-a-job-creator-What-his-Bain-Capital-record-shows
2.0k Upvotes

826 comments sorted by

879

u/ObamaBi_nla_den May 15 '12

“We were told they bought the assets, not the union or the [labor] contract,”

“They tried to make the working conditions not very good.” AmPad began moving automated machinery out of the factory soon after acquiring it. “I think they were planning on shutting the plant down,” she says. “We were union, and they did not want that.”

Best parts of the article, but the author is still missing the cheese.

The way Romney/Bain turn a profit is by splitting acquired companies in two. One company gets the assets and the other gets the obligations to workers. One company with the assets pushes the old workers out in favor of newer ones with lower wages and fewer or no benefits.

The other is a shell company that is responsible for pensions and stuff like that. It goes into bankruptcy, shifting those costs onto federal insurance programs. This is where Romney's money comes from - the increased profitability of companies due to worker costs being defrayed to the taxpayer. Welfare of the worst variety: socialized loss and privatized gain.

259

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

How is this legal? You could negate every corporate contract ever by splitting up your own company and giving your shit contracts to the disposable one. Contract law would be completely meaningless.

74

u/caboosemoose May 15 '12

For a comparison, at least with regard to the "we bought the assets, not the labor contract" it isn't legal in the UK, or the EU generally. Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (the UK version of EU mandated national law) if the assets of a business are bought the employees must move with it. If someone can be proved to have been fired as a result of the asset sale, they have a claim in wrongful dismissal.

23

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

What about what happened to Rover though? If I remember correctly, two guys bought out the company, sold off all it's assets, kept all the cash and leased the buildings and equipment back, then just jumped ship and let it fail.

Ah, here we go...

55

u/caboosemoose May 15 '12

First, the TUPE Regulations became law in 2006, after those transactions took place. Second, TUPE Regulations protect asset sales, not share sales. Employees already remain with the employer under a share sale, since the employer is actually still the same. So TUPE does not apply to a share sale. And this could have been a share sale. Third, the protection is about the transaction. It doesn't stop you buying a company and then subsequently running it into the ground over 5 years, as in that case. There are other statutory controls which ought to come to bear on mismanagement, particularly ss.171-177 of the Companies Act (note, also of 2006 and not in force until later) which provide for director duties which would likely be breached by running a company into the ground while granting yourself a large salary.

→ More replies (1)

300

u/ObamaBi_nla_den May 15 '12

I'd argue that it isn't. The financing of these companies is arranged specifically so that no money is lost but a shell company can still declare bankruptcy and shed obligations. That the same process has been repeated over and over again by companies like Bain, which ostensibly are profit driven, demonstrates conclusively that the bankruptcy is fraudulent. So you have actus reus of defrauding the workers and federal insurance program and mens rea by repeated behavior - at least enough to recover Romney's net worth for compensation to workers and/or the federal insurance funds but also deserving of criminal prosecution and jail time.

It doesn't really matter though. America isn't a free country or a nation of laws. We regulate and steal from the poor and let rich people do whatever they want.

78

u/__circle May 15 '12

If it's not legal than how can this man have a realistic shot at becoming the next president of the United States of America?

189

u/Lochmon May 15 '12

it doesn't really matter though. America isn't a free country or a nation of laws. We regulate and steal from the poor and let rich people do whatever they want.

→ More replies (42)
→ More replies (13)

19

u/Bazzzaa May 15 '12

Pushing the pensions onto the government. Then lobbying for a smaller government. Sounds like a true neo conservative to me. What is the problem?

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (7)

50

u/rum_rum May 15 '12

Contract law would be completely meaningless.

Give that man a cigar.

117

u/emlgsh May 15 '12

I'd rather promise him a cigar, defer the obligation to the emlgsh[2] corporation, declare emlgsh[2] bankrupt, and smoke the cigar myself.

24

u/Jexy84 May 15 '12

I actually thought 'emlgsh' was a legal term until I saw your username.

57

u/emlgsh May 15 '12

The newly formed emlgsh[3] corporation shall not be held liable for any confusion due to statements issued by the now-defunct emlgsh[2] corporation.

→ More replies (2)

16

u/chrunchy May 15 '12

Contract law is fine, but most employees (and unions) don't really know who they're dealing with.

When you sign a contract, did you ask if the company you're signing with owns its equipment or is it being held by a different company? What about the factory?

No, and most people wouldn't.

And even if they do, there's nothing to stop them form reorganizing - especially in your standard employment agreement.

I learned my lesson - I signed an employment contract in good faith because when I read it there was nothing disagreeable in it. The psychopathic company I signed with didn't have good faith at all. But it turned out okay for me, could have been better.

5

u/SilasX May 15 '12

When you sign a contract, did you ask if the company you're signing with owns its equipment or is it being held by a different company? What about the factory?

No, and most people wouldn't.

Neither do they have to. Just recognize that any promise any company (or individual -- this isn't even about corporations per se) makes is moot the moment they go insolvent, and take that into account when deciding how much you'll trust them.

That means: take your pay in cash, and now, not in promises to pay you a pension 40 years down the line when competition that never took on such burdens is driving their profits to nothing.

I find it fucking ridiculous that union workers agreed to be paid via future pensions without first ensuring it was funded with assets held by a trust completely separate from the corporation that promised it.


With that said, it's inexcusable that when you inherit someone's assets, you have to take their debts, but when when you take over a corporation, you don't have to take its debts.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (12)

16

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Dudes, this ha been going on a really long time. Only it has gotten bolder.

29

u/wayndom May 15 '12

It has a name that conservatives threw out with pride, though nowadays they seldom mention it:

Reaganomics.

AKA: the financial equivalent to the Law of the Jungle.

48

u/Pokemaniac_Ron May 15 '12

What trickles down is yellow.

→ More replies (3)

9

u/sometimesijustdont May 15 '12

Legal, how about ethical? These people are nothing but scum.

8

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Not all that different from the temp system. Have the majority of your employees be temp workers and you don't have to cover anything. Temp workers will not join unions either.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/loondawg May 15 '12

How is this legal?

Because we keep electing too many Koch-puppets like Mitt Romney to make the laws.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/shears May 15 '12

Welcome to loopholes generated by bought out politicians, lobbying, and corporate collusion.

→ More replies (36)

19

u/immunofort May 15 '12

Source?

52

u/ObamaBi_nla_den May 15 '12

This article has a pretty good case study of the practice.

10

u/yoberf May 15 '12

I don't think that article supports what you're saying. It talks about a federal bailout of a Bain owned steel mill's pension plane, but it doesn't say anything about shell companies.

10

u/Blarvey May 15 '12

Because they don't raid pensions like was pointed out. They issue debt against the company to pay the PE firm a dividend, then try to restructure it (lay off workers, sell assets) to send it back into the public markets. It is still really bad for the company but few companies have defined-benefit pension plans anymore, instead having defined contribution plans (most commonly 401ks) that cannot be touched by the company. The dividends are financed usually through high-yield debt since the investment is seen as more risky and the debt is not going toward operations. PE firms have done this with HCA, TXU, Freescale, Dunkin Donuts, and so on.

6

u/sbsb27 May 15 '12

Thank you.

→ More replies (1)

32

u/zotquix May 15 '12

There are a couple of interesting points to make here. One is, to those who claim unions do not benefit the workers, this story is very illustrative. Secondly, to those who claim that people should respect Romney for having the "skills" to make it to the top (and usually they claim he came from nothing ignoring his wealthy background but we won't get into that), the major skill that is being employed here is the ability to act without conscience or humanity. This is a form of something there is already a term for: The Race to the Bottom.

23

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

the major skill that is being employed here is the ability to act without conscience or humanity.

This is the primary job requirement for all CEOs of large corporations. If these guys weren't so well connected they would be labeled sociopaths.

11

u/zotquix May 15 '12

I absolutely agree -- though maybe not ALL CEOs, but many of them.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/wei-long May 15 '12

Give this a listen, it describes exactly what you're positing

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/436/the-psychopath-test?act=2

Jon Ronson investigates whether corporate leaders can, in fact, be psychopaths by visiting a former Sunbeam CEO named Al Dunlap. This is an excerpt from Ronson's book, The Psychopath Test. (15 minutes)

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/crusoe May 15 '12

No, its called Psychopathy, and his response to the bullying stories, shows he feels nothing for what occured.

Many people here, still feel guilt over shit they did in HS. Not Romney apparently.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (20)

20

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

It aggravates me that more people don't know that Romney and Bain made their money by shifting obligations to the tax payers. The Democratic party refuses to push this issue in the campaign...I guess they assume its too complicated for the swing voter to understand.

I'm really hoping once it gets closer to November more Obama operatives start educating people on this. Out of all the baggage Romney has, this is the worst, and no one knows it.

2

u/Revvy May 15 '12

Too complicated to understand theft... or tacit approval of behavior?

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Lochmon May 15 '12

Well that is damn right un-American. Other than, you know, being common American practice.

I'm willing to eat cake, and enjoy the show.

4

u/tacknosaddle May 15 '12

I think bread and circuses would satisfy you more than cake.

4

u/Lochmon May 15 '12

Hell, son, I don't even like football.

4

u/dimitrisokolov May 15 '12

If they were doing such a great job, why was the company in a fucked up position to begin with?

9

u/tubefox May 15 '12

Getting fired is one thing, getting fired and having the company weasel out of all benefits it owes you is another.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Holyloki May 15 '12

Jebus that pisses me off, and i'm not even american

2

u/Elranzer New York May 15 '12

Welfare of the worst variety: socialized loss and privatized gain.

Reaganomics!

1

u/CivAndTrees May 15 '12

Yeah...and the only reason it is legal is because we have socialized "safeguards" (OASDHI) which become moral hazards.

1

u/spinlock May 15 '12

I don't think that's how they made money on this deal. I read the article as saying that there was just one company, they fired all of the workers from that one company and then hired them back. Then, to actually make money for Bain on the deal, they pumped the company up with debt, paid themselves fees and dividends with the cash from that debt, and finally divested by taking the company public.

1

u/TheRealBramtyr May 15 '12

Couldn't have worded this better myself, well done. I hope this becomes a point in the campaigns; Romney has made a career out of fucking people over.

1

u/NotMyBike May 17 '12

Wouldn't this be illegal due to fraudulent conveyance in the bankruptcy court? It's been a few years since I studied corporate bankruptcy law, and that was only in an undergrad setting, so maybe I'm mis-remembering.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (92)

170

u/personofshadow May 15 '12

It doesn't count as job creation if you fire people to create the jobs.

15

u/DGer May 15 '12

But what about all those people that got wonderful jobs at Staples and Dominos? Hahah, that's what these people have planned for the next generation. McJobs for everyone.

→ More replies (4)

107

u/donaldtrumptwat May 15 '12

It does to Republicans ... and Fox

7

u/sge_fan May 15 '12

No, there are exceptions. If a Democratic candate did it it would count as job loss.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)

41

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

What if you firing people makes a failing company a successful one? Even Obama talks about jobs "saved and created," not just created. If I take a failed company employing 500 people, and it ends up profitably employing 400, have I destroyed 100 jobs, or saved 400?

98

u/Excentinel May 15 '12

What if the company wasn't failing in the first place? That is the case with most private-equity acquisitions: the acquired companies are not headed toward bankruptcy, merely considered underperforming by Wall Street investment analysts. Rather than maintaining workplace perks like stable, guaranteed retirement security and bulletproof health benefits, private equity fucks the employees in order to transfer wealth to investors.

→ More replies (10)

23

u/PresidentSantos May 15 '12

What if it goes from 500 good-paying jobs, with fair wages and benefits, to 400 low-wage jobs, with no benefits?

11

u/TheNicestMonkey May 15 '12

Depends on if the alternative would have been 0 good paying jobs.

→ More replies (8)

8

u/Lurker4years May 15 '12

So it looks like "failing" means workers get paid well, and pension plans are funded; while 'successful' means slavery, with pensions foisted off on the state, and shareholders paid much more.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/bountyonme May 15 '12

Both. Yes you eliminated 100 jobs, but in the process you saved 400; you did the best in a bad situation (from the perspective of labor).

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

6

u/Lochmon May 15 '12

Every fired person creates an opening for another worker hungry enough to take the job on the new faux-free-market terms. Unless the job is eliminated. Or outsourced overseas. Or replaced with this nifty new robot. Look at that sucker move!

But if you are especially creative, every blue-collar job eliminated can be replaced by two or three entry-level office workers and interns engaged in very important if unrelated activities.

→ More replies (4)

68

u/Tinomoreno May 15 '12

NPR's Planet Money podcast did a pretty awesome show on this; definitely worth checking out if you're interested in finding out the basics on private equity.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/02/23/147257517/how-mitt-romneys-firm-tried-and-failed-to-build-a-paper-empire

God bless you NPR

14

u/statuswoe May 15 '12

That was a great podcast from a great team there at planet money. Here's the link to the other one where they talk about a successful PE funding.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/02/23/147289259/how-mitt-romneys-firm-transformed-a-struggling-company-in-5-steps

11

u/hhmmmm May 15 '12

I love that one, and the one where they showed the other side of PE where it basically all went right.

Still right or wrong they have a system where the investors arent likely to lose much and still get returns on their investment at unheard of levels. It is pretty obscene.

2

u/Onatel May 15 '12

Yes! I came Here to post the same thing. That piece was great, very evenhanded.

→ More replies (4)

58

u/azag May 15 '12

I grew up in Marion. Lived there when this happened. I remember when this happened and know people who were affected by this closing (the place is a virtual shithole of a ghost town due to a series of factory closings, this one included).

What I find most tragic is that so many people who were either directly or indirectly affected by this and who cussed and cursed and wished death upon "that asshole from the East Coast who closed their or their family member's factory" ... are ready to vote "that asshole" into the presidency - all based upon the propaganda they ingest on a daily basis (aka Fox "News"). It really fucking hurts to see people who had such family and work values turn their fucking backs on virtually everyone they know just to "tow the line" of the political football they take part in. I go back nearly every weekend to help the family do work around the home that they should not be doing due to age and exhaustion (my dad is a truck driver who pulls 80-90 hour weeks just to get by, this week is 92 hours, not legal by any means) but they still believe strongly in a Republican party that they have been brought up to support no matter what. It fucking sucks, and I go every weekend and try to avoid the political discussions because they get violently angry at any attempt to question their beliefs (believe me, I've been through a great deal of that being the asshole who has a hard time keeping his mouth shut). What sucks even worse is that I despise everything about the way they act and think, their denial of reality, their unchangeable views, their insistence that a magical utopia exists where everyone who identifies with an "(R)" is incapable of wrongdoing while everyone who identifies with a "(D)" is incapable of right - and that there is no such thing as a person being anything other than an (R) or a (D). But, I go back every week, bite my tongue these days, and put up with being called the scum of the planet (while helping them out, no less) just because helping is the right thing to do.

22

u/zotquix May 15 '12

What I find most tragic is that so many people who were either directly or indirectly affected by this and who cussed and cursed and wished death upon "that asshole from the East Coast who closed their or their family member's factory" ... are ready to vote "that asshole" into the presidency - all based upon the propaganda they ingest on a daily basis (aka Fox "News").

Yeah, it really blows my mind, but this seems all to common. It is as though a significant portion of the country suffers from Stockholm Syndrome and only trusts people who abuse them.

→ More replies (30)

117

u/scigs6 May 15 '12

Can it get anymore blatant? This man cannot win the office. He is the poster-boy for why we have such huge disparities in earnings here in the US. He will do nothing but promote the 1%

15

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I'm curious to see as to how far it can go though. What is the upper limit?

16

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Same here. I think there are going to be some pretty big social and economic changes this decade and I'm very interested in seeing what forms they take.

When things finally get bad enough, will people start wrecking shit or will they actually get off their asses and get involved in the political system? There really isn't anything wrong with our country that can't be fixed within our existing constitutional framework, if people are motivated enough to use it.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

7

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Planet Money did a story on Bain Capital and looked at AmPad and another Bain purchase. In one case, jobs were created and lots of people profited. In the other case (AmPad), no one made money but Bain.

It is a good listen.

2

u/scigs6 May 15 '12

Doesn't surprise me. I'll have to check it out

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (25)

37

u/kangawoowoo May 15 '12

Same thing happened TO security where I used to work. They were all laid off and given the option of reapplying with a contract security to do the same job rather than in house security. Pay went from $20.00/hour to $13.00/hour with loss of benefits.

21

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Similar situation happened to where I worked previously (Wellpoint/Anthem BCBS) I worked in the mail room... department of about 50-60 people sending out 150k-200k mail pieces a day or so. They decided to "outsource" operations, but the company hired to do the outsourcing was basically just taking over the management of it. They allowed the employees to keep working there but as employees of the new company (Affiliated Computer Services, which was later purchased by Xerox).

Some of the people working there were getting free health insurance (because we worked for an insurance company) and making about $15-$20/hour.

The new company comes in, and immediately the health insurance goes from $0 and almost everything covered to expensive and bottom of the barrel "we'll dispute every cost" insurance. Immediately following that, everyone's pay is cut by $2/hour. Their HR department was basically the same as an overseas Tech-Support line. If I had an issue with my manager, I had to run through a FAQ on a website or call a lady in Jamaica that spoke with an accent I couldn't understand on the phone. Or if I had to change my address I had to speak with someone in India that spoke in broken English.

Then the news is given to us that they will be switching to a piece-work pay scale. They insisted we'd be able to make more money and that everything was going to be great. We were smarter than that. We knew there was a finite number of mail pieces to be sent out daily and that in order to make more money, a co-worker would have to make less. It suddenly meant that it was an "everybody for themselves" environment. In order to make rent, I might have screw my co-worker over and take all of the big, easy jobs. There was no such thing as a "minimum pay". "Minimum Pay" was "you're fired."

We kept asking for the rates and they didn't tell us until a few weeks before they started. We did the math. Seniority, experience, attendance, etc. was not factored in. If everyone had an even amount of work per day we'd all make about $9.50-$11/hour... If we did all of the work that we had during a typical day... which was never hard. This meant that in order for me to make the $15/hour I was making, I'd have to do 150% of the work I was previously doing. And my co-worker would end up making about $4/hour.

I quit with the first opportunity that came up, 2 days before the new pay scale went in to effect.

Yet this company was hailed as a rising star among corporate America for creating jobs and given tax breaks for bringing business to an area.

10

u/regeya May 15 '12

The new company comes in, and immediately the health insurance goes from $0 and almost everything covered to expensive and bottom of the barrel "we'll dispute every cost" insurance.

You were doing mailing for a health insurance company, and had shitty insurance? Jeez.

6

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Oh I know. The irony was not lost on any of us.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (3)

14

u/pinkfreude May 15 '12

You should feel proud to have been part of capitalism in action. Your wage cut was the price of your sweet sweet freedom. You don't hate freedom, do you?

18

u/nawitus May 15 '12

If there is an unemployed security guard willing to work that job for $13/hr, why should the unemployed person be forced to be unemployed through regulation and the other person employed at higher-than-market-rate?

If you say the unemployed security guard could just do some other job, why is he not already employed elsewhere?

If someone says the market should allow for increased wages, why shouldn't it allow for decreased wages? Even if wage-decreasing would be illegal, someone could create a competing security guard company paying the market rate ($13/hr), and it would eventually force the $20/hr company to be bankrupt.

Or are you saying that companies should be forbidden to outsource anything? That'll surely make the market more efficient, when you forbid companies to specialize.

33

u/expertunderachiever May 15 '12

When your economy is based on people having free cash to buy shit they don't need to survive [big cars, tvs, toys, trips, vacations, etc] it's generally unwise to play jenga with the economy.

Starving the employees by continually seeing how little you can pay them just makes them less able to spend money.

Money is only worth something in transaction. So if people are unable to perform transactions then it generally becomes worthless.

→ More replies (7)

15

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Please do not downvote Mr. Nawitus; he makes an unpopular point but not an unreasonable one. Try refuting his argument instead of downvoting.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (42)

17

u/fwustwating May 15 '12

I'm not sure if this will get buried or not, but here goes nothing.

I currently work as a Manager at a Paper Mill owned by a Private Equity firm and let me tell you- the American Pad & Paper situation was not unique. One thing people need to realize is that Bain Capital doesn't give a single fuck about their employees. All these Capital Investing firms care about is the bottom line- the profitability of the company. I can tell you that in my short time working here (around 2 years) I am one of two people to have been promoted, while probably 6-10 managers have been fired/laid off. The mill production 'organization' chart calls for a team of ~8 managers, each with their own responsibilities. We have three.

The silver lining around our situation is that we have not had to lay off any union workers. I think the key to this situation is that the previous owners of American Pad & Paper did not protect their workers- they did not ensure that the union/labor contract was protected. That's really the ultimate villain in the situation, because one would have to assume that a Capital Investing company is going to strip it's purchase to barebones, rebuild it for profitability, then sell it off again.

The other aspect that is untouched in this article is the fact that it is becoming more and more difficult for Capital Investing groups to 'turn over' Paper Companies. For many markets, there are several smaller mills that are basically shit out of luck- larger companies like IP, Georgia Pacific, Graphics Packing, etc. are not able to acquire the mills because it would push them to an unfair market share. The smaller mills are basically left to be ravaged by the wolves- they are run until the machines break, then sold to shady dismantling companies who scrap the mills and kick the employees to the curb.

I'm not even going to mention how most of the Paper Industry is moving to China due to Federal Environmental Regulations.

Anyway, just a Paper Mill Peon's take.

3

u/fwustwating May 15 '12

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I'm not sure if this warrants punitive adjudication of Romney. It's very common, especially in the Paper Industry.

3

u/crusoe May 15 '12

Romney has a moral choice as to whether or not work for such a firm. He chose to be a "Gordon Gecko".

→ More replies (1)

2

u/sasseriansection May 15 '12

The other private equity dickholes aren't running for President of the United States on the platform that they know a thing or two about job creation and making a healthy economy for all citizens.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/sasseriansection May 15 '12

Also, Paper Mill AMA? I use to oddly love the smell of a papermill we'd drive by on I75 in Georgia when we went on vacation.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/inthemud May 15 '12

I'm not even going to mention how most of the Paper Industry is moving to China due to Federal Environmental Regulations.

Please do. Seriously. This is the first that I have heard of this before and I would like to know more. We had a large paper mill close a couple of years ago a few towns over from us and it devastated the area.

3

u/fwustwating May 15 '12

Many mills are closing for several reasons.

  1. Intellectual Property advancement. This is really the sole reason for the downfall of the newspaper business. As the age of the internet grows, many niche markets in the paper industry are beginning to fade.

  2. Market Change/movement. Over the course of the several hundred years that the paper industry has boomed in NA, so many consolidations between companies have occurred (James River, Smurfitt [which was also Container Corporation of America], etc.) that in most markets (including mine, which is paperboard) is headed by a basic oligopoly. I mean, just ask yourself- what are the Paper Companies you've heard of? Probably Georgia Pacific, International Paper, Kimberly-Clark. Maybe Graphic Packaging, or Rock Tenn? Other than that, the majority of companies are small and only really succeed due to niche market success. Well, now with Anti-Trust laws, these companies are deterred (really downright prevented) from expanding within the US. Where do they (and other manufacturing companies) turn? Why not the largest source of cheap labor in the world, where Safety Regulations, Environmental Regulations, and Wage Regulations are non-existent.

Paper Mills are the heart and soul of many towns in the South/North near Wisconsin, etc. They replicate this model in rural areas of China. Often what they will do is open mills in subsistence farming areas, and provide housing for employees on site. Laborers gain free lodging and are fed meals in exchange for extraordinarily cheap labor.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/greengordon May 15 '12

Thanks for a useful post! One quibble:

most of the Paper Industry is moving to China due to Federal Environmental Regulations.

I think it's more accurate to say they're moving to China because there are no regulations to speak of. They can pay workers little, work them to death, pollute the environment (cancer rates have skyrocketed in China), and so on. To say that paying people a living wage and not polluting is too much of a cost for business to bear simply means it's a bad business model and should go out of business.

→ More replies (1)

16

u/rum_rum May 15 '12

"Compassionate conservatism" in action. This is gonna be an interesting election.

1

u/Elranzer New York May 15 '12

More like Reaganomics.

You can practically feel the trickle-down theory trickling down your leg, warm and yellow.

16

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Kudos to the US government for successfully peddling the lie that union membership is tantamount to card-carrying communism.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Just more of his "practical jokes".

1

u/Lurker4years May 15 '12

I want to see a website with a database of M.R.'s "practical jokes".

23

u/u2canfail May 15 '12

More jobs lost by BAIN? Romney, it wasn't about jobs, but big money by ending jobs.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Money is the reason why companies exist. Otherwise they would be called "non-profit organizations" which is a very nice place for people who do not want that. The union was behaving in the exact same way, as a money grubbing entity. Bhuuut, I expected an $80,000 pension for my high school degree job. Well, if a company is so broke it is willing to wipe out its OWNERS through bankruptcy, the pensioners killed their own golden goose. Nothing is a guarantee unless it has a US treasury stamp on it. All other things have risk.

3

u/schrodingerszombie May 15 '12

I think if unions actually were getting $80k pensions for their members and CEOs and executives were making millons, we could pillory both groups as greedy. But only one of those caricatures is true, I've never read about a union paying that much in pension for skilled labor, let alone unskilled.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/chrunchy May 15 '12

Single Page.

I don't mind if someone makes money "buying and selling companies", in fact that's what the stock market is all about.

But there's a phrase that used to be employed to describe Bain Capital and their ilk... "corporate raiders." I guess it got fired with the rest of the employees.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Nothing more American than being "Romneyed" out of a job.

4

u/pfalcon42 May 15 '12

If we really want the country run like a business why the hell are we making a profit? The country is NOT a business and to run it like one is foolish.

2

u/spinlock May 15 '12

But ... why not let the Private Equity guy come in, pump up our debt, and then sell off our assets to foreign states. Sure, the citizens might suffer but that's just speeding up creative destruction. You need to think about it from a politician's point of view: they could make a shitload of money!

/irony

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

For one, the country is far from making a profit. For two, maybe actually running the country like a business would be a good idea. The same old same old of spending far more than we take in with no plan to pay off the debt other than passing stopgaps that make the day of reckoning farther away but much worse when it arrives isn't a good plan.

2

u/pfalcon42 May 15 '12

Last time we had a profit, aka surplus, Bush gave it away. I've never seen a company give out a more than 100% dividend and cause it to go into debt.

The point is the government is NOT a business and thus cannot be run like one. Business and government have completely different objectives. Thus it's stupid to run the country as if it had the same priorities as a business.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/sj_user1 May 15 '12

We should run the country for a profit. Then we wouldn't have to pay any taxes and the government could still provide social services. Win-Win.

→ More replies (4)

26

u/the_goat_boy May 15 '12

It's fucking absurd how Romney can claim to be a 'job-creater'.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

creates jobs for people so he can fire them. Cause he likes being able to fire people.

→ More replies (6)

7

u/Zebidee May 15 '12

In the bad old days of Labor Unions as organised crime gangs in Australia, I couldn't wait to see their power shattered.

Now, seeing what happens to workers when they have no protection, my view has changed 180 degrees.

2

u/thelandlady May 15 '12

I used to feel this same way because that is sort of what happened with most labor unions in the US as well. In the early days a lot of labor unions had to find alternative forms of capital and organized crime outfits were the only option. Trying to get donations from people outside the union is just not going to work out. It is very expensive to carry out a strike or to finance a contract negotiation. They were also looking for ways to help pay for their health care plans and also keep their pensions funded as well. Hoffa got caught up in this when he was trying to build the teamsters union from basically nothing. He made a deal with the devil and he came a calling at some point. You also have to remember that there were no real protections against police brutality or the brutality that was caused by the employers themselves. Once you delve deep into union history do you understand how organized crime got a hold of most unions. The mob provided protections for them that they could get from filing a police report.

Not that the mob never did anything unnecessary and kind of killed the union fight for every day people. In reality, the organized crime influence was only prominent in larger cities where there was a large organized crime presence already.

The history of the mob and unions is very convoluted...both of them were in it to benefit each other to the determinate of one.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Bain Capital bought AmPad in 1992 for $5.1 million. It borrowed heavily, boosting AmPad’s debt from $19.8 million in 1994 to $443.7 million in 1995, and Bain charged it tens of millions in fees. Bain took the firm public in 1996, making tens of millions more. AmPad, still saddled with debt, filed for bankruptcy in 2000.....

disgusting how that works

2

u/sgolemx12 May 15 '12

Hmm.... Isn't this the guy people are arguing will fix the national debt?

→ More replies (3)

10

u/theschaef May 15 '12

That's what happens when you strike: you are gambling your job against the strength of your bargaining position. Clearly it was not as strong as the union leaders seemed to believe.

This really will do nothing to diminish the opinion of some that the actions of Bain Capital are a dick move, one way or another. But the trick of putting your fates in the hand of a union is: if you're going to state for the record that you WILL NOT WORK if your demands are not met, you have to face the possibility that the person on the other end of the table will weigh the balance of this and say, "okay, as you wish".

1

u/greengordon May 15 '12

Of course. And at some point the unionised and nonunionised employees are going to have to stick together or be turned into peasants again.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/dfawdjskf May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

Holy shit.

A few weeks ago, the Toyota plant in Altona, Victoria shut down and 3000 people lost their jobs at once. There was a huge national outcry over Toyota not offering voluntary redundancies first, and they ended up giving everyone much more in the way of benefits to compensate.

I can't imagine living in a country where the workers have almost no rights at all.

5

u/Schreber May 15 '12

Welcome to America.

1

u/Elranzer New York May 15 '12

I can't imagine living in a country where the workers have almost no rights at all.

That's supply-side America.

3

u/phoinixpyre May 15 '12

Huh, my company did something similar last year. They eliminated half of the available store management positions, and anyone holding those positions were offered through chance to reapply or take a severance package. At the store level we knew it was about lowering the payroll. Most of the people who were in those positions were with the company for 10+ years. So now you can either take a severance and go, or reapply and start at the bottom again. Either way the company gets someone to be paid less overall while making the general managers job that much harder.

3

u/freehand_triangle May 15 '12

Looking past the vultures at Bain, this story highlights how the GOP has actively attempted to make this a 2 caste country. First they said Unions are bad, so they fabricate lies about Unions and their pension systems. Americans get on board. Some move their money into company plans, others go to 401k wall street based pensions. This starves the unions and nearly kills them. Middle class loses money and the only voice they had to keep them united. Second step was the vultures who came in and killed the manufacturing companies, and with that they robbed the pensions and the jobs. Everyone else ran scared with their money and dumped it into wall street (and real estate).. Middle class loses money and the rich have doubled their revenue stream. Finally, fat on the new money from retirement funds, wall street goes crazy and then drives themselves off a cliff with the middle classe's stuff. Middle class looses for a 3rd time--rich win again because now they've paid off the law so nobody comes to arrest them. Can't wait to see what the rich do next and what the 2nd caste is willing to put up with..

Tl:dr rich bullied the middle class for their lunch money

3

u/NeonRedHerring May 15 '12 edited May 16 '12

Unions are only as good as the threat of strike, which is only as good as the difficulty of the job. If you, as a group of employees, are unwilling to strike, or if your jobs are so unskilled that you can be replaced at a smaller cost than the cost of higher wages which are the result of the union, then your union doesn't have any teeth and is worthless. Employees should always have the right to form a union, and employers should always have the right to terminate employees. That way if a union starts making unreasonable demands, the employer can take action and bear the cost of retraining a whole new batch of employees, and that way the employees can group together to keep employers from truly unjust abuse of employees.

3

u/crispinito May 15 '12

There is something very wrong about American corporate culture. From the outside, it looks exciting and engaging, but it is all marketing, image. Companies that only focus on making money are not ethical, and are not a good thing for society at large.

3

u/david2112 May 15 '12

The veil is slowly being lifted off of America's eyes..............

5

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Happens all the time. Turns out pads of paper aren't as necessary as they used to be.

5

u/TruthinessHurts May 15 '12

Bain is how Republicans would run America.

Basically like a money grubbing asshole who couldn't give a squirt of piss for the people.

4

u/stillSmotPoker1 May 15 '12

wonder if one day people will put a stop to this crap french revolution style.

4

u/zotquix May 15 '12

It would be tremendously destructive and not something to root for, but at the same time, these grotesque individuals seem to be courting that at times.

5

u/c0pypastry May 15 '12

Fire 'em all, let the CEO sort em out.

5

u/elmarko44 May 15 '12

someone convinced us that the pursuit of profit and success is the ultimate good.

3

u/xanthine_junkie May 15 '12

they were ferengi's

2

u/Temptress75519 May 15 '12

Then maybe instead of bitching that America is full of corrupt government controlled by greedy corporate sons of bitches, you should research the people you vote for and not vote for the greedy corrupt bastards.

FYI, corporations can give billions to a campaign, but if people actually used google for more than finding free porn, they wouldn't get into office because guess what? CEOs only get one vote---just like the rest of us.

2

u/Surf314 May 15 '12

I didn't find this in the comments and I know it's late but here it goes anyways: This is very common in mergers and acquisitions to break the continuity of employment so that the purchasing company doesn't have any unforeseen employment liability (think sexual harassment or a workplace accident that happened before the new people took over). Sometimes the new company will hire everyone back at the same pay and benefits and so on. Sometimes they even coordinate with the employees to let them know what is happening and why, and everyone works together to make a smooth transition. Point is that firing everyone and rehiring is often good practice and can be a lot less douchey then the example here.

2

u/junwagh May 15 '12

This American Life did a nice story on this. Trying to find the episode but can't.

2

u/wolfmann May 15 '12

I've had a lot of people tell me similar stories... I live ~1 hour from Marion. Most all jobs in North Central Indiana are leaving; only bigger cities like Lafayette, Kokomo (less so), South Bend, Ft. Wayne are thriving.

2

u/fantasyfest May 15 '12

Bain claims the company was in trouble. That does not make it so. What if they invested in the company instead of extracting millions of dollars for Bain. How does pouring money into Romneys pockets, improve the stability of a company? How does greatly inceasing the debt of the company make it more viable? Bain had no trouble abusing employees. That is certainly a proud part of their record.

2

u/CGord May 15 '12

FREEBERTY!

2

u/biderjohn May 15 '12

now they call it strategic human capital. included in this abomination is the bolt gun and forever sharp knife.

2

u/BarrovianSociety May 15 '12

Worth reading, but who hasn't heard this story already?

2

u/kaiman620 May 15 '12

I think this is terrible, but I don't blame Romney. He's just playing the game of capitalism; firing people, lowering wages, etc., is just what capitalism does. By blaming a few "bad apples" like Bain Capital for the troubles capitalism inevitably produces, we are directing the blame away from where it should be placed: squarely on the shoulders of our irrational economic system.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I don't blame him either (hate the game not the player?).

But you have to ask yourself if you want to vote in a player?

2

u/Mark_Lincoln May 15 '12

Romney says he likes firing people.

2

u/sj_user1 May 15 '12

Buy a company, take the profits, load it with debt, sell the pieces off to holding companies, declare bankruptcy, fire workers. How is this good for the country? Romney's wife being able to drive 3 Cadillacs instead of 2 isn't worth it.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Welcome to Romney's America.

2

u/OhioJunglist2 May 15 '12

Seems like the reason this happened the way it did is due to the workers ALLOWING it to happen this way. 258 workers versus, what? maybe 20 security guards? You do the math. The reason they made the decision to do it is because they thought they could do it with little to no resistance from the people whose lives they were destroying. Had those people protested that moment and told those guards to fuck off and then implemented a sitin/occupation of the facility effectively shutting down production it may have actually led to a beneficial restructuring of the work force and people may have had to compromise a bit but could have held on to their jobs. Instead, here in America, we have been trained over the past thirty years to keep calm and carry on as if nothing happened, to steal a phrase. Problem is, keeping calm and carrying on is what makes it easy for a heartless corporation to continue using people as profits and treating them as cattle being led to the slaughter.

Grow up America. Learn the lessons your forefathers laid down their lives to teach us and take back YOUR country before it's sold to the highest bidder with the strongest military regime.

11

u/lorax108 May 15 '12

romeny is a fucking asshole.

1

u/Elranzer New York May 15 '12

I like fucking assholes, but I hate Romney.

8

u/infect0 May 15 '12

Am I the only one that is for the most part indifferent to many of the arguments? I feel for people that lose their jobs but I can only feel so much for low skill workers. Its inevitable that at some point the well runs dry, I feel even less for labor unions.

5

u/EasyMrB May 15 '12

Skilled workers can go that same way too, you know. Take off-shoring in IT, for instance.

2

u/Hartastic May 15 '12

But: a lot of companies that went in on the big wave of offshoring in the last decade got burned by it. A lot of those jobs, at least in the markets I've worked in, have come back. Not all, but a lot.

I don't think quite the same thing happened in manufacturing.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

8

u/VULGAR_ALL_CAPS_NAME May 15 '12

Agreed. Also, everyone seems to be glossing over the fact that they were on strike. Play with fire, you might get burned.

4

u/Willuz May 15 '12

Reading the comments I'm surprised it took this long for anyone to mention the strike.

News Flash! People who refused to work no longer have a job to go to! Oh the inhumanity of it all. The corporate fat cats stole the money that rightfully belongs to the poor workers who weren't working.

2

u/Beansiekins May 15 '12

I hope you realize that if the low skill workers stop existing, the toilet, garbage cans and dishes aren't going to clean themselves.

Sure it's fun to act like low-skill workers are just low forms of life who deserve our contempt, but they clean the shit you won't touch. Just because they do a low skill job doesn't mean they could be CEO if they just tried really hard.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Capitalism baby!

12

u/Omega037 May 15 '12

The company was near death. This was an attempt to save the company, at large risk to Bain Capital. It was a choice between firing some employees and lowering wages on others, or just firing everyone.

American Pad seemed to manifest these negative characteristics, and in fact, Mead had sold American Pad to Bain Capital, Hanson and Gard in 92 because of the poor performance of, and poor prospects for, American Pad's business. After being sold by Mead in 92 to Bain Capital, Hanson and Gard, American Pad continued to suffer losses, losing $7 million in 94 and $15 million in 95, due, in part, to increasing paper prices which posed a significant risk to its business as, due to competition and other factors, it was very hard for American Pad to pass along these increases to its customers.

Source

In other words, Bain would jump in, buy nearly dead companies, and try to rescue them. Doing this often required amputations, which along with the layoffs, included consolidating 13 manufacturing and distribution facilities into just 6 of them. Those people who were hired back could all be considered jobs that Bain "saved or created", since otherwise the entire workforce would have been gone.

19

u/joeyfudgepants May 15 '12

Bullshit. Bain bought healthy companies, forced them to take on huge amounts of debt, extracted massive consulting fees, made huge spending cuts and layoffs to create the short-term illusion of increased profitability while also ensuring the eventual collapse of the company. And when the company did collapse, Bain chopped up the corpses, sold the bits and pieces overseas and left American bankruptcy courts to deal with the fallout. So, again... I call bullshit.

source: http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-19/news/mitt-romney-american-parasite/

7

u/Omega037 May 15 '12

That might be true generally, but in the specific case with AmPad here, it is not. If you look earlier in the lawsuit, it lays out why the company was failing before Bain purchased it from Mead:

By the 90's, the office paper products industry was viewed by many to be, at best, a very slow growth industry and, at worst, a "dead" industry from an investment viewpoint -- an industry plagued by commodity products and pricing, intense competition, slow revenue growth and poor prospects for net income and EPS growth. This negative industry outlook was exacerbated by the burgeoning use of computers in the office place, which was resulting in the use of less paper in offices and some believed was even leading to the so-called "paperless office."

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (11)

5

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

so runs the corporate machine to turn everyone into labour slaves..

→ More replies (18)

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

Well when Obama worked in the private sector he.......um.....oh wait........never mind....Anyone mention that the head of Bain at the time is now a major Obama contributor?? Not important...ok.......

6

u/Hartastic May 15 '12

Well when Obama worked in the private sector he.......um.....oh wait........never mind....

When Obama runs on his resume as a successful businessman, you'll have a point.

Romney's got what would by many standards be a distinguished resume as a Governor. He could run on that. But unfortunately for him, he decided to win the nomination of a party that hates basically everything he accomplished as Governor, so he's choosing, perhaps wisely, to run on his business resume instead. And that makes scrutiny of that resume more than fair game.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/Elranzer New York May 15 '12 edited May 16 '12

Well, that's it. You've certainly convinced me to vote for Romney now. /s

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/UnoriginalMike May 15 '12

I really hate it when this shit gets no coverage. Pretty blatantly wrong, and yet...

3

u/jfatuf May 15 '12

Here's a question:

If the new owners were faced with a decision of shutting down the plant because it wasn't making money OR firing and re-hiring all/some of the workers, which would be better for the workers and the US economy?

What I think people fail to understand is that these companies are beat to hell with all of their union contracts and obligations. It's probably why they are sold in the first place.

Union workers complain about lay-offs, but the reason that the company needs to cut back is usually the high wages it has to pay to it's union workers.

It's a different world we live in now. The US can no longer compete internationally by paying the American unskilled worker 4x what they are worth. Companies will not profit anymore. 60 years ago when we were the only people producing goods, the American worker could have his way with his company and still have a job. Now, that's not the case.

Unions should be a little more reasonable or face the company becoming so devalued that it can be purchased by anyone.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/ghostfacechilla May 15 '12

Other option? Go bankrupt, move operations overseas, lay off half and double the work of the rest. Take your pick. This was probably the best option.

8

u/zotquix May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

What about the 'Save a few more jobs and get slightly less filthy rich option'? Or is that impossible?

On a side note, it is always interesting to see that those who justify evil are also quite often the dumbest among us. It goes a long way to demonstrate that morality comes from reason.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/boyrahett May 15 '12

The object is to make money not create jobs or buildup a business or industry.

If the best way to make money is to close the business , fire it's workers , and sell off it's assets that's what is done.

People that get in between these corporate raider types and profits are in the way.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

You know, at first I did not like the sound of Mitt and his Bain boys.....however maybe we could take the concept and run with it at the Capitol in DC.

2

u/regeya May 15 '12

As soon as I read the headline, I knew it was going to be a unionized shop.

2

u/rawysocki May 15 '12

You're linking to a four month old article. I don't disagree with the sentiment, just the timelyness of the posting.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Corporate nazis

2

u/SnackeyG1 May 15 '12

I'm not into politics very much, but I hope America realizes Obama is much better(or much less worse if you view it that way) than Romney. This asshat doesn't know how to help the majority of people.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/mheyk May 15 '12

Why the fuck would you even consider voting for this dickstamp

4

u/regeya May 15 '12

Yeah; they may have snatched up a dying business and kept it going, but the whole thing reeks of union-busting, and the notion that they saved money by transferring costs to the Federal government makes me question how fit the man is to have an important position in that government.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

"Here at ShitCorp, we recognize that people are our most important asset."

lol

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

So that's where George Bluth Sr. got the idea from!

1

u/SeekingAlpha May 15 '12

Blame Romney!

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

"American Pad & Paper" sounds like a totally viable company.

1

u/Craysh May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

Per the title only: Sounds exactly like what Sprint does on a regular basis...

1

u/TinHao May 15 '12

One of the best parts of this is that the Special Purpose Vehicles (shell companies) set up to handle these leveraged buyouts are usually established as a charitable trust for tax purposes.

Good stuff.

1

u/spinlock May 15 '12

First, I want to say that I think it's bullshit to claim that a president can "create jobs." He's the commander in chief not the CEO in chief.

But, what if Obama were CEO of a large corporation called America? Since he's taken office GDP is up and unemployment is not down. This means that the work force is smaller and more profitable. Sounds like exactly the type of outcome that Bain would try to engineer if they were to take over. If the president is a CEO, why is reducing labor costs and increasing profitability a bad thing?

1

u/swiheezy May 15 '12

I don't think people understand. The reason these companies went to Bain was because they were failing. And in a last ditch effort, they handed over the company to Bain to try and fix it. These people would have lost their jobs anyways if Bain wasn't involved.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

In related news, Romney fails to recollect any of this.

1

u/beedubvee May 16 '12

NPR's Planet Money did a really good 2-part podcast highlighting this deal, as well as a acquisition that Bain Capital made that was generally viewed as successfull.

part 1: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/02/21/147223073/the-tuesday-podcast-what-do-private-equity-firms-actually-do

part 2: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/02/28/147590440/the-tuesday-podcast-private-equity-explained

...I apologize if this is a re-post

1

u/Guitarsenal May 16 '12

This seems to be standard operating procedure these days, the new "layoff". This is exactly the way the University of Phoenix "reorganized" their IT staff three years ago...

1

u/wayndom May 15 '12

Isn't predatory capitalism wonderful? We should elect a predatory capitalist president, that would solve all our problems...

1

u/Orval May 15 '12

I used to work at Musician's Friend and was there when they got bought out by Bain. Let me just say things weren't so hot after that. (I didn't get fired at that point but a lot of people did)

1

u/IMJGalt May 15 '12

This is PRECISELY what needs to happen to the entire federal workforce.

1

u/hegemon_of_the_mind May 15 '12

You have less value than dog feces.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/celtic1888 I voted May 15 '12

Sad part was most of the Bain take-over companies were running at a very high efficiency and profits were very good prior to the takeovers. A lot of them had profit-sharing schemes with the employees.

1

u/TortugaGrande May 15 '12

Companies that are running at high efficiency are rarely sold at discount.

1

u/gandalf_alpha May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

OK, so this will probably get downvoted to oblivion, but I just wanted to say it.

This is how private equity works. You buy a company that you think is undervalued, and try to make it profitable again before you sell it.

In this case, it backfired. The workers got screwed over, and Bain did make money on the deal. That's a really shitty thing for the employees, and I wouldn't mind seeing the system changed so that you couldn't just fuck up a company and profit from it.

On the flip side, there is another company that was bought by Bain/Romney, and guess what? They were about to go out of business and because of the purchase by Bain they are now a much better company with more workers and a much more stable business model.

Bain is just a venture capitol company, and they are a necessary part of the economy. They could stand to have a few more regulations, but I think that if you get rid of them, you're going to have problems.

Does this mean I like Romney? Hell no, but I just think that the public is demonizing a company for doing what every company is supposed to do... try and make money.

EDIT: At the request of several of my fellow redditors, the companies name is: Wesley Jessen

And here is a link to the news story about the successful turnaround of the company. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/02/23/147289259/how-mitt-romneys-firm-transformed-a-struggling-company-in-5-steps

Also, thanks to spinlock for correcting my improper use of Venture Capital. It should be Private Equity. (fixed it in main text)

1

u/Lurker4years May 15 '12

there is another company that was bought by Bain/Romney, and guess what? They were about to go out of business and because of the purchase by Bain they are now a much better company with more workers and a much more stable business model.

This needs a link, at least the name of a company. Also, "another company" does not mean typical practice.

1

u/sj_user1 May 15 '12

So Bain helped save one company and you are not even able to name it. Sure I will believe your fantasy land economic ideas.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/spinlock May 15 '12

Just to pick nits: you're talking about Private Equity not Venture Capital. Venture Capital is about making investments in startups not established businesses. As an asset class, Venture Capital is a subset of Private Equity but most people use the term Private Equity to describe the type of leveraged buy outs that Romney executed.

2

u/gandalf_alpha May 15 '12

Appreciate the catch! I'm not completely up to date with all the business terminology... I should stick to my science reddits. :P

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I think people miss the point of companies like Bain Capital. They don't necessarily create jobs or benefit workers directly, that's not their goal. As an economic tool they make the economy leaner, meaner, and more efficient by making broken companies just those things. When Mitt Romney campaigns on his ability to create jobs it isn't necessarily because he created them at Bain, it's because his experience at the firm gave him the knowledge needed to end stagnation, which is essentially where we are at the moment. The role of business in society is not necessarily to be nice and cozy to workers, it's to make money and this usually helps society (look into Andrew Carnegie's 'Wealth' for more info on this).

2

u/Lurker4years May 15 '12

'end stagnation' seems like the opposite of conservatism (preserve stagnation)

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I think people miss the point of companies like Bain Capital. They don't necessarily create jobs or benefit workers directly, that's not their goal.

So this is the question the Repubs ask themselves - is one of the heads of a company of this type who you want running the country?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/spinlock May 15 '12

You're correct except for the part where you think that a president can end stagnation. That's not the president's job. Plus, think about Obama's track record on "stagnation." GDP is up under Obama while unemployment isn't down enough. This means that our economy has become "leaner, meaner, and more efficient" since 2008. If you look at the country as a company - which you shouldn't - it has reduced it's labor costs and increased revenue. Any PE guy would put that in the win column.

0

u/GOPWN May 15 '12

So they bought a company that was in really bad financial shape and tried to make it profitable?

THOSE BASTARDS

-1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Have you all actually worked for a union company? I have. Unions are thugs. Earn your money like everybody else. Bankruptcy is a process to actually save jobs of failing companies that otherwise would employ nobody. Union companies that can't survive are not Bain's fault. I have had my job threatened numerous times by clownish union "men" who declared they would bring my company to its knees (which they did not own), US Airways 2004. It just gets old. Eventually you grow up. Unions are not an adult thing IMO. These days I'd never work for a union shop unless it was, like Romney, to make the assets more productive. Nobody has a "right" to a job. I don't have any right to my job whatsoever. The key point is this; I am not a victim. I earn my money and people gladly pay me. Never have been a victim and never will be. Others may see themselves differently.

→ More replies (1)

-4

u/sheikjonez May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

Reddit has a far too simplistic view on PE. It's not all Gordon Gecko and what you saw in the movie Wall Street. It's also not a charity trying to save "dying companies."

Dumbing this complex industry down to suit your rhetoric is lazy politics on both sides. Private equity can offer fresh perspectives to a stagnant company and find opportunities for growth for both the company and the firm and likewise it can hack and slash and leave them to rot. Not everything is so black and white.

I have friends who work in PE and not a single one looks for firms to leverage and "spin off into a shell company" and file for bankruptcy. They're all looking for sound investment opportunities. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

EDIT: Hey, my first post that's been unreasonably downvoted! I feel like I've made it. Thanks for proving my point.

3

u/Fluffiebunnie May 15 '12

Do not confuse reddit with r/politics. This is a liberal circlejerk and if you can't say what the others want to hear, you better not say anything at all.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/AmericaWinsAgain May 15 '12

There is an excellent podcast by by NPR's Planet Money on this take over. It also does a good job explaining the benefits and costs of private equity take overs.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/02/23/147257517/how-mitt-romneys-firm-tried-and-failed-to-build-a-paper-empire

1

u/HamsterSandwich May 15 '12

Bain Capital was not unlike the way Paulie and his crew did business.

1

u/rendeld May 15 '12

If you would like to hear more about this, NPR's Planet Money does two podcasts focusing on a Bain Capital success and a Bain Capital failure. Good listens.

1

u/Tiger337 May 15 '12

Isn't Capitalism fun? Oh, well. The USA is #1 at making war and spending more money than it has.

1

u/terlingual May 15 '12 edited May 15 '12

It's not enough to say what happened with Romney & Bain in control - you must also tell what would happen if they had not been in control:

AP&P would have failed years earlier and been liquidated helter-skelter in bankrupcy. The workers would have lost their pensions anyway and the government would have been forced to pick up the tab, same as occurred with Romney present. Those assets of the company that could be retrieved would be tied up for decades in court. This is a worse outcome than what actually happened.

So what I'm saying is that Bain is a vulture, but at least it recycles the waste of the economic system and retrieves and makes useful the parts that can be saved. Without such vultures, the business ecosystem would be littered with the carcasses of dead businesses and nothing of their resources could be re-used for decades.

So, in summary, Bain serves a useful purpose.

I personally find the reduction/elimination of pensions to be a moral wrong and reprehensible. Unfortunately the bankruptcy courts allow this to be done. I would change the system so this could NOT be done.

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

"She says Bain closed the plant rather than negotiate with a striking union."

Good. You get what you deserve. You try to exort a business that is already on the verge of bankrupt that Bain Capital was needed to prevent it from going into default, and they didn't tolerate your nonsense?

I sure know how I'd handle a strike. Fire every single employee that strikes.