I guarantee the timing of the layoffs were based on spite. Real businesses don't work like that. There are proper fiscsal cycles that determine these things. Presidential elections influence them. They don't determine them.
I mean shit, if he thinks he's got it bad he should go talk to the defense industry. EVERY ELECTION is a massive change in their situation. But do you see the head of Lockheed Martin standing up and saying "Oh I'm so sorry guys we're laying you all off because Obama was elected I'm so sorry let's now pray to god".
Of course not. You know why? Because they are run like a grown-up business. Something Coal never learned how to do.
So I take it we agree that laying people off was a decision based on business realities in the form of decreasing demand of coal. The question remaining being why did they let the people go now, instead of like a month earlier, when they had finalised their budgets for the next term and likely identified the need for a reduction in capacity. In a sense, why did they keep about 160 people on the payroll for a month longer than necessary, and fire them now?
I might speculate along three different avenues.
1) Economic. With the election result, any chance of a pro-business Romney administration reversing EPA legislation and general government energy policy had vanished, along with chances for improvement in the prospects of coal
2) Political. People afraid for their jobs are more likely to vote for a candidate seen as favoring their industry, than people who have been fired by said industry. And Romney's platform of job creation might have suffered some loss of credibility if his supporters start firing people before the election, similarly to the case of neutral Boeing. Now, the guy had an opportunity to frame the layoffs in a more favorable light
3) Personal. Hey, he got to stick it to the evil Kenyan muslim socialist
With any combination of these three, and the absence of reasons to the contrary (reasons that I can see anyway), there was absolutely no sense in keeping these people on the payroll any longer.
Personally, I'd think the reasons a sensible business manager could fall for tend towards 1, and I can believe 2. But I think 3 requires some other factors at play.
Actually, most of that would be sorted out quickly by repealing corporate personhood. I know it's a super extreme stance that is unrealistic, but I recall being a kid and having the local hardware store, deli, bakery, movie house, etc... EVERY SINGLE ONE is closed now, replaced by a Walmart or other corporatized business. It is ridiculous and is the main reason we're a service economy now, which is just a fiscal house of cards. As it stands, the corpratocracy that is in place in America will lead to our downfall as a nation.
Well, I must say I disagree with
nearly everything you stated there. We can discuss our respective views on the points further, if you are willing.
But I can certainly empathize with the allure of the 'Mom and Pop' store. We had those here, too. Not so many remain anymore.
