"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Monday, November 19, 2012

Corporate Hissy-Fits
Posted by Jill | 2:57 PM
Funny, isn't it, how we're supposed to worship America's business leaders as "makers", while the rest of us are mere "takers." There's an assumption, fueled by an appallingly larger proportion of the American public that is stuck in Teenage Boy gear than we thought, that those who head companies are somehow better, stronger, smarter, and harder working than the rest of us.

I don't know about you, but when I get home from yet another 11 hour day after sitting in traffic for an hour and a half because a cop pulled someone over near Squirrelwood Road on Route 80 and it's backed up all the way to Denville, it's hard for me to imagine that Donald Trump or Papa John's John Schnatter or Hostess' Gregory F. Rayburn works all that much harder than I do. And when one of the products I've worked on goes out to market, I can even say that I had a role, however small, in increasing my employer's revenue.

And yet still, I'm regarded as a taker.

Well, if that's the case, I'd rather be a taker than be one of the overgrown four-year-olds who seem to be running businesses in this country. I don't know when business ceased to be for risk-takers and daredevils and became something that should be as sure a thing as Mommy tucking a four-year-old into bed at night. But that's where we are right now.

Because I am taking some rare time off this week (which really consists of working two hours a day and addressing any e-mail concerns around trying to get caught up with some of the housework that doesn't get done the rest of the time), I was treated this morning to Steve Rattner on Morning Schmoe opining that corporate managers are not investing in their businesses because they lack "certainty." There always seems to be something else to make these guys "uncertain." A month ago they were uncertain because of the election. Now they're uncertain because either their taxes will be raised or there will be austerity, which will push the country into a new recession and no one will spend any money. I don't know what will make these guys ever have the "certainty" they insist they need in order to invest, and presumably, hire people.

It is this pathological need for certainty in the business community that is preventing our economy from recovering. Business is never certain, and yet we see over and over again a paralysis in companies from the smallest machine shop to the largest multinational corporation -- all because they want a certainty that has never once in our history existed.

Yesterday, Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times of a woman who runs a sheet metal company in Stacy, Minnesota. She is wondering why she can't find people who have advanced scientific background in addition to welding experience -- who will work for the princely sum of $20/hour ($40K/year) plus benefits. You can't support a family and send your kids to college on $40 grand a year, folks. And yet, this woman wants people who are ready to go, in her shop, with her equipment and processes, right out of the gate.

True story: A friend who recently started a short-term tech support contract asked on his first day what the administrator password on the server was. The response? "Why don't you know? You're the tech guy."

In 1990 I was the administrative assistant in an IT department. When an entry-level programming job came up, I was allowed to take that job and was sent for training. I had already taken enough computer science classes to know enough about basic programming concepts that I could handle the job. I received training for the tool they used, and SQL training. Since then, I've been able to teach myself a number of tools and languages even prior to walking in the door. By the time I went to Visual Basic training class, I'd already taught myself out of a book. By the time I went to Cold Fusion training, I'd already taught myself out of a book. But these companies sent me for training, even though one of them had less than twenty employees and the other was associated with a state agency. I now work in a highly regulated agency, and all kinds of training, both in-house and externally, are always available. I'm lucky in that sense; my employer will still train people with qualified experience on the specific tools and processes they need. Without companies willing to train, I might never have been employed anywhere, at any level. Even an administrative assistant in advertising doesn't know everything she might need to know to work in book publishing, or in financial information.

Even if companies use a widget-maker than no one else in the industry uses, they want someone who is ready to go right out of the gate. And then they complain that they can't find anyone.

It's just all too uncertain. So they don't hire.

The latest example of corporate paralysis is even more toxic, however. It is taking the form of corporate revenge against one's own employees. How can you ever have any kind of functional employer/employee relationship when the company is run by threats against you for things you don't even control? Here are some examples of toxic tantrums that have already been thrown by executives simply because a man whose pigmentation they regard as unseemly was elected to a second term:

John Metz, restaurant franchisee:
John Metz, a Florida businessman who controls multiple Dairy Queen, Denny's, and Hurricane Bar & Grill locations, has made great progress in Asshole Business Owner Science. Simply reducing employee hours? Raising prices? Not enough. The employees themselves must feel the pain. HuffPo's Janean Chun reports:

John Metz said he will add a 5 percent surcharge to customers' bills to offset what he said are the increased costs of Obamacare, along with reducing his employees' hours.

"If I leave the prices the same, but say on the menu that there is a 5 percent surcharge for Obamacare, customers have two choices. They can either pay it and tip 15 or 20 percent, or if they really feel so inclined, they can reduce the amount of tip they give to the server, who is the primary beneficiary of Obamacare," Metz told The Huffington Post.

Asshole Boss John Metz, quite brilliantly, will actively encourage customers to tip less in order to make up for the costs of Obamacare that he is passing on to them! And Metz expresses hope that his plan will "inspire employees rather than alienate them."


Welch-Allyn, invoking the "U" word:
The cuts are part of the medical device maker's plans to reshape its business in the wake of turmoil in the U.S. market and expand into emerging global markets, Chief Executive Steve Meyer said this afternoon. The changes are needed "to really get Welch Allyn able to compete on a global scale," he said. Welch Allyn is a privately held company that does not release its sales and earnings to the public.

[snip]

The uncertainty surrounding the future of the Obama health care package is creating turmoil in the domestic market, Meyer said. Hospitals and doctor offices aren't investing in new equipment until they see how the health care issues will play out, Meyer said.

Zane Tankel, CEO, Applebee's:
“We’ve calculated it will [cost] some millions of dollars across our system. So what does that say — that says we won’t build more restaurants. We won’t hire more people. If you have 40 or 50 employees at a restaurant, and the penalty is $2,000, and you’re going to pay $80,000 or $100,000 penalty, there goes the profit in your restaurant. I want to simply say we are looking at it, we are evaluating. If it’s possible to do without cutting people back, I am delighted to do it, but that also rolls back expansion, it rolls back hiring more people, and in a best-case scenario, we only shrink the labor force minimally. Best case.” Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/394524/applebees-ceo-announces-hiring-freeze-and-layoffs-over-obamacare-boycott-threatened/#SQLfjyulK2ZiG8XT.99

The list goes on and on.

Meanwhile, the guys who were hired to "rescue" Hostess and instead ran it into the ground again, stand to cash in to a cool 75% of their alrady-exorbitant pay packages to stick around long enough to wind down the business. The linked story also says that yet another private equity firm is looking to purchase the rotting corpse of the company to pick the last bit of meat off the bones.

Vulture capitalism and the reward of executives who ruin companies seems to be the ONLY "certainty" in American business.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, May 26, 2012

What does "running government like a business" even MEAN?
Posted by Jill | 6:37 AM
We've heard a lot over the last decade about how the federal government should be "run like a business". It's that particular meme that now has 58% of "financially struggling whites" believing that Willard Rmoney (sic) will do more to advance the economic interests of their families than Barack Obama would. How much of this is because these people believe that if they Just Work Hard Enough™ they will be allowed into the Rich Guys Club, how much of it is a residual sense among some in this group that "Democrats give everything to the lazy ni---rs" (a sentiment held by Mr. Brilliant's own father until late in his life when his frequent hospitalizations and resulting care by black nurses made him change his tune somewhat), and how much of it is buy-into this notion of "He will run government like a business, I don't know. But the notion of "government-as-business" is as ridiculous as "the federal budget should be run the way you run your own budget."

So what are some of the things businesses do these days, anyway?

Well, for one thing, the raison d'être for a business is to generate profits to be distributed to shareholders. (Note: It is NOT to generate jobs.) These shareholders might be the owners, or a small group of executives, or stockholders of publicly-held companies. Of course these days, profits of even publicly-held companies are largely distributed to a small group of executives through stock-heavy compensation plans, but I digress.

When capacity is insufficient to meet demand, businesses expand by investing in plant and equipment. Somehow, when Republicans like Mitt Rmoney talk about running the government like a business, they leave out this investment part. If government were run like a business, it SHOULD invest in roads, railroads, bridges, education, nutrition programs for children, and other things that are the government equivalent of plant and equipment. But instead, they advocate running a kind of business where your employees are still developing new applications in COBOL on IBM mainframes running DOS-VSE because you're not yet "certain" that this desktop computing thing is going to take off.

When there aren't enough employees to meet demand, companies have a couple of options. You can either hire people, or work the ones you have even harder. When all of your fellow business owners are choosing the latter, your own employees will go along with it because they can't do better anyone else. Of course after about sixty hours a week the law of diminishing returns kicks in, but at least the cost part of your ledger doesn't increase (especially if you've given your employees titles which allow them to be paid a fixed salary as exempt employees). What DO "demand and supply" mean when you run government "like a business"?

Now what happens when business slows down and you don't need as many employees as you have? You COULD cut hours temporarily. You could say that you'll pay 80% of salary for a 32-hour week. But in the US, most companies just get rid of people through layoff. If government is run like a business, what does this "laying people off" look like? Is it ending all government programs to help them and their families? Or does it mean lining them up against the wall and shooting them? What does "downsizing" or "right-sizing" government look like where its "employees" (i.e. citizens) are deemed to be superfluous?

Somewhere along the line, the Republicans forgot just who is the employer and who is the employee in our system of government. If they're going to "run government like a business", they ought to remember that. The problem is that we have a media that is all too happy to regurgitate six-word sound bites like "run government like a business" over and over and over again without explaining what that looks like.

All those financially struggling white people who think government should be run like a business should take a good, close look at Willard Rmoney's "business" career. It's one in which good-paying jobs with pensions are replaced by minimum-wage jobs without benefits -- just before the companies go into bankruptcy, but not before Mitt Romney and his Bain Capital peers shovel a bunch of money in fees into their pockets.

Rmoney likes to trot out Staples as an example of his acumen in creating jobs, even though most of Staples' growth occurred after he resigned from the company's board to run for Massachusetts governor in 1994. Here are some better examples of Mitt Romney's business record, from a Vanity Fair excerpt from The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman:
Romney had come to Drexel to obtain financing for the $300 million purchase of two Texas department-store chains, Bealls and Palais Royal, to form Specialty Retailers, Inc. On September 7, 1988, two months after Bain hired Drexel to issue junk bonds to finance the deal, the S.E.C. filed a complaint against Drexel and Milken for insider trading. Romney had to decide whether to close a deal with a company ensnared in a growing clash with regulators. The old Romney might well have backed off; the newly assertive, emboldened Mitt decided to press ahead.

Romney’s deal with Drexel turned out well for both him and Bain Capital, which put $10 million into the retailer and financed most of the rest of the $300 million deal with junk bonds. The newly constituted company, later known as Stage Stores, refocused in 1989 on its small-town, small-department-store roots. Seven years later, in October 1996, the company successfully sold shares to the public at $16 a share. By the following year, the stock had climbed to a high of nearly $53, and Bain Capital and a number of its officers and directors sold a large part of their holdings. Bain made a $175 million gain by 1997. It was one of the most profitable leveraged buyouts of the era.

Romney sold at just the right time. Shares plunged in value the next year amid declining sales at the stores. The department-store company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2000, struggling with $600 million in debt, and a reorganized company emerged the following year. So ended the story of a deal that Romney would not be likely to cite on the campaign trail: the highly leveraged purchase, financed with junk bonds from a firm that became infamous for its financial practices, of a department-store company that had subsequently gone into bankruptcy. But on the Bain balance sheet, and on Romney’s, it was a huge win.

Not every deal worked out so well for Romney and his investors. Bain invested $4 million in a company called Handbag Holdings, which sold pocketbooks and other accessories. When a major customer stopped buying, the company failed and 200 jobs were lost. Bain invested $2.1 million in a bathroom-fixtures company called PPM and lost nearly all of it. An investment in a company called Mothercare Stores also didn’t pan out; the firm had eliminated a hundred jobs by the time Bain dumped it. Fellow Bain partner Robert White said Bain lost its $1 million and blamed “a difficult retail environment.”

In some cases, Bain Capital’s alternative strategy of buying into companies also ended in trouble. In 1993, Bain bought GST Steel, a maker of steel-wire rods, and later more than doubled its $24 million investment. The company borrowed heavily to modernize plants in Kansas City and North Carolina—and to pay out dividends to Bain. But foreign competition increased and steel prices fell. GST Steel filed for bankruptcy and shut down its money-losing Kansas City plant, throwing some 750 employees out of work. Union workers there blamed Bain, then and now, for ruining the company, upending their lives, and devastating the community.

Then, in 1994, Bain invested $27 million as part of a deal with other firms to acquire Dade International, a medical-diagnostics-equipment firm, from its parent company, Baxter International. Bain ultimately made nearly 10 times its money, getting back $230 million. But Dade wound up laying off more than 1,600 people and filed for bankruptcy protection in 2002, amid crushing debt and rising interest rates. The company, with Bain in charge, had borrowed heavily to do acquisitions, accumulating $1.6 billion in debt by 2000. The company cut benefits for some workers at the acquired firms and laid off others. When it merged with Behring Diagnostics, a German company, Dade shut down three U.S. plants. At the same time, Dade paid out $421 million to Bain Capital’s investors and investing partners.

The amount of money now being earned at Bain Capital was skyrocketing, and much of it came from a handful of giant deals. During Romney’s 15 years there, the firm invested about $260 million in its 10 top deals and reaped a nearly $3 billion return. That was about three-quarters of its overall profit on roughly 100 transactions during Romney’s tenure. In one of his most specific explanations of how he made his fortune, in his autobiography, Turnaround, Romney wrote that most of the companies he invested in were ones that “no one has heard of—TRW’s credit services, the Yellow Pages of Italy.” Those weren’t just any two deals. They were two of the most lucrative of Romney’s career, and luck played a big part in both. A mere seven weeks after buying TRW, Romney and his partners flipped the company. Bain’s $100 million investment returned at least $300 million. The second deal cited by Romney took longer but involved even more good timing and luck. It began with a renowned Italian investor named Phil Cuneo, who had the idea of buying the Italian version of the Yellow Pages. It seemed a solid investment in a firm with a staid and stable business model. But mere months after closing the deal, Cuneo and his Bain associates realized that they had acquired a company that might benefit from the surging interest in dot-com businesses; the Yellow Pages company owned a Web-based directory that had the potential to be the Italian version of America Online or Yahoo. In just under three years, in September 2000, the partners sold the investment, earning a windfall that far exceeded anyone’s initial expectations. Bain’s $51.3 million investment in the Italian Yellow Pages returned at least $1.17 billion, according to a Romney associate familiar with the deal. There is no public documentation of how the profits were distributed, but at that time at least 20 percent of the return would have gone to Bain Capital. Of that, Romney’s typical payout was then 5 to 10 percent. That means this one obscure deal would have given him a profit of $11 million to $22 million. If Romney made a side investment in the deal, as was standard among Bain partners, he would have made even larger gains. One Romney associate said Romney’s total profit could have been as much as $40 million. (A Romney spokesman did not respond to questions about the deal.)

It was those kinds of deals that enabled Bain Capital to report the highest returns in the business in the 1990s. Romney’s own net worth would grow to at least $250 million, and maybe much more, a trove that would enable him to foot a large part of the bill for his 2008 presidential campaign. Asked about a report that his wealth at one point reached as high as $1 billion, Romney said, “I’m not going to get into my net worth. No estimates whatsoever.”

I almost can't wait to see what these "financially struggling whites" are going to do when they find out exactly what Willard has in store for them.

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share