Should employees of the Frontier recieve severance?

[Mano]

I just read this article and it raised points on both sides. What do you all think?

[LasVegasMichael]

Interesting article.

I give a resounding NO to the question at hand. He is not required to, and thus has no reason to. The Union would not do any favors for him if the situation were hypothetically reversed, and with the way corporations often have to bend over backwards for unions anyway, I say forget about it. Take the money and run, Mr Ruffin, and congrats on the profitable sale.

Then again, I am vehemently anti-union, so I may be a bit biased.

[stickdude]

The article sounded like an excerpt from an Ayn Rand novel with all the talk of "social responsibility" and "the right thing to do". Too bad for them that Mr. Ruffin is more like Hank Reardon than James Taggert.

If the unions wanted severance pay, they should have negotiated it into their contracts.

[*TT*]

fantastic article, I will keep this for future reference. The author did forget two additional reasons to offer a severance package

1) Assure employees will remain on the job until closing

2) Negotiate a tax break with the city and/or state in exchange for the payment.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

The article sounded like an excerpt from an Ayn Rand novel with all the talk of "social responsibility" and "the right thing to do". Too bad for them that Mr. Ruffin is more like Hank Reardon than James Taggert.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read whatever stupid book you are talking about, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

I think a better way to phrase this question is: what would you do if you were Mr. Ruffin?

or:
What would you think of Mr. Ruffin if he did/didn't decide to offer severance.

I'll answer those questions.
Q1: I'd give them a package similar to Boyd gaming, and I'd take TT's advice of parlaying this into tax breaks. Additionally, I would try to publicize this as much as possible, in concert with the union and try to use it to promote my other businesses

Q2: If he doesn't give severance I would think: "typical capitalist." If he does, I would think: "what an unusual capitalist. That's pretty cool. I wish more bosses felt a bigger committment to their employees."

[psandman]

There is no obligation to offer severence pay, but then again the employees have no obligation to stay until the end. So it seems to me that it would be a good idea to offer a severence package to those employees who stay to the end so that you don't find yourself with no employees for the two weeks before you close.

I seem to recall that Westward Ho offered very generous bonuses to their employees who stayed to the end.

[pig4bill]

Considering the history of the Frontier, and the strike and picketing that went on year after year, I can understand the owner's point of view. He's already gone above and beyond the call, imo.

[bav]

Ruffin is absolutely welcome to do what he wants. If he thinks it's in his best interest to offer some sorta reward to employees who stick with him to the end, he can do it. If he's sure he'll have enough stick around, or just doesn't care if he does not have enough, he can do what he's doing. And if it'll help him sleep better to be a philanthropist, regardless of the business case for it he could offer 'em something. But if he's fine with what's he's doing, so am I.

I seriously don't understand the unions flapping their arms around and screaming like this is the most serious breach of trust in the history of Vegas. Not even a little. The news the place was closing was hardly a bombshell dropped outta the blue. The only surprising thing about it was the price he got, and that it took so long to happen. I woulda set the over/under on the Frontier implosion considerably earlier.