If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Olive Garden says, gosh, I guess we'll just have to shoulder the new Obamacare costs in this crappy economy. Just kidding, they want to make all their workers part time   (articles.orlandosentinel.com) divider line 269
    More: Obvious, obamacare  
•       •       •

3341 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Oct 2012 at 11:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



269 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-09 12:40:56 AM

Free_Chilly_Willy: cameroncrazy1984: If you were an impressable [sic] young college student you'd be covered under your parents' insurance.

If THEY havent lost thier own insurence because thier bosses have decided just to pay the fee....


I find your lack of spell check to be distracting. are you really this bad, or are you doing it on purpose?
 
2012-10-09 12:41:36 AM

Notabunny: Helooooooooooooo universal single-payer nurse!


jackiesramblings.com
 
2012-10-09 12:41:46 AM

Weaver95: Free_Chilly_Willy: cameroncrazy1984: If you were an impressable [sic] young college student you'd be covered under your parents' insurance.

If THEY havent lost thier own insurence because thier bosses have decided just to pay the fee....

I find your lack of spell check to be distracting. are you really this bad, or are you doing it on purpose?


IE6 most likely
 
2012-10-09 12:43:44 AM

Teufelaffe: Their Conservatives aren't anything remotely like liberals either, so your assertion that The Sun is "overwhelmingly liberal" is still pants-on-head retarded.


Yes, you go on thinking that.

/pats you on the head
 
2012-10-09 12:43:58 AM

GhostFish:

When the demographic shift is needed, they can switch over to paying more lip-service to the "libertarians" and Paulites and reap a healthy crop of new voters. Just look how easily they reabsorbed the Tea Party before it could fully break away. And now the Tea Party is ready and willing to vote the Neocons back into power, despite the fact that they are absolutely to blame for everything that the Tea Party was railing against. The GOP adapts well when it needs to. It's run by a lot of guys who know how to manipulate people. And there are plenty of younger guys that want to take those higher positions when the torch needs to be passed.


I don't think so. the GOP is having a LOT of problems adapting to newer technologies. the younger voter crowd uses social media a LOT - not just to find new ideas and communicate amongst themselves but to fact check their party and research their own answers to questions they think are important. the GOP, on the other hand, seems barely aware of the impact that 'net has on their message and actually told voters to ignore fact checkers as being 'irrelevant'. I don't think the Republicans are going to be able to bring younger voters into the party in any significant number. they've damaged their brand almost to the point of no return.
 
2012-10-09 12:44:39 AM

cameroncrazy1984: 1) It's needlessly complicated
2) It still leaves millions of people uninsured
3) It doesn't actually do anything to deal with the high cost of health care

The situation in TFA is a combination of fault 1 and fault 2.

Please explain each of those.


1) Needless complication: it's a patchwork of private employer-based care, government-run exchanges for private insurance, expanded government-funded healthcare (Medicaid), and so forth. Each kind of coverage is very different from the others but they all have to be overseen by government to insure that they're working. A far simpler system would have been universal single payer -- you know, the kind of health care civilized countries have.

2) Millions left uninsured: From the CBO (PDF doc): Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision, Page 13:
CBO and JCT now estimate that the ACA, in comparison with prior law before the enactment of the ACA, will reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 14 million in 2014 and by 29 million or 30 million in the latter part of the coming decade, leaving 30 million nonelderly residents uninsured by the end of the period (see Table 3, at the end of this report). Before the Supreme Court's decision, the latter number had been 27 million.

cameroncrazy1984: 3) It doesn't actually do anything to deal with the high cost of health care:

Health care costs in Massachusetts haven't gone down. In fact, just this summer, Massachusetts enacted a new law to tackle health care costs because (from ABC News):
Paying for health care is not a problem unique to Massachusetts. But if expanding coverage is supposed to drive down costs in the long term, as advocates of health reform have suggested, it's an after-effect not yet felt in Massachusetts. Since the law was passed in 2006, per-capita spending on health care in the state has increased to 15 percent higher than the national average and health insurance premiums have skyrocketed to one of the highest in the nation, according to a study by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
And, interestingly, one of the most costly parts of healthcare has increased: use of emergency department resources. As the Boston Globe noted: Emergency room visits grow in Mass; New insurance law did not reduce number of users
 
2012-10-09 12:44:40 AM

Weaver95: Free_Chilly_Willy: cameroncrazy1984: If you were an impressable [sic] young college student you'd be covered under your parents' insurance.

If THEY havent lost thier own insurence because thier bosses have decided just to pay the fee....

I find your lack of spell check to be distracting. are you really this bad, or are you doing it on purpose?


Mainly alcohol.
 
2012-10-09 12:44:46 AM

cman: Weaver95: Free_Chilly_Willy: cameroncrazy1984: If you were an impressable [sic] young college student you'd be covered under your parents' insurance.

If THEY havent lost thier own insurence because thier bosses have decided just to pay the fee....

I find your lack of spell check to be distracting. are you really this bad, or are you doing it on purpose?

IE6 most likely


ugh. who does that to themselves!? I mean really....seek professional mental help.
 
2012-10-09 12:45:46 AM

Free_Chilly_Willy: Weaver95: Free_Chilly_Willy: cameroncrazy1984: If you were an impressable [sic] young college student you'd be covered under your parents' insurance.

If THEY havent lost thier own insurence because thier bosses have decided just to pay the fee....

I find your lack of spell check to be distracting. are you really this bad, or are you doing it on purpose?

Mainly alcohol.


ok, being drunk is far more acceptable than using IE6.
 
2012-10-09 12:46:35 AM

Free_Chilly_Willy: cameroncrazy1984: If you were an impressable [sic] young college student you'd be covered under your parents' insurance.

If THEY havent lost thier own insurence because thier bosses have decided just to pay the fee....


But then why wouldn't they just buy it on the exchange?
 
2012-10-09 12:46:59 AM

Weaver95: cman: Weaver95: Free_Chilly_Willy: cameroncrazy1984: If you were an impressable [sic] young college student you'd be covered under your parents' insurance.

If THEY havent lost thier own insurence because thier bosses have decided just to pay the fee....

I find your lack of spell check to be distracting. are you really this bad, or are you doing it on purpose?

IE6 most likely

ugh. who does that to themselves!? I mean really....seek professional mental help.


On a somewhat related note, whenever I see your name I always think of Windows 95

And yes, IE6 is a terrible, terrible thing
 
2012-10-09 12:47:02 AM

Weaver95: ok, being drunk is far more acceptable than using IE6.


Didn't say drunk. I said mainly alcohol.
 
2012-10-09 12:47:27 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: and people are surprised by this, why?

businesses have stated that it is easier for them to ditch people's health care and pay the fine (for those full time) or to just shift more people to part time.


"But but but...I told them they could keep their current plans if they wanted to!" - Obama
 
2012-10-09 12:49:17 AM

Weaver95: GhostFish:

When the demographic shift is needed, they can switch over to paying more lip-service to the "libertarians" and Paulites and reap a healthy crop of new voters. Just look how easily they reabsorbed the Tea Party before it could fully break away. And now the Tea Party is ready and willing to vote the Neocons back into power, despite the fact that they are absolutely to blame for everything that the Tea Party was railing against. The GOP adapts well when it needs to. It's run by a lot of guys who know how to manipulate people. And there are plenty of younger guys that want to take those higher positions when the torch needs to be passed.

I don't think so. the GOP is having a LOT of problems adapting to newer technologies. the younger voter crowd uses social media a LOT - not just to find new ideas and communicate amongst themselves but to fact check their party and research their own answers to questions they think are important. the GOP, on the other hand, seems barely aware of the impact that 'net has on their message and actually told voters to ignore fact checkers as being 'irrelevant'. I don't think the Republicans are going to be able to bring younger voters into the party in any significant number. they've damaged their brand almost to the point of no return.


There are a lot of younger people that are goo-goo over Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. And the majority of them, despite constant internet access, couldn't find their asses with their own hands. Sorry to say that the low information, "I know what I believe and don't need to listen to you" voters are still out there in the younger demographics.

They will certainly sign up with the GOP if someone can market it to them well.
 
2012-10-09 12:50:20 AM

Free_Chilly_Willy: Didn't say drunk. I said mainly alcohol.


Still more acceptable than IE6.
 
2012-10-09 12:50:29 AM
ox45tallboy

Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-08 09:19:07 PM
fusillade762: Analysts said limiting hours could pose new challenges, including higher turnover and less-qualified workers.

What could possibly go wrong?

Not to mention competing against other restaurants that provide health insurance, so the employees aren't stuck trying to get it on the exchanges.


What makes you think that any of the restaurants that compete in Olive Garden's price bracket won't do the same thing? Actually only a few will have to change to adopt this business model. Most of them have always hired part timers only with no benefits.
 
2012-10-09 12:52:39 AM
They can pass whatever the fark they want, I'm still not going to be forced to buy insurance. Sorry, but I like to eat. I haven't had a job with insurance since 1986 or something and I haven't missed it once.
 
2012-10-09 12:52:50 AM
As if I needed another reason not to go to olive garden.
 
2012-10-09 12:54:19 AM

cameroncrazy1984: TheEdibleSnuggie: cameroncrazy1984: TheEdibleSnuggie: Well, their legal responsibility is to their shareholders. So yes, they're going to try and maximize profits anyway they can so that their shareholders get the maximum benefit out of their investment.

This is not the way to do that. See:

whither_apophis: And then OG hires anyone that walks in the door, service drops to the point where it's worse than the food, consumers vote with their dollars and go to better places, OG's profits tank, and the great nigh mythical shareholder lawsuit comes into play, the CEO gets tarred and feathered and the free market wins again. tada!

But that won't happen though. Essentially you'll have restaurants getting into price wars with one another until one chain either a) goes out of business, or b) is absorbed by another chain; business life cycle starts all over again. Either that, or Darden will start to scale back the number of restaurants it owns until they're dominant in several key markets, and they'll focus on that.

Plus, chances are you're probably eating at a Darden owned establishment and don't even know about it. So if Olive Garden starts tanking, they'll just focus operations on a high margin business like Red Lobster or recycle the food at Bahama Breeze.

And in the meantime, their workers are going to places that provide health insurance.



I wouldn't be so sure of that either. Because those jobs will eventually end up being at a premium as businesses who now must comply with the new rule scale back their hiring or promotion of employees to even out costs. Some money coming in is better than no money, especially if you have bills or other obligations that must be paid in a timely fashion every month.

If I sound a bit cynical with all of this it's only because I've worked in or closely with HR/ Personnel and Finance/ Payroll departments; I've seen these type of patterns before.
 
2012-10-09 12:56:03 AM

eraser8: 1) Needless complication: it's a patchwork of private employer-based care, government-run exchanges for private insurance, expanded government-funded healthcare (Medicaid), and so forth. Each kind of coverage is very different from the others but they all have to be overseen by government to insure that they're working. A far simpler system would have been universal single payer -- you know, the kind of health care civilized countries have.


This is no different at all than the current state; it's not a step backwards, just not a step forwards, either. For how violently the Republicans attacked a public option, good luck seeing single payer any time in this century.

2) Millions left uninsured: From the CBO (PDF doc): Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision, Page 13:

There's a difference between people being voluntarily uninsured, and being involuntarily uninsured. Beyond those affected by the Supreme Court rejecting the Medicaid expansion, most of the remaining uninsured are voluntarily opting to be uninsured.
 
2012-10-09 12:56:12 AM

TheEdibleSnuggie: Because those jobs will eventually end up being at a premium as businesses who now must comply with the new rule scale back their hiring or promotion of employees to even out costs


Why would they do that? Will demand suddenly decrease because people are now required to have healthcare? If so, why?
 
2012-10-09 12:56:54 AM

Sum Dum Gai: There's a difference between people being voluntarily uninsured, and being involuntarily uninsured. Beyond those affected by the Supreme Court rejecting the Medicaid expansion, most of the remaining uninsured are voluntarily opting to be uninsured.


And, according to that same paper, the number of uninsured will go from 80% to 92%.
 
2012-10-09 01:00:10 AM
Hey, at least part time jobs count as jobs so no change in the unemployment numbers.

Yay for all this hope and change!
 
2012-10-09 01:00:37 AM

ox45tallboy: Teufelaffe: Their Conservatives aren't anything remotely like liberals either, so your assertion that The Sun is "overwhelmingly liberal" is still pants-on-head retarded.

Yes, you go on thinking that.

/pats you on the head


Really? You're going to run with the "UK Conservative party is liberal"? Let's look at some of what they're about:

Against multiculturalism
Support the war in Afghanistan
Against minimum wage
Support increased defense spending

While they have no direct equivalent to US political parties, they're not fecking liberals by any stretch of the imagination. The Sun, in 2009, dropped their support for the Labour Party and started rooting for the Conservative party. The paper might have been "overwhelmingly liberal" before then, but they sure as hell aren't now.
 
2012-10-09 01:01:48 AM

YELLOL: Hey, at least part time jobs count as jobs so no change in the unemployment numbers.

Yay for all this hope and change!


That's what you're coming up with?

So weak.
 
2012-10-09 01:03:33 AM

itsdan: Also, you're allowed to pay them what like $2/hr as servers and you still can't afford a cheap plan that just barely meets the coverage requirements?


That depends on the state. Some do not allow you to go below federal minimum wage, not including tips.
 
2012-10-09 01:06:24 AM
Decouple insurance from employment. Single payer... NOW
 
2012-10-09 01:06:57 AM
There's something everyone is missing here.

Let's assume Darden Restaurants and all the other douchebag businesses actually cut hours in order to avoid Obamacare. What happens?

1) Lots of employees get pissed at business owners who cut their hours because they're too damn cheap to provide Obamacare.
2) Businesses have to hire MORE people (albeit at fewer hours a week) to make up for the cuts .
3) UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS/MORE PEOPLE IN THE LABOR FORCE
4) Obama now looks awesome on the economy (Hey! See that unemployment figure dropping!)
5) People get pissed at the Mitt Romneys who own/run these businesses for playing these dick games
6) Obama scores again with people who are tired of the Mitt Romney-style "I've got mine so screw you!" management and operation of businesses.
7) Since it's predominantly a younger generation working these jobs (HS/college kids), a large number of people are going to realize who the good guys are (Obama and the Dems, who want them to have nice things like health care, sick time off, a job that doesn't suck) and who the bad guys are (Romney and the GOP, who play these games of cutting hours and such so they can buy another house with a car elevator, a dancing horse, and turn all the rest of the money over to their rich friends by way of dividends to the shareholders)
8) Massive GOP rage face and butthurt as they've now lost yet another generation of voters and made Obama and the Dems look good twice over.

If Darden Restaurants and the other companies actually bite the bullet and swallow Obamacare:

1) Staff get healthcare
2) Obama scores with workers who can suddenly afford to go to the doctor
3) Businesses actually get some more productivity because the employees aren't sick
4) Executives/owners/shareholders rage-face because they can't take as big a pay raise or cash-out on stock as they wanted.
5) Doom and gloom fail to happen, thus undermining the GOP message
6) GOP rage-face and butthurt as they're now shown to cry wolf and they've now lost more voters

Conclusion: Obama is not only a master troll, he has over 9000 ranks in 3-D Troll Chess, and the GOP needs to decide whether or not they want to keep playing until the only move left for them is to flip the table and storm out, or if they want to shake hands, say "well played, sir", and spend some time learning a new strategy that doesn't involve sticking one foot in their mouth while shooting themselves in the other.
 
2012-10-09 01:07:26 AM

cameroncrazy1984: YELLOL: Hey, at least part time jobs count as jobs so no change in the unemployment numbers.

Yay for all this hope and change!

That's what you're coming up with?

So weak.


This is YELLOL we're talking about. If he said something witty it would be out of character.
 
2012-10-09 01:08:13 AM

Sum Dum Gai: This is no different at all than the current state; it's not a step backwards, just not a step forwards, either. For how violently the Republicans attacked a public option, good luck seeing single payer any time in this century.


So, 900 pages of legislation to give us a system that just as screwed up as the one we have now? Well, that changes my view completely.

And, the Republicans attack everything violently. It's in their nature. With them, it's in for a penny, in for a pound. The president and the Democrats should have known that and shouldn't have accommodated them when they weren't going to get anything in return in any case.

Sum Dum Gai: There's a difference between people being voluntarily uninsured, and being involuntarily uninsured. Beyond those affected by the Supreme Court rejecting the Medicaid expansion, most of the remaining uninsured are voluntarily opting to be uninsured.


Even if we just restrict it to those affected by the Medicaid issue, that's still 3 million people. I think everyone ought to have access to health care. Obamacare doesn't give it to them.
 
2012-10-09 01:09:03 AM

ox45tallboy: Dead for Tax Reasons: So olive garden is going to suck even more now?

Is that possible?

Well, look at this way. Other restaurants will soon have cooks and servers that have health care for a change. Olive Garden servers and cooks will still not have health care. Which group of people would you rather have handling your food?


As far as I'm concerned, they should do it. One of the killers in the food industry is turnover and associated training costs. Go ahead and make your place pay less than everywhere else, and don't even give people full-time status just to save a buck by denying them benefits. See what that does for:
A) Turnover
B) The quality of your applicant pool

They're begging to become a stepping stone that incurs much of the expense of training entry-level waitstaff and bartenders for other restaurants to poach. That'll do wonders for service and customer satisfaction.
 
2012-10-09 01:09:10 AM

null: Obama is not only a master troll, he has over 9000 ranks in 3-D Troll Chess


He's not going to sleep with you.
 
2012-10-09 01:10:04 AM

cameroncrazy1984: TheEdibleSnuggie: Because those jobs will eventually end up being at a premium as businesses who now must comply with the new rule scale back their hiring or promotion of employees to even out costs

Why would they do that? Will demand suddenly decrease because people are now required to have healthcare? If so, why?



I never said demand would decrease...As a matter of fact it'd do the exact opposite. Considering that healthcare is an escalating cost for most, if not all employers- if you're trying to control costs without significantly increasing the prices at which you do business (which negatively affect the business as we've already established that consumers choose with their dollars), without wanting to lay off a bunch of people-- the natural thing to do if you're a business owner is to slow the pace at which you acquire and promote employees for your business. That inevitably creates scarcity in the job market as you suddenly have thousands of potential employees applying for jobs that are there, but won't be filled because the acquisition, training, and retention costs have become too high for the employer to provide for those wishing to have full-time benefits.
 
2012-10-09 01:12:59 AM

TheEdibleSnuggie: I never said demand would decrease...As a matter of fact it'd do the exact opposite. Considering that healthcare is an escalating cost for most, if not all employers- if you're trying to control costs without significantly increasing the prices at which you do business (which negatively affect the business as we've already established that consumers choose with their dollars),


Someone upthread said OG would have to raise their prices by 20 cents per meal. But they'd rather let their service suffer than charge 20 cents extra. And they will, and it will.
 
2012-10-09 01:17:08 AM

cameroncrazy1984: TheEdibleSnuggie: I never said demand would decrease...As a matter of fact it'd do the exact opposite. Considering that healthcare is an escalating cost for most, if not all employers- if you're trying to control costs without significantly increasing the prices at which you do business (which negatively affect the business as we've already established that consumers choose with their dollars),

Someone upthread said OG would have to raise their prices by 20 cents per meal. But they'd rather let their service suffer than charge 20 cents extra. And they will, and it will.


I am curious, how sure is OG about the $.20 figure? I wonder how anyone could calculate the impact on their business.

/Not trying to start a debate, asking a question on how ObamaCare is taken into account
 
2012-10-09 01:19:49 AM

cameroncrazy1984: TheEdibleSnuggie: I never said demand would decrease...As a matter of fact it'd do the exact opposite. Considering that healthcare is an escalating cost for most, if not all employers- if you're trying to control costs without significantly increasing the prices at which you do business (which negatively affect the business as we've already established that consumers choose with their dollars),

Someone upthread said OG would have to raise their prices by 20 cents per meal. But they'd rather let their service suffer than charge 20 cents extra. And they will, and it will.


The major airlines have been doing that for the last decade or so; the fact restaurants might be/ already are doing it surprises me very little tbh...I almost expect it.
 
2012-10-09 01:21:58 AM

cman: cameroncrazy1984: TheEdibleSnuggie: I never said demand would decrease...As a matter of fact it'd do the exact opposite. Considering that healthcare is an escalating cost for most, if not all employers- if you're trying to control costs without significantly increasing the prices at which you do business (which negatively affect the business as we've already established that consumers choose with their dollars),

Someone upthread said OG would have to raise their prices by 20 cents per meal. But they'd rather let their service suffer than charge 20 cents extra. And they will, and it will.

I am curious, how sure is OG about the $.20 figure? I wonder how anyone could calculate the impact on their business.

/Not trying to start a debate, asking a question on how ObamaCare is taken into account


No idea, and no idea where that figure came from.
I do recall that the founder of Papa John's said that per pizza prices will need to go up about 14 cents to compensate for Obamacare.

I think the general reaction to that was, "So why the fark haven't you been doing it all along?!"
 
2012-10-09 01:25:42 AM

GhostFish: cman: cameroncrazy1984: TheEdibleSnuggie: I never said demand would decrease...As a matter of fact it'd do the exact opposite. Considering that healthcare is an escalating cost for most, if not all employers- if you're trying to control costs without significantly increasing the prices at which you do business (which negatively affect the business as we've already established that consumers choose with their dollars),

Someone upthread said OG would have to raise their prices by 20 cents per meal. But they'd rather let their service suffer than charge 20 cents extra. And they will, and it will.

I am curious, how sure is OG about the $.20 figure? I wonder how anyone could calculate the impact on their business.

/Not trying to start a debate, asking a question on how ObamaCare is taken into account

No idea, and no idea where that figure came from.
I do recall that the founder of Papa John's said that per pizza prices will need to go up about 14 cents to compensate for Obamacare.

I think the general reaction to that was, "So why the fark haven't you been doing it all along?!"


Obamacare is supposed to be free, duh.
 
2012-10-09 01:31:22 AM

GhostFish: They will certainly sign up with the GOP if someone can market it to them well.


GOP Spokesperson Auditions, Take 1:

images.politico.com
"You see, the America I believe in is one that we all can enjoy, praising God and living to His Glory..."

i2.cdn.turner.com
"Okay, a little too much Jesus there. The new generation isn't quite so religious. Next!"

a.abcnews.com
"How about... a MOON BASE! It'll be AWESOME!"

images.businessweek.com
"I thought we told you to retire, Newt. Next!"

www.addictinginfo.org
"See, the America that I love is complete with Americans that I love even more. And if we all adhere to the principles of small government, except when it comes to our sex lives, then we can still beat the Russians!"

wonkette.com
"Miss Bachmann, have you had your meds today?"

3.bp.blogspot.com
"Of course I have! And it's Misses Bachmann!"

images.politico.com
"But...um...nevermind. Next!"

ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com
"I'm not going to get this, am I?"

farm6.staticflickr.com
"Ha-hah...No. Next!"

allenwestrepublic.files.wordpress.com
"Hey, I'm Allen! I'm conservative!"

cfo-dailyreport.com
"Who the f*ck let him in here?"

netrightdaily.com
"I have the ability to speak to whatever or whomever needs to be spoken to. I can be in favor of tax cuts to the wealthy and expansion of government military spending. I can institute an assault weapons ban and still get the NRA's endorsement. I can kill off Social Security and still get grandparents to support me. I can sell anyone on anything. I can be all things to all people!"

www.nypost.com
"Yes, but you're going to get your ass handed to you in the election. People like winners!"
 
2012-10-09 01:37:27 AM

Teufelaffe: Really? You're going to run with the "UK Conservative party is liberal"? Let's look at some of what they're about:

Against multiculturalism
Support the war in Afghanistan
Against minimum wage
Support increased defense spending

While they have no direct equivalent to US political parties, they're not fecking liberals by any stretch of the imagination. The Sun, in 2009, dropped their support for the Labour Party and started rooting for the Conservative party. The paper might have been "overwhelmingly liberal" before then, but they sure as hell aren't now.


Pro-socialized medicine
Pro-gay marriage
Anti-centralized banking
Pro-foreign aid

You were saying?

I think the problem with your perception is that although the UK conservatives are to the right of Labour on many issues, they are still slightly to the Left of US Democrats.
 
2012-10-09 01:42:33 AM

ox45tallboy: Hey, this works for Wal-Mart!

My sister is part time, but has worked less than 40 hours precisely three times since she got the job. But she doesn't get benefits, because it is a "part-time position". The screwy thing is when they make the employees show up at 10 PM on Friday nights, count them tardy if they are late, but do not allow them to clock in and begin work until they have waited the amount of time they have been asked to "work over" throughout the week. For instance, if lots of stuff needs to be done Tuesday morning, a manager might ask her to stay an hour late to help out. If she does, then she won't be allowed to clock in until an hour after her scheduled time on Friday. However, she is expected to "report in" at her scheduled time, and then she can go do whatever she wants (including leaving the area if she has a car, otherwise hanging out in the parking lot with all the unsavory characters you find in a Wal-Mart parking lot at 10:30 on Friday nights) until the hour is up. Can't have anyone getting overtime they were asked to work!

Since their army of lawyers has so far kept the labor-based lawsuits at bay (including reports of locking employees in the store), they're setting precedent for many other cases, and many other businesses to take on this same way of treating their employees. After all, when someone complains, you fire the offending manager, and then put someone else in their place that is forced to make the same unrealistic goals through whatever means necessary.


this is illegal, and should be reported.
 
2012-10-09 01:46:52 AM

Kazan: this is illegal, and should be reported.


Of course. But do you know what happens if it gets reported?

The manager gets fired. The manager who is also my sister's friend. And then they fire my sister for whatever reason they come up with. And then they put in another manager who does the same damn thing again, and keep them in place until someone else complains.

The people in charge of this policy will never, ever, see any consequences, only profit. They're insulated from the wrongdoing better than Stringer Bell on The Wire.
 
2012-10-09 01:52:04 AM

BarkingUnicorn: I've been expecting this move.

But why is it legal for Darden to require a cut of servers' tips?


It's common practice(And totally legal) for a lot of restaurants to require servers to tip out the bartenders. It's supposed to be because the bartenders make the servers' drinks for their tables, which is a part of the overall meal, and therefore a part of the overall tip. It's a bullshiat move, because a bartender will let your drinks wait while they pay attention to their customers at the bar, and while they get tipped at the bar for getting their customers drinks quickly, not letting a drink go empty without checking to see if the customer needs a refill, and basically paying enough attention that good tippers get priority, and some poor schlub who kind of blends in or keeps getting cut on in line finally gets to order, for the servers, it's part of the job description and not really optional.

Tipping bussers and food runners is one thing. In certain restaurants(In others, it's bullshiat), but tipping the bar is just an excuse for the establishment to pay these guys left, and not having to retrain new ones every week. I'd bet that the bar is the most training-intensive position, even more so than the cook's line.

To me, it's just another restaurant chain to mark off of my list(I almost never go there anyway). I worked far too much of my life in the food service industry to not notice when one of these chains starts whining about how hard it is to pay people to do some of the most under appreciated work in the country. Bucca Di Beppo is also on my list for being the main cheerleader fighting to keep paying servers the crap wages they currently pay. There's room for these Darden restaurants on my list, too, although my wife will be rather disappointed about the Red Lobster decision. Not living on the coast, they really are one of the best choices for seafood. Luckily they also made the brilliant decision to cut a bunch of seafood from their menu, so there's that...
 
2012-10-09 01:55:04 AM

itsdan: I don't think you should be able to offer unlimited soup/salad/breadsticks and then cry poor.


Interesting point. Hadn't thought of that one... I'm tired of restaurants talking like they over pay dishwashers who have to grub out floor sinks, and servers who make $2.13/hr, even when they are not on the floor(Such as setting up for opening and doing sidework), it's a hard claim to swallow when you look at how hard these people work, and how little they earn. Since it's usually kids, or people under 25, nobody cares about the worker though.
 
2012-10-09 02:00:34 AM

ox45tallboy: Every restaurant that has a bar I've ever worked in does this...


Yet the bar gets to keep 100% of their tips, with the exception of the busboy. You have a shiatty night, you still have to give them some of your non-existant money. They have a shiatty night, it's all good.
 
2012-10-09 02:01:48 AM
Tying healthcare to employment was stupid idea.
 
2012-10-09 02:02:46 AM

ox45tallboy: Hey, this works for Wal-Mart!

My sister is part time, but has worked less than 40 hours precisely three times since she got the job. But she doesn't get benefits, because it is a "part-time position". The screwy thing is when they make the employees show up at 10 PM on Friday nights, count them tardy if they are late, but do not allow them to clock in and begin work until they have waited the amount of time they have been asked to "work over" throughout the week. For instance, if lots of stuff needs to be done Tuesday morning, a manager might ask her to stay an hour late to help out. If she does, then she won't be allowed to clock in until an hour after her scheduled time on Friday. However, she is expected to "report in" at her scheduled time, and then she can go do whatever she wants (including leaving the area if she has a car, otherwise hanging out in the parking lot with all the unsavory characters you find in a Wal-Mart parking lot at 10:30 on Friday nights) until the hour is up. Can't have anyone getting overtime they were asked to work!

Since their army of lawyers has so far kept the labor-based lawsuits at bay (including reports of locking employees in the store), they're setting precedent for many other cases, and many other businesses to take on this same way of treating their employees. After all, when someone complains, you fire the offending manager, and then put someone else in their place that is forced to make the same unrealistic goals through whatever means necessary.




Home Depot tried that briefly when I worked there in high school, it worked great...until they ran out of cashiers. You get your overtime pay when the alternative is the store managers start having to work the front end. They still had to cover breaks. I liked our store managers though, HR...well they can get farked, store managers were cool. That was a good high school job, calculated it one week my average hourly wage was $19/hour, once you counted overtime, stupid little promotions they offer, and such. That was a good summer, although a little farked up that if I don't count travel I made more money that year than I do now. Oh well, travel makes up a lot.
 
2012-10-09 02:03:17 AM

ox45tallboy: AT APPLEBEE'S WE TAKE PRIDE IN PROVIDING THE BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE INDUSTRY FOR OUR BEST RESOURCE - OUR PEOPLE!


Applebee's was the most soul-sucking place I ever worked. They claimed they really cared, they told you over and over and over when you worked there, but they didn't give two squirts about you.
 
2012-10-09 02:04:42 AM

nmemkha: Tying healthcare to employment was stupid idea.


Not for the corporations that make you think twice before quitting when they come up with a new way to cut costs.
 
2012-10-09 02:08:37 AM

penthesilea: My sister works for Olive Garden. If she asks for the day off because she's really sick they tell her no. They'll fire her. She tries to wash her hands as much as possible to keep from passing colds/illness to the customers, but that takes time and management get pissed if the staff isn't moving things along as quickly as possible.


This^^^

I was extremely sick one night when I worked at Applebee's(Yes, different restaurant, but same idea). I went in the bathroom and threw up, still had to work 4 more hours. My tables all asked me from the beginning if everything was all right because I looked like shiat. I explained to every single table that I had been sick, and they wouldn't let me leave. The reason that it's significant that I threw up is that I am phobic about it. So much that I can remember the last date I threw up(It comes from when I was a kid and panicked because I couldn't breathe while it happened). The last date was October 30, 2010, and was the night I went to the hospital for pancreatitis. When you can actually point to a calendar and show the last time you vomited, doing it out of the blue usually means something not good. They didn't care, they never let anyone go home who was sick, regardless of concern for the customers.

On the other hand, I made some of my highest tips ever that night. Pity tips pay a great percentage.
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report