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.

(Buzzfeed)   Staples cuts part time employee hours in order to exploit an Affordable Care Act loophole. That was sleazy   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 264
    More: Asinine, Affordable Care Act, store manager, Dollar General  
•       •       •

11412 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 11:45 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-09 11:47:45 PM  
Done in none. Nice job subby.
 
2014-01-09 11:49:25 PM  
Buzzfeed link.

NOPE..
 
2014-01-09 11:50:23 PM  
No shiat.  It's almost as though destroying the ability of people to afford anything was built into this abortion from the beginning
 
2014-01-09 11:51:08 PM  
Purely a coinkydink, I'm sure.
 
2014-01-09 11:51:15 PM  

styckx: Buzzfeed link.

NOPE..


so you hate buzzfeed... why ?

(note you are posting on FARK.com your reason has to include something that makes buzzfeed different to fark)
 
2014-01-09 11:51:18 PM  
"Loophole"? Hasn't that always been there?
 
2014-01-09 11:51:50 PM  
And this surprises who?  Whom?  Whatever, was Obvious tag busy?
 
2014-01-09 11:52:09 PM  
Pretty sure any asshole-ish move by any employer or insurance company for the next $YEARS will be blamed on Obamacare.  It's a wonderful excuse for anyone to use, true or not.
 
2014-01-09 11:52:14 PM  
Words fail me.
Pictures don't
www.banklawyersblog.com
 
2014-01-09 11:52:24 PM  
Something something Obamacare something job creators etc.

Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %? Why the fark are people not demanding the heads of the businessmen who make these changes, instead of demanding the heads of the people who are trying to help them(but are then used as an excuse for the businessmen to be worse people)?
 
2014-01-09 11:54:04 PM  
Color me unsurprised. Back when I still had a full time job (I left it in June), we were told to start cutting part time and relief staff hours to 28 hours a week, maximum, in order to keep our numbers down for when the healthcare law stuff started. And this was at a not for profit 'Christian' place that provided care for adults with intellectual disabilities.
It's one of several reasons I'm no longer working there. But, from ehat I heard from HR, a lot of businesses would be doing it to save money.
 
2014-01-09 11:54:25 PM  
Nicely done  Subs, I larfed.
 
2014-01-09 11:56:58 PM  
They did this where I work, Home Depot. The worst part about it it, of someone calls out, I can't call anyone in, because they're already scheduled 29 hours for the week.
 
2014-01-09 11:57:21 PM  
Who exactly is surprised by this? People saw this coming a year ago.
 
2014-01-09 11:58:12 PM  
Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

/or, failing that, at least some kind of sliding scale
 
2014-01-09 11:58:17 PM  
They were keeping hours down when I started working there over a decade ago. These stores hire mostly kids for a reason. Low wages, limited hours.

Obama makes a beautiful scapegoat though.
 
2014-01-09 11:58:34 PM  
FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.
 
2014-01-10 12:00:44 AM  

spunkymunky: But, from ehat I heard from HR, a lot of businesses would be doing it to save money.


HR's e-hats

www.originalbuzz.info
 
2014-01-10 12:02:21 AM  
Why do they hate Americans?
 
2014-01-10 12:02:53 AM  
I hope some of the 50 people who have been in a Staples in the past 5 years protest this move.
 
2014-01-10 12:03:51 AM  
Never before in American history have employers cut their employees' hours to avoid paying benefits. It was also never the case that a bureaucrat would get between you and your doctor.

Thanks, Obama. You and your infernal time machine.
 
2014-01-10 12:05:48 AM  
Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?
 
2014-01-10 12:07:02 AM  

el_pilgrim: FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.


ACA treats employees working 30+ hours as full time and requires coverage for them.
 
2014-01-10 12:07:51 AM  
One anonymous Staples employee, who says she worked 30- to 35-hour weeks for nine years,

There is the problem. Stupid lazy libs. 9 years as apart time Staples employee......
 
2014-01-10 12:07:54 AM  

Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.


Better solution:  make employer provided health insurance illegal.

I keep reading about how employers want to choose what kind of health insurance their employees are allowed to purchase.  Apparently, some employers are even going to the Supreme Court based on some sort of insane legal theory that their employees are the legal property of their employer and that employers should get to make health care decisions for their employers.

Since it's employer provided health insurance is obviously such a problem, we should get rid of it.
 
2014-01-10 12:08:59 AM  

el_pilgrim: FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.


30 hours a week is considered full time, which many of their part time employees were putting in. Also, had you read the memo, they state that managers should hire additional part time employees to cover any shortfalls in staffing, that is the very definition of sleazy.
 
2014-01-10 12:09:08 AM  

el_pilgrim: FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.


The thing is that the vast majority of their retail employees are part time. It's not just one or two people that they hired just to fill in certain hours, it's pretty much their work force.
 
2014-01-10 12:09:28 AM  

spunkymunky: Color me unsurprised. Back when I still had a full time job (I left it in June), we were told to start cutting part time and relief staff hours to 28 hours a week, maximum, in order to keep our numbers down for when the healthcare law stuff started. And this was at a not for profit 'Christian' place that provided care for adults with intellectual disabilities.
It's one of several reasons I'm no longer working there. But, from ehat I heard from HR, a lot of businesses would be doing it to save money.


Good.  Employer provided health insurance was always a very, very bad idea.  I'm glad Obamacare is forcing people to realize that.
 
2014-01-10 12:10:11 AM  

socoloco: Why do they hate Americans?


They aren't Americans, they aren't even people, they are identified as "resources" and nothing more.
 
2014-01-10 12:10:53 AM  
Well, only Democrats would try and classify a full time employee as 30 hours. Most FTEs generally are 35 or 40 hours a week.
 
2014-01-10 12:11:19 AM  
i.imgflip.com

Seriously, why is this even news?  It's been done by pretty much every big retailer at this point.
 
2014-01-10 12:11:19 AM  

Thunderpipes: Stupid lazy libs.


does that ever get old for you ?
cuz its getting frekking old for others.
 
2014-01-10 12:11:25 AM  

Elandriel: ACA treats employees working 30+ hours as full time and requires coverage for them.


Exactly.  Sleazy corrupt companies like Staples have been getting away with pretending like full-time, 30+ hour a week employees were part time for years.  I'm glad that their not allowed to be such evil dicks anymore.
 
2014-01-10 12:11:36 AM  
Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.
 
2014-01-10 12:12:22 AM  
The Larch
Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.
Better solution: make employer provided health insurance illegal.
I keep reading about how employers want to choose what kind of health insurance their employees are allowed to purchase. Apparently, some employers are even going to the Supreme Court based on some sort of insane legal theory that their employees are the legal property of their employer and that employers should get to make health care decisions for their employers.
Since it's employer provided health insurance is obviously such a problem, we should get rid of it.


I see the Affordable Healthcare Act as an opportunity. While I would love to have a great job where I can visit a doctor with a $50 co-pay on the cheap, I think it is great that people can buy decent insurance without insane loopholes. No bullshiat preconditions, six month wait for specialists, or be denied for coverage if someone forgets something minor on their health insurance forms.

I could be self-employed or work a series of temp jobs and not have to worry about the 60 or 90 days rules. I am free from having to work one full time job dedicated to one employer.

For the "I've got mine" crowd angry that this could change their healthcare, there were events going on outside their window that were pretty insane.
 
2014-01-10 12:13:39 AM  

cirby: Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.


The recession ended years ago outside the USA
 
2014-01-10 12:14:22 AM  

Slartibartfaster: Thunderpipes: Stupid lazy libs.

does that ever get old for you ?
cuz its getting frekking old for others.


Perhaps if they weren't lazy and stupid they'd quit getting into these circumstances
 
2014-01-10 12:14:35 AM  

cirby: Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.


Ah yes, hard times. The big boss could only afford a 62 ft. yacht, and not that 64fter he really wanted. My sympathy lays in the smaller businesses, where sometimes you have to downsize to stay afloat, not in big business where they cut employees before they cut the bigwigs bonuses.
 
2014-01-10 12:14:56 AM  
Dont work for a business that treats you like utter shiat, news story at 11.  If McDonalds treats you better than Walmart, do the math.
 
2014-01-10 12:15:08 AM  

Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

/or, failing that, at least some kind of sliding scale


Then they will just make all employment a salaried position and then start abusing the shiat out of people by making them work a 50-60 hour week for 40 hours worth of pay.
 
2014-01-10 12:17:58 AM  

cirby: Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.


Who has a 2.2% profit margin?
 
2014-01-10 12:18:16 AM  

sethen320: [i.imgflip.com image 480x640]

Seriously, why is this even news?  It's been done by pretty much every big retailer at this point.


Because the apocalypse known as fatrbongodon'tcare has ushered in a new era when employers will screw over their employees to get out of paying for benefits. This has never happened before. It's an unprecedented sea change in the Marxist-Sharia dystopia Sarah Palin warned us of.

Silly liberal.
 
2014-01-10 12:19:20 AM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?


Because if you don't want to make a profit off someone else's illness and death, you're a gotdanged dirty commie!

/The best part is you don't even need to heal them
 
2014-01-10 12:20:21 AM  
30 hours a week is considered full time, which many of their part time employees were putting in. Also, had you read the memo, they state that managers should hire additional part time employees to cover any shortfalls in staffing, that is the very definition of sleazy.


What are we in France?  Since I got my first part-time job back in 1980 something full-time was 40 hours.
 
2014-01-10 12:21:20 AM  

Elandriel: el_pilgrim: FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.

ACA treats employees working 30+ hours as full time and requires coverage for them.


It also means "More jobs!!" because more people will be working part-time. Cutting hours to 25 keeps employees well clear of the 30 hour break point and essentially guarantees no chance ever of encroaching into that magical overtime catagory, plus... go be poor and get your subsidized health care somewhere else, part-time peon.

But hey, unemployment numbers are down, am I right?

Or did people actually think the megacorps famous for utilizing cut rate labor wouldn't run the numbers on payroll + benefits, then come up with a more aggressive cost reduction strategy?
 
2014-01-10 12:22:04 AM  
I'm wondering if the quality and price of the insurance that Staples offers their employees better or worse that what the staff can get through their health exchanges.
 
2014-01-10 12:22:07 AM  
So much for customer service.  Please stay on the line, your call is important to us.....
 
2014-01-10 12:22:42 AM  
Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.
 
2014-01-10 12:23:29 AM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?




Because we have a for-profit healthcare system. So good health isn't seen as a right (which seems to fly in the face of the preamble to our constitution). It's set up to be a money making opportunity. In order to gain the privilege of the opportunity to purchase a chance at maintaining your health you must play a role in making corporations richer by being an employee.

Because that's how the republicans like it. Money reigns supreme and helping people without gaining money from it is wrong. At least as far as they're concerned.

As a social experiment I want the south to secede. That'll give the north to the liberals and the south to the conservatives. Each will have almost complete control over their newfound nations. Then I want to watch what happens over the next 50 years. It would be fascinating.
 
2014-01-10 12:23:49 AM  

luxup: 30 hours a week is considered full time, which many of their part time employees were putting in. Also, had you read the memo, they state that managers should hire additional part time employees to cover any shortfalls in staffing, that is the very definition of sleazy.


What are we in France?  Since I got my first part-time job back in 1980 something full-time was 40 hours.


If we were in France, everyone would have health coverage and staples wouldn't feel compelled to destroy employee morale for a few dollars.
 
Displayed 50 of 264 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report