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  
•       •       •

11405 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 11:45 PM (35 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
 
2014-01-10 10:46:47 AM

KarmicDisaster: That should attract even more Top Quality help for their stores, that should help their bottom line. "If they can get to the interview, hire them".


Well, yes and no. If\when everyone starts doing this with their part time force it'll become more common to see people working two part time jobs in two different companies. The main sticking point will probably be juggling schedules. That would even it out as time goes by.
 
2014-01-10 10:56:28 AM

mwfark: You mean people are suffering unintended consequences from a starry-eyed government takeover of 1/6 of the economy that none of the lawmakers read before passing?

Do tell.


Racist homophobe. I bet you don't like poor people or immigrants, and you probably don't believe in Santa Clause. GDamn mouth-breather. Hurry up and die so the compassionate people like me can be rid of your filth and intolerance. People have a right to the government giving them stuff, and every business in the country was created to hire people and give them money, farkwad: Learn your constitution!

/ You, ... goat farker!
// Like I'm supposed to believe you read everything before you sign it
/// Grrrr
 
2014-01-10 10:57:38 AM

ReapTheChaos: 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.


Salary or not, unless you are an "exempt" class, they still have to pay you overtime.

See also: devs lawsuit against apple a few years back.
 
2014-01-10 10:58:20 AM

The Larch: Carousel Beast: 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.

Citation needed

You must not be American.  Sleazy scumbag companies that are pretending to be "religious organizations" think they should be allowed to control their employee's private health care decisions.   The little sleazebags are coming out of the woodwork here in America right now in their efforts to reduce freedom and increase autocratic control that companies have over their employees.



If the  Sleazy scumbag companies that are pretending to be "religious organizations"  are paying for your health insurance, why shouldn't they be allowed to dictate what is covered and what is not? You don't want them handling your healthcare decisions, don't ask them for healthcare.

/Almost too simple
 
2014-01-10 11:00:03 AM

Caffienatedjedi: 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)?


Because most profit margins for most smaller businesses are closer to 4-5%. Not everyone is Microsoft or Boeing, Mr. Economist.

/yes, you'll still reply with fine, make 3% instead
//thank god you obviously don't run a business
 
2014-01-10 11:11:39 AM
Pfft, they were working Part Time at Staples. BFD.
 
2014-01-10 11:12:12 AM

Pincy: Can we please just move on to single payer and stop making health insurance dependent upon if you work for a shiatty employer or not.


We don't need single payer to remove the dependency between healthcare and employment.  Those two should have never been mixed in the first place.  Just let people work for money, what they trade that money for is up to them.
 
2014-01-10 11:27:56 AM

buny101: What is constitutional at one point changes in time, according to the balances of the court and public opinion.


You mean like the Voting Rights Act?
 
2014-01-10 11:28:55 AM

djh0101010: 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.


In a sense this is about Obamacare but it's really a more general thing--employers keep people on part time to avoid paying benefits.  Obamacare effectively redefined full time as 30 hr/wk so they are reducing the number of hours to get below the new threshold for full time.

el_pilgrim: "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.


No.  The rules cut the number of hours for full time so the stores are reacting by cutting the number of hours their part timers work.  The real problem is the system has a big divide between part time and full time in the first place.

A simple fix:  Companies count up how much they pay in benefits.  Any employee not eligible for a benefit due to a lack of hours gets an appropriate share added to their hourly rate.  (ie, insurance for a full-timer costs the company $4k. Anyone not eligible for insurance gets an extra $2/hr.)
 
2014-01-10 11:30:19 AM

Deoan: ReapTheChaos: 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.

Salary or not, unless you are an "exempt" class, they still have to pay you overtime.

See also: devs lawsuit against apple a few years back.


No they don't. I'm sure they may be exceptions to this, but in general a salaried position does not get paid overtime, that's kind of the whole point to it.
 
2014-01-10 11:31:43 AM
When you slap goofy laws in place to entitle people to certain things, you always run the risk of causing the employer to behave in ways that weren't intended.  It all balances out.  They cut the hours to 25 per part time employee, they hire one extra part time employee.  Good for the one new employee, bad for the dozen old employees.  There's nothing sleazy about this.  Be happy they can't ship the jobs overseas.

This is why I laugh at the "tax the evil corporations" crowd.  You can't dictate every aspect of how a business is run through populist legislation.
 
2014-01-10 11:31:58 AM

drop: CtrlAltDestroy:
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).

The level of ignorance responsible for statements like this is at the core of basically every left vs. right argument about economics and socialism.  When you have no idea what a right actually is, what the word means, and base your arguments on your faulty understanding, it's no wonder there's conflict.

Here's a hint to perhaps set you on the right path:  Rights are about what you are free achieve, not what others are obligated to provide.  There is a difference between your ability to exercize a right, and your freedom to do so if you have the ability.  One is guaranteed, the other is not.


You seem to have some preexisting idea of what I'm trying to say instead of what I'm actually saying. Providing for the welfare of the people and allowing them to have the chance at success is what a government should do for it's citizens. If you are without healthcare, you are far too often unable to be well enough to have a chance to achieve anything.

Here's a hint to set you on the right path: the single most common reason for personal bankruptcy is health care induced debt. Doing absolutely nothing wrong can lead to you being crippled for life, either literally or metaphorically. Someone else crashes into you in an intersection, genetically related cancer, etc. If someone is unhealthy or buried in debt for no action of their own they are unable to be a functioning member of society.

You are full of bootstrapy, unrealistic shiat. Go troll someone else. You'll get nothing further from me.
 
2014-01-10 11:41:38 AM

Slartibartfaster: 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)


Buzzfeed has to pay a full-time staff to generate time-wasting drek. Fark gets people to do that for free. Fark has even taken it to a whole new level - getting people to PAY a monthly fee to generate content for them. Buzzfeed is your dimwitted cousin, and Fark is your slick nephew who never got his GED and doesn't have a real job, but still drives a Ferrari with the money he's conning off people. Gotta respect that...
 
2014-01-10 11:55:29 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.


Ahh the old percent scam. 2.2% profit on 100,000 is low but 2.2% on 10 million is huge.  You claim supermarkets but most large scale stores sell millions per month.  The added cost to give insurance an living wage would barely scratch that 2.2%.  Small business are different and most of them are exempt from ACA anyway.
 
2014-01-10 12:00:31 PM

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


It's a holdover from the FDR administration's wage controls.
 
2014-01-10 12:02:44 PM

CtrlAltDestroy: drop: CtrlAltDestroy:
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).

The level of ignorance responsible for statements like this is at the core of basically every left vs. right argument about economics and socialism.  When you have no idea what a right actually is, what the word means, and base your arguments on your faulty understanding, it's no wonder there's conflict.

Here's a hint to perhaps set you on the right path:  Rights are about what you are free achieve, not what others are obligated to provide.  There is a difference between your ability to exercize a right, and your freedom to do so if you have the ability.  One is guaranteed, the other is not.

You seem to have some preexisting idea of what I'm trying to say instead of what I'm actually saying.


No, I responded directly to what you actually said.  Healthcare is considered a right; in fact, nearly everything you can imagine doing, you have the right to do.  See the 10th amendment.  You seem to think it's not considered a right, because people are not entitled to receive it for "free."  That is not how rights work.


Providing for the welfare of the people and allowing them to have the chance at success is what a government should do for it's citizens. If you are without healthcare, you are far too often unable to be well enough to have a chance to achieve anything.

Entirely different argument.  What you think government should do, and what I think it should do, are no doubt completely different.  The rights we both have are not though (well, unless you're a felon), nor is the definition of the word.
 
2014-01-10 12:04:47 PM

Ker_Thwap: When you slap goofy laws in place to entitle people to certain things, you always run the risk of causing the employer to behave in ways that weren't intended.  It all balances out.  They cut the hours to 25 per part time employee, they hire one extra part time employee.  Good for the one new employee, bad for the dozen old employees.  There's nothing sleazy about this.  Be happy they can't ship the jobs overseas.

This is why I laugh at the "tax the evil corporations" crowd.  You can't dictate every aspect of how a business is run through populist legislation.


Healthcare should be provided by the government then, since it's not the responsibility of the corporations, and we are all guaranteed "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", right? Note that it doesn't say "the pursuit of life".
 
2014-01-10 12:06:39 PM

sufferpuppet: Pincy: Can we please just move on to single payer and stop making health insurance dependent upon if you work for a shiatty employer or not.

We don't need single payer to remove the dependency between healthcare and employment.  Those two should have never been mixed in the first place.  Just let people work for money, what they trade that money for is up to them.


Sorry, that doesn't work because people will go without health insurance and then force the rest of us to pick up the bill when they head off to the emergency room.  And there are other costs to having people forgo medical treatment as well.  Force everyone to pay into a single-payer system through taxes (just like do in almost every other civilized country in the world) and you get the best of both worlds: cheaper health care and a healthier population.
 
2014-01-10 12:07:51 PM

drop: CtrlAltDestroy: drop: CtrlAltDestroy:
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).

The level of ignorance responsible for statements like this is at the core of basically every left vs. right argument about economics and socialism.  When you have no idea what a right actually is, what the word means, and base your arguments on your faulty understanding, it's no wonder there's conflict.

Here's a hint to perhaps set you on the right path:  Rights are about what you are free achieve, not what others are obligated to provide.  There is a difference between your ability to exercize a right, and your freedom to do so if you have the ability.  One is guaranteed, the other is not.

You seem to have some preexisting idea of what I'm trying to say instead of what I'm actually saying.

No, I responded directly to what you actually said.  Healthcare is considered a right; in fact, nearly everything you can imagine doing, you have the right to do.  See the 10th amendment.  You seem to think it's not considered a right, because people are not entitled to receive it for "free."  That is not how rights work.


Providing for the welfare of the people and allowing them to have the chance at success is what a government should do for it's citizens. If you are without healthcare, you are far too often unable to be well enough to have a chance to achieve anything.

Entirely different argument.  What you think government should do, and what I think it should do, are no doubt completely different.  The rights we both have are not though (well, unless you're a felon), nor is the definition of the word.


Is charging people to vote ok? What about other prohibitive measures to access/exercise one's rights?
 
2014-01-10 12:21:56 PM

robbiex0r: drop: CtrlAltDestroy: drop: CtrlAltDestroy:


Is charging people to vote ok? What about other prohibitive measures to access/exercise one's rights?


You mean like the right to bear arms?
 
2014-01-10 12:27:57 PM
FALSE.
The Democrat mouthpieces (DailyKos, MSNBC, etc) assured us that there is no evidence employers are actually taking these actions, therefore this story is a lie.
 
2014-01-10 12:40:50 PM

Ker_Thwap: When you slap goofy laws in place to entitle people to certain things, you always run the risk of causing the employer to behave in ways that weren't intended.  It all balances out.  They cut the hours to 25 per part time employee, they hire one extra part time employee.  Good for the one new employee, bad for the dozen old employees.  There's nothing sleazy about this.  Be happy they can't ship the jobs overseas.

This is why I laugh at the "tax the evil corporations" crowd.  You can't dictate every aspect of how a business is run through populist legislation.


You and I have very different opinions on what's considered sleazy. Hiring another employee when you already have employees willing to put in the hours simply to avoid paying them benefits is the very definition of sleazy in my book.
 
2014-01-10 12:41:17 PM
 
2014-01-10 12:41:56 PM

ReapTheChaos: You and I have very different opinions on what's considered sleazy. Hiring another employee when you already have employees willing to put in the hours simply to avoid paying them benefits is the very definition of sleazy in my book.


you sound greedy
 
2014-01-10 12:51:31 PM
How this is different than any other company who has been keeping people under 40 hrs a week so they don't qualify for full benefits? ACA has lowered the bar so the employers would have to cover those working 39.5 hours... but not quite 40. Yes, the company is sleazy as well as all the others. They're only worried about the bottom line. That's why Capitalism is supposed to be so perfect but this is using Obamacare for a scapegoat.
 
2014-01-10 01:12:26 PM

ginko: How this is different than any other company who has been keeping people under 40 hrs a week so they don't qualify for full benefits? ACA has lowered the bar so the employers would have to cover those working 39.5 hours... but not quite 40. Yes, the company is sleazy as well as all the others. They're only worried about the bottom line. That's why Capitalism is supposed to be so perfect but this is using Obamacare for a scapegoat.


It's a bit different because these people actually were part timers. 32 hours a week is 4 days at 8 hours or 6 to 6.5 hours five days a week. A lot of people in that time range are people like mothers who are working while their kids are in school, college students who work in between classes, classroom aides and so on. They can't work full time hours and fit the rest of their life in. Any employer who is going to have to pay for the full benefits anyway is going to want them to work at a minimum the full 40 hours a week for the best return on that very expensive investment.

Speaking of that investment what if the persons job doesn't have all that high of a return on what it costs to keep them employed full time because of seasonal needs? That's where a lot of those 39.5 hour weeks come in, they last for a few weeks or months then they drop back down to 20 hours or so of actual work to be done. Are they supposed to pay them full wages and supply health insurance even though they don't work because there's literally nothing to do? Are they supposed to drop them from their insurance because they are no longer considered "Full time" and leave the employees out to hang when tax time comes and they end up having to pay a fine because they had enough time not being insured over the year for it to kick in? Last time I checked the policies are for a year on the exchange. Are the employees supposed to pay for their insurance through the exchanges year round AND the employers double up on it when they are working enough to be considered full time?

It's a freaking mess.
 
2014-01-10 01:22:49 PM

ReapTheChaos: Ker_Thwap: When you slap goofy laws in place to entitle people to certain things, you always run the risk of causing the employer to behave in ways that weren't intended.  It all balances out.  They cut the hours to 25 per part time employee, they hire one extra part time employee.  Good for the one new employee, bad for the dozen old employees.  There's nothing sleazy about this.  Be happy they can't ship the jobs overseas.

This is why I laugh at the "tax the evil corporations" crowd.  You can't dictate every aspect of how a business is run through populist legislation.

You and I have very different opinions on what's considered sleazy. Hiring another employee when you already have employees willing to put in the hours simply to avoid paying them benefits is the very definition of sleazy in my book.


Eh, I think it's sleazy to pass a law that attempts to force an employer to flat out give a pay/benefit raise to employees they've already hired.

Put yourself in an employers shoes.  You hire Bob, a real person, to labor for 6 hours a day at your house.  You and Bob both agree that you'll pay him $24 an hour, because that's what his time is worth, and that's what you can afford to pay, because you also have to pay taxes on his wages, so your actual cost is more like $30 an hour.  You're both relatively happy with that number, he'd like more, you'd like to pay less.  But, you pay your $2,070 a month and get the work done around your house.  You're a kind hearted soul, Bob isn't working overly hard, what an awesome person you are for paying Bob that much.

Suddenly, a third party interjects themselves into the proceedings and says, "pay his health insurance premium, because it's a nice thing to do for Bob."  The rock bottom cheapest plan costs you $200 a month.  But, but, you've already negotiated with Bob a certain amount, so he can afford his own damned health care.  Shut up and give him more, it's the law.   Go tell your employer you need $200 a month more now, so that you can pay Bob, I'm sure they'll understand.  Oh, they didn't?  I guess it can come out of your pizza fund, you don't need pizza.  It's just coming out of your expendable income, why should you care?  You'll just wasted it on bon bons.
 
2014-01-10 01:30:28 PM

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


Because...well...actually there is no good reason at all. It's a complete fluke because of a footnote in a piece of federal legislation many years ago. Logically it makes no sense whatsoever.
 
2014-01-10 01:33:05 PM

robbiex0r: Ker_Thwap: When you slap goofy laws in place to entitle people to certain things, you always run the risk of causing the employer to behave in ways that weren't intended.  It all balances out.  They cut the hours to 25 per part time employee, they hire one extra part time employee.  Good for the one new employee, bad for the dozen old employees.  There's nothing sleazy about this.  Be happy they can't ship the jobs overseas.

This is why I laugh at the "tax the evil corporations" crowd.  You can't dictate every aspect of how a business is run through populist legislation.

Healthcare should be provided by the government then, since it's not the responsibility of the corporations, and we are all guaranteed "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", right? Note that it doesn't say "the pursuit of life".


Seriously, that's an ugly straw man argument, and you can add in a false dichotomy as well.  At no point did I mention anything remotely related to the Declaration of Independence.  Nor are these the only two choices available.
 
2014-01-10 01:38:30 PM
emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?

Large employers started doing it in the 1940s to attract workers. It is not a requirement. Technically, it still isn't.
 
2014-01-10 01:56:17 PM
Just so we're clear, a company sends a memo telling stores to maintain the part time status of part time employees by ensuring they are scheduled the appropriate amount of hours is wrong?

It doesn't have anything to do with ACA. It's about maintaining the proper FT/PT ratio in your store for scheduling purposes. Even I know this.
 
2014-01-10 02:03:02 PM

robbiex0r: drop: CtrlAltDestroy: drop: CtrlAltDestroy:
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).

The level of ignorance responsible for statements like this is at the core of basically every left vs. right argument about economics and socialism.  When you have no idea what a right actually is, what the word means, and base your arguments on your faulty understanding, it's no wonder there's conflict.

Here's a hint to perhaps set you on the right path:  Rights are about what you are free achieve, not what others are obligated to provide.  There is a difference between your ability to exercize a right, and your freedom to do so if you have the ability.  One is guaranteed, the other is not.

You seem to have some preexisting idea of what I'm trying to say instead of what I'm actually saying.

No, I responded directly to what you actually said.  Healthcare is considered a right; in fact, nearly everything you can imagine doing, you have the right to do.  See the 10th amendment.  You seem to think it's not considered a right, because people are not entitled to receive it for "free."  That is not how rights work.


Providing for the welfare of the people and allowing them to have the chance at success is what a government should do for it's citizens. If you are without healthcare, you are far too often unable to be well enough to have a chance to achieve anything.

Entirely different argument.  What you think government should do, and what I think it should do, are no doubt completely different.  The rights we both have are not though (well, unless you're a felon), nor is the definition of the word.

Is charging people to vote ok? What about other prohibitive measures to access/exercise one's rights?


Actually, a right is something that can only be taken away from you. not given. That's how rights work. They were yours to begin with. The right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures? All rights that belong to you in the first place. Healthcare is a benefit. ACCESS to healthcare is a right, but coverage is not. No one can deny you from going to seek medical attention. Paying for that SERVICE however is a completely different story because you are getting a service provided to you by another individual.
 
2014-01-10 02:11:35 PM
cirby - 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.

I don't need to see any ideas. I see them driving their white Lexus because it is Tuesday. They have three vehicles and plenty of these owners do not have kids. Why do you need three cars, four houses, a fishing boat, enough money to own the state, and yet wish to complain? A prime example of what has been happening in our society here is the modern definition of 'broke'. When I use it, I mean I am broke... not a dime to my name. No car, no assets to sell...BROKE. When you speak to one of the upper crust and they use the word 'broke', they mean they have less than $1000 in the bank and less than $10,000 in savings, and only have two cars and two houses, etc. It is pathetic than some owners have the chance to do right by the people that make them richer and yet choose to whine and screw these same people just because Mr Owner might not get to go to Cancun twice this year... assuming they get back from Europe in time for that vacation.... so very pathetic.

/if rich people would just behave like human beings and not like soulless vultures, they might be treated with a little more respect...
 
2014-01-10 02:27:41 PM

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


Everything is tied to employment in America. Basically your "productivity" is the sole measure of your worth as a human being in America, the land of plenty.
 
2014-01-10 02:44:06 PM

cwolf20: In other news. Fark was picking on people for going ahead and doing that last year.  Before the official launch of it.


It was Republicans going "DUH DUH BUT THIS WILL DESTROY AMURICA WITH PEOPLE SLASHING JOBS TO 15 HOURS A WEEK!" and liberals of all colors going "No no it'll be great we'll rob the rich and feed the poor!"

The relevant conspiracy theory is that Obama is trying to cause a major recession and damage the economy so bad that it collapses.  Then he can save it by becoming the United Soviet States of North America.
 
2014-01-10 02:47:07 PM

ReapTheChaos: Deoan: ReapTheChaos: 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.

Salary or not, unless you are an "exempt" class, they still have to pay you overtime.

See also: devs lawsuit against apple a few years back.

No they don't. I'm sure they may be exceptions to this, but in general a salaried position does not get paid overtime, that's kind of the whole point to it.


http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/07/18/salaried-workers-do-you-get- pa id-for-overtime-odds-are-you-sho/
http://www.washington.edu/admin/hr/ocpsp/flsa-ot/flsa.html
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/career-management/are-salaried-empl oy ees-entitled-to-overtime-pay/
http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossarye/g/exempt.htm

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/overtimepay.htm
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-flsa.htm

Did you even bother to look before bending over for your employer?
 
2014-01-10 03:00:25 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Forbidden Doughnut: Smeggy Smurf: No shiat.  It's almost as though destroying the ability of people to afford anything was built into this abortion from the beginning

I would have preferred a Canadian-style Single Payer system, myself....

/ yeah, I know we can't have that....because it reeks of "Socialism"
// *sigh*

Crap, missed that one. You can have have your death panels and months of waiting for routine care all you want.  Me as a capitalist prefers to be able to afford proper care in a timely manner because I'm not a useless socialist who needs to hide behind government's apron strings like a little biatch.


That's odd. I know full well that anecdotes are not evidence, but a close friend who emigrated to Canada is eminently pleased with the Canadian healthcare system; he tells me he's never waited more than 15 minutes to see a doctor even for non-emergent care, and rates the facilities as among the best he's ever seen, and ditto for his wife.

And "death panels"? Really? That was shown to be a lie not long after it came up here.I'm pretty sure that's the same as in Canuckistan.
 
2014-01-10 03:07:37 PM

Ker_Thwap: ReapTheChaos: Ker_Thwap: When you slap goofy laws in place to entitle people to certain things, you always run the risk of causing the employer to behave in ways that weren't intended.  It all balances out.  They cut the hours to 25 per part time employee, they hire one extra part time employee.  Good for the one new employee, bad for the dozen old employees.  There's nothing sleazy about this.  Be happy they can't ship the jobs overseas.

This is why I laugh at the "tax the evil corporations" crowd.  You can't dictate every aspect of how a business is run through populist legislation.

You and I have very different opinions on what's considered sleazy. Hiring another employee when you already have employees willing to put in the hours simply to avoid paying them benefits is the very definition of sleazy in my book.

Eh, I think it's sleazy to pass a law that attempts to force an employer to flat out give a pay/benefit raise to employees they've already hired.

Put yourself in an employers shoes.  You hire Bob, a real person, to labor for 6 hours a day at your house.  You and Bob both agree that you'll pay him $24 an hour, because that's what his time is worth, and that's what you can afford to pay, because you also have to pay taxes on his wages, so your actual cost is more like $30 an hour.  You're both relatively happy with that number, he'd like more, you'd like to pay less.  But, you pay your $2,070 a month and get the work done around your house.  You're a kind hearted soul, Bob isn't working overly hard, what an awesome person you are for paying Bob that much.

Suddenly, a third party interjects themselves into the proceedings and says, "pay his health insurance premium, because it's a nice thing to do for Bob."  The rock bottom cheapest plan costs you $200 a month.  But, but, you've already negotiated with Bob a certain amount, so he can afford his own damned health care.  Shut up and give him more, it's the law.   Go tell your employer you need $200 a month ...


Here's the problem with your false dichotomy, Bob is only one employee, unless you hire 49 more Bobs to clean your house (or hire 49 more Bobs and have them clean other people's houses too, not just your own), then the ACA doesn't apply and you do not have to pay Bob anything extra or get him healthcare. Bob would be on the hook for getting his own healthcare using funds from the salary you are paying him.
 
2014-01-10 03:39:20 PM

buckler: That's odd. I know full well that anecdotes are not evidence, but a close friend who emigrated to Canada is eminently pleased with the Canadian healthcare system; he tells me he's never waited more than 15 minutes to see a doctor even for non-emergent care, and rates the facilities as among the best he's ever seen, and ditto for his wife.


Made it my mission to ask the Canadians I've meet if they were happy with their health care since I was very young.

I've gotten about 29 yea's and only one nay.

That only nay was a way upper class snowflake and his complaints were nonsensical.

Try that in America and see where it gets you.
 
2014-01-10 03:48:34 PM

kim jong-un: emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?

Because of wage controls set by the government. Healthcare didn't count for the limit so companies used it to entice workers.


In other words,  Hitler.
 
2014-01-10 03:52:51 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: Here's the problem with your false dichotomy, Bob is only one employee, unless you hire 49 more Bobs to clean your house (or hire 49 more Bobs and have them clean other people's houses too, not just your own), then the ACA doesn't apply and you do not have to pay Bob anything extra or get him healthcare. Bob would be on the hook for getting his own healthcare using funds from the salary you are paying him.


I certainly had no intention of presenting this as an either/or choice.  I'm not certain that I did.  I tried to create an illustrative example of the situation when applied to an individual basis.  Generally I don't scale my beliefs up and down depending on company size.  It's just a matter of empathy, or identifying with both sides involved.

Will a company with a 10% profit, and 50 part time employees feel the same pain that this law causes another company with a 2% profit and 50,000 part time employees?  How about a struggling company with 1% profits, that's labor based?  What options do they have, close up shop, or send the manufacturing overseas?  Lower the average hours worked? Skimp on some other benefit that isn't regulated by law?  Fire an employee anytime they get a sniff of some promised benefit?  Feel free to come up with more solutions, as I'm not trying to limit your choices, just providing some possibilities.
 
2014-01-10 04:06:14 PM

zepillin: buckler: That's odd. I know full well that anecdotes are not evidence, but a close friend who emigrated to Canada is eminently pleased with the Canadian healthcare system; he tells me he's never waited more than 15 minutes to see a doctor even for non-emergent care, and rates the facilities as among the best he's ever seen, and ditto for his wife.

Made it my mission to ask the Canadians I've meet if they were happy with their health care since I was very young.

I've gotten about 29 yea's and only one nay.

That only nay was a way upper class snowflake and his complaints were nonsensical.

Try that in America and see where it gets you.


So, this reminds me of an old guy I met...  A friend of my dad's, he was about 80 at the time.  He was wintering in Florida, and needed some fairly important heart procedure.  Rather than paying for him to go to a local doctor, they sent a jet for him and scheduled the surgery in Canada.  Yes, sent a jet.  They didn't pay for his flight back to Florida however.  I can't determine whether this all qualifies for excellent care, or horrible care.  Maybe some bureaucrat needed some flight hours or something?
 
2014-01-10 04:15:02 PM
Sounds like something Papa John's would do.
 
2014-01-10 04:30:29 PM

Ker_Thwap: DarkSoulNoHope: Here's the problem with your false dichotomy, Bob is only one employee, unless you hire 49 more Bobs to clean your house (or hire 49 more Bobs and have them clean other people's houses too, not just your own), then the ACA doesn't apply and you do not have to pay Bob anything extra or get him healthcare. Bob would be on the hook for getting his own healthcare using funds from the salary you are paying him.

I certainly had no intention of presenting this as an either/or choice.  I'm not certain that I did.  I tried to create an illustrative example of the situation when applied to an individual basis.  Generally I don't scale my beliefs up and down depending on company size.  It's just a matter of empathy, or identifying with both sides involved.

Will a company with a 10% profit, and 50 part time employees feel the same pain that this law causes another company with a 2% profit and 50,000 part time employees?  How about a struggling company with 1% profits, that's labor based?What options do they have, close up shop, or send the manufacturing overseas?  Lower the average hours worked? Skimp on some other benefit that isn't regulated by law?  Fire an employee anytime they get a sniff of some promised benefit?  Feel free to come up with more solutions, as I'm not trying to limit your choices, just providing some possibilities.


You know a lot of companies that close up shop after 1 year of running in the red?
 
2014-01-10 04:47:38 PM

robbiex0r: Ker_Thwap: DarkSoulNoHope: Here's the problem with your false dichotomy, Bob is only one employee, unless you hire 49 more Bobs to clean your house (or hire 49 more Bobs and have them clean other people's houses too, not just your own), then the ACA doesn't apply and you do not have to pay Bob anything extra or get him healthcare. Bob would be on the hook for getting his own healthcare using funds from the salary you are paying him.

I certainly had no intention of presenting this as an either/or choice.  I'm not certain that I did.  I tried to create an illustrative example of the situation when applied to an individual basis.  Generally I don't scale my beliefs up and down depending on company size.  It's just a matter of empathy, or identifying with both sides involved.

Will a company with a 10% profit, and 50 part time employees feel the same pain that this law causes another company with a 2% profit and 50,000 part time employees?  How about a struggling company with 1% profits, that's labor based?What options do they have, close up shop, or send the manufacturing overseas?  Lower the average hours worked? Skimp on some other benefit that isn't regulated by law?  Fire an employee anytime they get a sniff of some promised benefit?  Feel free to come up with more solutions, as I'm not trying to limit your choices, just providing some possibilities.

You know a lot of companies that close up shop after 1 year of running in the red?


Funny you should ask, yes.  I'm a retired Revenue Officer.  There were a wild variety of reasons why they weren't profitable of course.  Several come to mind who closed because they hired boatloads of new employees for the first time and weren't prepared for the costs of hiring, training, taxes, benefits, seasonal nature and a number of other unanticipated items. Pretty much a combination of poor planning and lack of initial capitalization.  Not every company is a multi national conglomerate that rakes in the elite loot while thumbing it's collective nose at the peons.

I've also seen all the other things I noted.  Business is hard.  I have a lot of empathy for the hard working individuals who risk everything in order to start up and expand their businesses.
 
2014-01-10 05:27:35 PM

nyseattitude: Thunderpipes: nyseattitude: farkstorm: 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.

Do you enjoy repeating right wing lies or just lying in general?

How, in any way shape or form, is this not correct? You are why this country fails. Stupid libs, making crap up.

I've seen many of your posts and have seen you identified as racist, bigoted, partisan hack, a liar, delusional, crazy and "possibly dangerous". I don't converse with people like you.


Ladies and gentlemen, the "open-minded".
 
2014-01-10 05:56:36 PM

Deoan: ReapTheChaos: Deoan: ReapTheChaos: 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.

Salary or not, unless you are an "exempt" class, they still have to pay you overtime.

See also: devs lawsuit against apple a few years back.

No they don't. I'm sure they may be exceptions to this, but in general a salaried position does not get paid overtime, that's kind of the whole point to it.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/07/18/salaried-workers-do-you-get- pa id-for-overtime-odds-are-you-sho/
http://www.washington.edu/admin/hr/ocpsp/flsa-ot/flsa.html
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/career-management/are-salaried-empl oy ees-entitled-to-overtime-pay/
http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossarye/g/exempt.htm

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/overtimepay.htm
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-flsa.htm

Did you even bother to look before bending over for your employer?


From your links:
The following are examples of employees exempt from both the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements:

Executive, administrative, and professional employees (including teachers and academic administrative personnel in elementary and secondary schools), outside sales employees, and certain skilled computer professionals (as defined in the Department of Labor's regulations) 1


Basically, all IT, managerial, administrative, etc. are exempt.

I've been exempt salary for 20 years now.  It's nice being able to plan ahead knowing exactly what your next paycheck is going to be, even if you were out sick for a few days or you had to take a few days off to take care of your wife, that sort of thing.

Now, there were times I got the short end of the stick, of course, but then again I wasn't working on a grungy factory floor either, and I've never really felt like I was being *EXPLOITED*.    And I don't feel the least bit guilty leaving work early in the case of, say, a snowstorm.
 
2014-01-10 06:23:04 PM
Obama made the rules. Can't blame the business owners for this one, though some will.

Had the libs read it before they passed it they would have prevented this "loophole".
 
2014-01-10 07:08:19 PM

ckevinc: Obama made the rules. Can't blame the business owners for this one, though some will.

Had the libs read it before they passed it they would have prevented this "loophole".


Had there been any actual liberals in Congress at the time passing, we wouldn't have had to deal with this abortion of a law.

/Single payer got shot down
 
2014-01-10 07:15:42 PM
Not surprising, not every employer in this country can reasonably afford to provide part time employees health insurance. 

ElLoco: 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?


Since when did every single company on this planet need to have nothing but full time jobs for employees with benefits? That's not sustainable for most companies and its retarded to expect that. Congress and the president did this, not the company.
 
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