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  
•       •       •

11396 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 11:45 PM (33 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 07:18:07 PM

NicktheSmoker: 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.


Bah, stupid phone.  Wasn't replaying to you ElLoco, i stopped after the first sentence and i hit reply not paying attention lol.
 
2014-01-10 07:23:30 PM

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


Because of government controlled wage caps in prior decades. Government, the cause and solution to every problem. Well... at least a solution to problems they cause... until that solution causes a new problem.

The old lady who swallowed a fly was a story of government.
 
2014-01-10 07:25:52 PM

LordJiro: 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.

For one thing, Republicans have gutted the public school system, and high school leaves many students unprepared for college. For another, college is expensive, and many families cannot afford it, even with scholarships.

And again, a high school diploma USED to get you a half-decent full-time job, not a dead-end fast food job that doesn't even pay enough for a roof over your head without government aid; those were largely reserved for dropouts.


Spending pet pupil in the US is the highest in the world. It is triple what it was in 1980. Does "gutted" mean something different to liberals. Maybe it means administration now takes half of all school funds. Who are those admins... liberals.
 
2014-01-10 07:30:56 PM

Mentat: buny101: This law was passed full of loopholes and problems. So, instead of pointing out those problems, your solution would be to play nicely like the law is a good law with no problems? To take a financial beating just for the sake of propping up an invasive, unconstitutional law? That is really your answer? Wow. Ok. I get it now.

A law that's upheld by the Supreme Court is by definition constitutional.


Only two parts of ACA were before the court, one of the parts was struck down. More parts are coming before it as standing accrues. You should know this, but you continue to ignore it.

Ignorance does not equal facts.
 
2014-01-10 07:33:13 PM

MmmmBacon: g4lt: Nope, can't imagine why Staples would attempt to torpedo the PPACA

[s1.reutersmedia.net image 450x266]

Which I still find amazing, since the PPACA was based off of Romney's healthcare plan from his time as the Governor of Massachusetts. The GOP insisted on this plan, and did everything possible to block what Obama really wanted, which was a single-payer, truly universal healthcare plan. Then when Obama agrees with the GOP so some form of healthcare reform can get passed, suddenly it's "Obamacare", and the worst thing ever, according to the GOP.

Fark the GOP and their BS. We should have single-payer, universal healthcare, like most of the rest of the First World nations do. But instead we are stuck with this system that is basically a handout to for-profit health insurers, and the GOP get to blame the Dems for it, when it was their idea in the first place!


Gop never insisted on it, blue dog democrats did. Every significant GOP amendment was struck down by liberals.

Why do you liberals insist on lying about how this was passed? You are all so god damn ignorant.
 
2014-01-10 07:52:55 PM
"loophole" = exactly what people said would happen

ok.
 
2014-01-10 08:12:29 PM

MyRandomName: MmmmBacon: g4lt: Nope, can't imagine why Staples would attempt to torpedo the PPACA

[s1.reutersmedia.net image 450x266]

Which I still find amazing, since the PPACA was based off of Romney's healthcare plan from his time as the Governor of Massachusetts. The GOP insisted on this plan, and did everything possible to block what Obama really wanted, which was a single-payer, truly universal healthcare plan. Then when Obama agrees with the GOP so some form of healthcare reform can get passed, suddenly it's "Obamacare", and the worst thing ever, according to the GOP.

Fark the GOP and their BS. We should have single-payer, universal healthcare, like most of the rest of the First World nations do. But instead we are stuck with this system that is basically a handout to for-profit health insurers, and the GOP get to blame the Dems for it, when it was their idea in the first place!

Gop never insisted on it, blue dog democrats did. Every significant GOP amendment was struck down by liberals.


So which of the GOP amendments that were rejected advocated single-payer? Most of the ones I remember were umteen variations on repeal/delay with no actual workable plan offered up as an alternative.
 
2014-01-10 08:17:15 PM
What the L?
 
2014-01-10 08:20:13 PM

CtrlAltDestroy: 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.


Except this is bad data produced by "researchers" who are interested in pushing their position, not in the truth.

The truth is the majority of bankruptcies include at least one medical bill.

TNel: 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.


The bigger the company the more it would cost to provide the insurance.  Percentage is the right way to look at these things.
 
2014-01-10 08:23:57 PM

MyRandomName: LordJiro: 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.

For one thing, Republicans have gutted the public school system, and high school leaves many students unprepared for college. For another, college is expensive, and many families cannot afford it, even with scholarships.

And again, a high school diploma USED to get you a half-decent full-time job, not a dead-end fast food job that doesn't even pay enough for a roof over your head without government aid; those were largely reserved for dropouts.

Spending pet pupil in the US is the highest in the world. It is triple what it was in 1980. Does "gutted" mean something different to liberals. Maybe it means administration now takes half of all school funds. Who are those admins... liberals.


Of course the rest of the first word does not include teacher and administrator health insurance in their education costs, which not coincidentally have been rising well above inflation since the 1980s.  Apples and oranges.
 
2014-01-10 09:32:37 PM

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


It's not.  When I was working as a contractor I purchased medical insurance on the open market.  So can you.

Get out sometime... Basements are meant for storage.
 
2014-01-10 09:38:43 PM

Enemabag Jones: 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.


Newsflash:  You were free to do that before Obamacare.
 
2014-01-10 10:03:51 PM
You know the only answer to all of this mess is dont be a worker. Working class is about the worst possible place to be in the U.S.
 
2014-01-10 11:02:04 PM

Ontos: Enemabag Jones: 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.

Newsflash:  You were free to do that before Obamacare.


I did that before Obamacare.

I just didn't have health insurance.

Now I do.  I'm happy about that.

/I'd be happier about single payer.
 
Displayed 14 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