Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-15-2012, 07:06 AM   #1
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Default The cost of Obamacare

If you say you didn't see this coming, you're asleep or lying. I expect more creative answers to Obamacare like this one as time drags on. But hey! According to Pinko, Obamacare won't cost any more!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...gislation.html
President Obama's election victory ensured his Affordable Care Act would remain the centerpiece of his first term in power - but that has left some business owners baulking at the extra cost Obamcare will bring.

Florida based restaurant boss John Metz, who runs approximately 40 Denny's and owns the Hurricane Grill & Wings franchise has decided to offset that by adding a five percent surcharge to customers' bills and will reduce his employees' hours.

With Obamacare due to be fully implemented in January 2014, Metz has justified his move by claiming it is 'the only alternative. I've got to pass on the cost to the customer.'

The fast-food business owner is set to hold meetings at his restaurants in December where he will tell employees, 'that because of Obamacare, we are going to be cutting front-of-the-house employees to under 30 hours, effective immediately.'

Claiming that he is not anti-insurance Metz has said that he understands the problems this will cause for his employees.

'I think it's a terrible thing. It's ridiculous that the maximum hours we can give people is 28 hours a week instead of 40,' said Metz to the Huffington Post.

'It's going to force my employees to go out and get a second job.'

Obamacare requires businesses or franchises with more than 50 workers must offer an approved insurance plan or pay a penalty of $2,000 for each full-time worker over 30 workers.

The program mandates that only employees working more than 30 hours a week are covered under their employers health insurance plan, chains like Olive Garden and Red Lobster are already considering reduced worker hours.

'Obviously, I'd love to cover all our employees under that insurance,' said Metz.

'But to pay $5,000 per employee would cost us $175,000 per restaurant and unfortunately, most of our restaurants don't make $175,000 a year. I can't afford it.'

Several other restaurants including Papa John's, Apple Metro and Jimmy John's have announced plans to skirt Obamacare by reducing employees hours to make them part-time.

Indeed, Metz is adding the surcharge because he believes that eventually firms will be fined for not covering staff who complete over 30-hours in a week,

In November, a poll for Kaiser Health Tracking found that 43 percent of the United States had a favourable opinion of Obamcare, while 39-percent had an unfavourable one.

'Instead of indirectly charging customers by raising prices, he is directly charging and making a political statement,' said Paul Fronstin, director of the health research program at the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington.

'Potentially 43 percent of this person's customers may find the explicit charge a turnoff, and vote with their feet and their money and choose not to eat there.'

Despite this, Metz has admitted he is willing to take the heat should the decision backfire on him.

'We're trying to get more restaurant operators rallied around the concept of adding a 5 percent surcharge to their bill to cover the costs of Obamacare as opposed to raising prices,' he said.

Earlier this week Papa John's CEO John Schnatter told shareholders in a conference call this week that Obamacare would cost the company 11 to 14 cents per pizza, a cost that would be passed on to customers.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 07:10 AM   #2
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
That's fine with me.

Being in Texas, I am used to that.

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte...full_time.html

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc =&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=28&pt=1&ch=26&rl=4

We have insurance and are already required to offer it to people working over 30 hours a week in Texas. Texas businesses are fine. (Or has Texas secretly been a communist state all these years?)

You can cut hours and hire more people, or be fair with your benefits. your choice. If you cut hours, you will be paying more in SUTA and FUTA, though on additional new-hires.

Last edited by Pinkheart; 11-15-2012 at 08:36 AM.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 09:51 AM   #3
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
By "being fair" you mean "paying more"

Sometimes you don't have the overhead to just "Pay more" when you're already paying over 50% of your income in various taxes.

Oh, and you missed a step:

Originally Posted by State Law Pinko Quoted
if an employer has a health insurance plan
Thats a far step from forcing someone to cover any full time employee.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 10:13 AM   #4
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
By "being fair" you mean "paying more"

Sometimes you don't have the overhead to just "Pay more" when you're already paying over 50% of your income in various taxes.

Oh, and you missed a step:



Thats a far step from forcing someone to cover any full time employee.
That's true. We have coverage, regardless of the 50 employee rule.

Still, he can manage the requirement via part-time employees if it's such a big deal. I'm not sure why he is reducing hours AND adding a surcharge. Sounds like he is blaming Obamacare for more than it is really causing.

Still, if they pass it on to consumers... then you still have a choice if you want to pay those prices or not. I'm fine with that. When I order Papa Johns, I might have to pay 14 cents more- big deal. Apparently consumers will bear the costs, not businesses- so they can stop bitching.

As the CFO of a company that offers benefits, even with a tight budget... I have little sympathy for shitty businesses that don't give benefits to employees, when they employee over 50 full time people.

I also don't take this whiner's word for anything. I would like to see his financials to see what he pays people, what he pays himself, and how he manages expenses. Also, not sure how much a company has to pay to "offer" a health plan. The article doesn't state what portion of an employee's premium would be required to be paid by the employer. If it's none, then who the hell cares?

Last edited by Pinkheart; 11-15-2012 at 10:21 AM.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 11:11 AM   #5
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Ahh... now he's a whiner because he doesn't want to incur additional expenses.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 11:14 AM   #6
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Ahh... now he's a whiner because he doesn't want to incur additional expenses.
He's whining and being very vague. Clearly he has a political agenda here.

Papa John's I don't doubt. They are huge and probably operate in multiple states with different laws. It would probabl be a little more difficult for the mto manage by cutting hours, etc.

They weren't whining all over the article, though... although they also have an agenda, it seems.

http://adage.com/article/news/papa-j...mments/238316/

but good news for small business:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2133050.html

Oh, and Metz owns 40 fucking Denny's... it's a huge business and he doesn't give benefits? What an A-hole. Pure political publicity. I love the comments talking about what an asshole he is, how the surcharge would happen only if he can't cut hours, and what a shitty business he is trying to run by screwing workers.

Yeah, great example. I blame Obama for this asshole. Not. GG political shitbags using Obamacare is an excuse for being dickholes.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2...ess/707299952/

Last edited by Pinkheart; 11-15-2012 at 12:40 PM.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 02:31 PM   #7
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Ahh... now he's a whiner because he doesn't want to incur additional expenses.
Labor costs will increase. Despite the misconceptions of the dumbass left, this won't come out of the "unreasonably high profit margins" that restaurants and retail store earn. It will ultimately translate to higher unemployment (as employers try to do more with a smaller work force) and higher prices to the consumer. Most retailers, fast food restaurants and "value" diners like Denny's compete on price. Currently they can only do this by employing a large number of relatively low-wage, low-benefit workers, making them particularly sensitive to Obamacare.

Given the waivers that some competitors received, laws like this could seriously damage large parts of the service industry. This is not going to soak the rich. We are all going to pay for this.
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 05:29 PM   #8
Davek
Squawk Box
 
Davek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ini is the wind beneath my wings.
Posts: 7,988
Indeed, Metz is adding the surcharge because he believes that eventually firms will be fined for not covering staff who complete over 30-hours in a week,
I'm just curious...as a customer would you be legally obligated to pay that surcharge? Especially if they are showing it as a separate charge? Not like it's a tax applied by Federal or State.
__________________
Davek Bonemender ~ Guild Leader of Sunrunners ~
~ Retired with 8 years of service ~
~ Semi-unretired 2012 ~

Man that just rolls off the tongue nicely.

Originally Posted by Karthanon View Post
I know, you're in Ottawa, Davek. Still, I can't help but /poke you.
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
And you wonder why I don't play nice with you? You leave my man buttons alone.. Those are Davek's.
Davek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:17 AM   #9
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by Davek View Post
I'm just curious...as a customer would you be legally obligated to pay that surcharge?
Nope, as long as you don't eat there you don't have to pay them a dime.

Originally Posted by Davek View Post
Especially if they are showing it as a separate charge? Not like it's a tax applied by Federal or State.
Well from some people's perspective, it is a tax just being passed on to the consumer, but regardless of that question, what does it matter? As long as they aren't falsely advertising their prices, they can charge whatever fee they want. You can either pay it or not eat there.
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 02:29 AM   #10
Davek
Squawk Box
 
Davek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ini is the wind beneath my wings.
Posts: 7,988
Originally Posted by Beal View Post
Nope, as long as you don't eat there you don't have to pay them a dime.
So in other words: you don't know. I was working with the scenario of a customer who has already eaten there and received the bill and sees this additional charge on the cheque.

I'm also working on the assumption that this is being done as a separate addition on the cheque and it's not just a matter of the business just increasing the prices. It wasn't clearly stated in that article as to how it was being done but I read it as being a separate charge being tacked on.

Originally Posted by Beal View Post
Well from some people's perspective, it is a tax just being passed on to the consumer, but regardless of that question, what does it matter? As long as they aren't falsely advertising their prices, they can charge whatever fee they want. You can either pay it or not eat there.
What does it matter? Ok, if they are upfront about it and it's clearly stated before eating there that you will be charged an additional amount, sure ok.

If you were to buy something (food, clothing, whatever) and got the receipt and saw an additional charge that you weren't expecting, I'm pretty sure you would dispute it and would argue that you're not obligated to pay it. Taxes are obviously different. But something added at the whim of the owner? I'd fight the shit out of that.
__________________
Davek Bonemender ~ Guild Leader of Sunrunners ~
~ Retired with 8 years of service ~
~ Semi-unretired 2012 ~

Man that just rolls off the tongue nicely.

Originally Posted by Karthanon View Post
I know, you're in Ottawa, Davek. Still, I can't help but /poke you.
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
And you wonder why I don't play nice with you? You leave my man buttons alone.. Those are Davek's.

Last edited by Davek; 11-16-2012 at 03:07 AM.
Davek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 07:37 AM   #11
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by Davek View Post
So in other words: you don't know.
What do you mean I don't know? Later on in your post you agreed with everything I wrote. I know that he can charge any surcharge he wants and I know that as long as he notifies the customer up front and he doesn't misrepresent the charge (failing either of these would violate the contract between the customer and the restaurant) he is doing nothing wrong.

Originally Posted by Davek View Post
I was working with the scenario of a customer who has already eaten there and received the bill and sees this additional charge on the cheque.
If you mean to say that you were working under the scenario that the customer is surprised by this additional charge, then no, you were not working under that scenario. You are only bringing that up now.

In your last post, you only questioned whether the restaurant can charge a surcharge as a separate line item. The answer to that question is most certainly "yes." However because I'm so awesome, I also addressed the question of whether the restaurant can add this charge without notifying you up front, and the answer to that question is most certainly "no."

It goes without saying that his restaurants will have to notify the customer, up front, of the additional charge. Anyone with half a brain knows that springing the additional cost after the customer has already eaten (when he no longer has a choice) is both a violation of the implicit contract created by the pricing listed in the menu as well just a dirty thing to do to a customer that will convince him to eat somewhere else next time.

Some restaurants already do something like this for other reasons. They may add a flat fee to pay for the entertainment. They may add an automatic gratuity. But in all of those cases, they will notify the customer up front or they are going to get themselves in to trouble.

Originally Posted by Davek View Post
What does it matter? Ok, if they are upfront about it and it's clearly stated before eating there that you will be charged an additional amount, sure ok.
In other words, you agree with everything I have written on the matter.

Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 08:20 AM   #12
Davek
Squawk Box
 
Davek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ini is the wind beneath my wings.
Posts: 7,988
Originally Posted by Beal View Post
What do you mean I don't know? Later on in your post you agreed with everything I wrote. I know that he can charge any surcharge he wants and I know that as long as he notifies the customer up front and he doesn't misrepresent the charge (failing either of these would violate the contract between the customer and the restaurant) he is doing nothing wrong.



If you mean to say that you were working under the scenario that the customer is surprised by this additional charge, then no, you were not working under that scenario. You are only bringing that up now.

In your last post, you only questioned whether the restaurant can charge a surcharge as a separate line item. The answer to that question is most certainly "yes." However because I'm so awesome, I also addressed the question of whether the restaurant can add this charge without notifying you up front, and the answer to that question is most certainly "no."

It goes without saying that his restaurants will have to notify the customer, up front, of the additional charge. Anyone with half a brain knows that springing the additional cost after the customer has already eaten (when he no longer has a choice) is both a violation of the implicit contract created by the pricing listed in the menu as well just a dirty thing to do to a customer that will convince him to eat somewhere else next time.

Some restaurants already do something like this for other reasons. They may add a flat fee to pay for the entertainment. They may add an automatic gratuity. But in all of those cases, they will notify the customer up front or they are going to get themselves in to trouble.



In other words, you agree with everything I have written on the matter.

Your original response to me was jumping on something I wasn't even talking about.

You only just now fully clarified your stance:

Originally Posted by Beal View Post
In your last post, you only questioned whether the restaurant can charge a surcharge as a separate line item. The answer to that question is most certainly "yes." However because I'm so awesome, I also addressed the question of whether the restaurant can add this charge without notifying you up front, and the answer to that question is most certainly "no."

You can now go back to nitpicking semantics with Pinkheart.
__________________
Davek Bonemender ~ Guild Leader of Sunrunners ~
~ Retired with 8 years of service ~
~ Semi-unretired 2012 ~

Man that just rolls off the tongue nicely.

Originally Posted by Karthanon View Post
I know, you're in Ottawa, Davek. Still, I can't help but /poke you.
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
And you wonder why I don't play nice with you? You leave my man buttons alone.. Those are Davek's.
Davek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 10:09 AM   #13
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Yeah, cutting people's hours and hiring more people probably won't hurt unemployment... maybe it will help... although it could increase "underemployment"

In any case, this would be most "harmful" to sectors of the service industry where workers are being employed full-time and business owners are screwing them out of benefits to squeeze profits out of the company.

Plenty of people don't run shitty businesses. It will be fine. That was the point of the small business association guy in the link I posted that represents a lot of small businesses that support Obamacare. They run good businesses that value their human assets and won't be hurt, but helped.

A guy that runs 40 eateries and offers his fulltime staff no benefits is not only not being competitive, but being a complete shithole. I wonder what his turnover rate is.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 10:32 AM   #14
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Sure is easy to run someone's business for them... Almost as easy as it is to spend other peoples' money.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 10:37 AM   #15
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Sure is easy to run someone's business for them... Almost as easy as it is to spend other peoples' money.
I run a company already. It's certainly easy to criticize a douchebag. I just point out what a sleaze he is, and it's that easy! I posted an article where a business owner supports Obamacare and represents a group of small businesses that does... so their input is just as valid as this asshole's comments.

I actually find myself agreeing wit hthem. Being as how we run a GOOD business... we might benefit from tax breaks/credits for not being shitty to our employees. If so, we could offer more to them, or hire more people.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:54 AM   #16
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...tYU2nHmnlIhotL

More shitty businesses for you to sneer at.

Not everyone can run a business filled with people making large salaries with full benefits.

Hmm... hear that word? "Benefit"?

Not Entitlement?

See the difference? No, you probably don't.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 06:39 AM   #17
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...tYU2nHmnlIhotL

More shitty businesses for you to sneer at.

Not everyone can run a business filled with people making large salaries with full benefits.

Hmm... hear that word? "Benefit"?

Not Entitlement?

See the difference? No, you probably don't.
Yes, and I see some companies are keeping workers, just limiting hours. Overtime is expensive, too- true story.

There are multiple ways of handling these costs. Some people just like to bitch for political reasons. They didn't like the law or Obama, now they are bitching about it and being dickheads. Big shocker.

What does entitlement have to do with anything? You aren't "entitled" to 40 hours a week. So deal with it.

Here's other options, have fewer full time staff. Use contract labor where possible.

Sorry- again, I run a small organization. (Less than 100 employees and between 2 and 3 million budget). I see no problem with this... these guys are just being assholes. The strong businesses will survive.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 10:47 AM   #18
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post
What does entitlement have to do with anything? You aren't "entitled" to 40 hours a week. So deal with it.
But you're entitled to health care?
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 11:02 AM   #19
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
But you're entitled to health care?
You've been entitled to it for a while... now it's about who is going to pay for it.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 11:15 AM   #20
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
So... again... Communism. Got it.

If you'd just admit you're a communist, it would make everything much simpler. Instead, you lie to us, and you lie to yourself. You're completely OK with paying for people who can't pay for themselves by taking money from the productive classes.

And instead of nodding, and saying "Hey! You're right! This makes sense!" to the Oklahoma doctors' (working) plan, you start blathering about the great benefits of your Communist dream yet again.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 11:24 AM   #21
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
So... again... Communism. Got it.

If you'd just admit you're a communist, it would make everything much simpler. Instead, you lie to us, and you lie to yourself. You're completely OK with paying for people who can't pay for themselves by taking money from the productive classes.

And instead of nodding, and saying "Hey! You're right! This makes sense!" to the Oklahoma doctors' (working) plan, you start blathering about the great benefits of your Communist dream yet again.
Again, if you would point to the nationalization of health care, where the government has taken over industry I would be happy to accept that. Maybe give me that contact info of the American Insurance Company...

It's somewhat socialist. I will admit to that. It's not Communist. There's a difference. Unless you can provide an actual, you know, example of Communism here.

I have no problem admitting that I am not a purist. Pure capitalism failed. Pure socialism will fail... any rigid model will fail. I have said before, there has to be balance.

Last edited by Pinkheart; 11-19-2012 at 11:36 AM.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 06:04 AM   #22
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Socialism is the road to communism.

That being said:

http://twitchy.com/2012/11/10/more-o...workers-hours/
Darden: We're cutting hours due to Obamacare

http://video.foxnews.com/v/190258588...of-the-future/
Jimmy Johns: Cutting hours most likely

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2094568.html
Applebee's Franchisee: Not hiring due to Obamacare

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/...o-raise-costs/
Papa John's: Reducing hours for employees

Yeah, your free giveaway is SUCH a great idea...

Real people are going to be hurt by this. Poor people making low wages are going to see their hours cut. That's a fact. People who need to work 40 hours a week to be able to afford to live.

Why? Because of your favorite giveaway. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Too bad the real world effect is that the working poor are getting shafted.

Again, the cost of Obamacare. And you're cheering it on. Any questions as to why I call you Pinko, Pinko?
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 06:09 AM   #23
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Socialism is the road to communism.

That being said:

http://twitchy.com/2012/11/10/more-o...workers-hours/
Darden: We're cutting hours due to Obamacare

http://video.foxnews.com/v/190258588...of-the-future/
Jimmy Johns: Cutting hours most likely

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2094568.html
Applebee's Franchisee: Not hiring due to Obamacare

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/...o-raise-costs/
Papa John's: Reducing hours for employees

Yeah, your free giveaway is SUCH a great idea...

Real people are going to be hurt by this. Poor people making low wages are going to see their hours cut. That's a fact. People who need to work 40 hours a week to be able to afford to live.

Why? Because of your favorite giveaway. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Too bad the real world effect is that the working poor are getting shafted.

Again, the cost of Obamacare. And you're cheering it on. Any questions as to why I call you Pinko, Pinko?
The bolded has nothing to do with this. I admitted it would probably increased the number underemployed. OTOH hiring will need to be done to fill those other hours. Also, I posted an article about a man that would have his hours cut, but was fine because it would be compensated by affordable health insurance via exchanges and/or tax breaks. The value of the healthcare will more than likely be worth more than the hours lost. If someone is at 40 hours, they only have to have a couple hours cut. (Ovre 40, they were likely getting over time which would be expensive). In exchange for those couple of hours they will get lots of health insurance related incentives. Not bad for 2 hours a week at low wages.

I also like how you call it "my" favorite giveaway as you try to marginalize my perspective. In fact, the re-election proves you are the minority here. Obama got the majority and so did his policies. You are in the minority on this one. Of course, we know that it was all the rich ones that voted for Obama, right? I mean he has like no support among lower income folks- oh wait... and I am sure a bunch of Romney supporters (people in those links) have no alterior motives for advertising their discontent... - oh wait.

P.S. my old college roomate's father-in-law is an exec at Dardin. My friend got in as a corporate trainer (they have massive turnover, anyway)... you realize that even though someone might not be regularly scheduled for 40 hours, they can still pick up shifts, right?

Last edited by Pinkheart; 11-20-2012 at 06:48 AM.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 04:54 PM   #24
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Update: Looks like I wasn't the only one that thought this idiot was just a stupid bag of dicks

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2146735.html

LOL, look at the market respond- By boycotting his stupid ass. Good job there running your business, bud. Into the ground.

Lulz.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 09:14 AM   #25
Davek
Squawk Box
 
Davek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ini is the wind beneath my wings.
Posts: 7,988
Yeah...I think DD opened this topic right:

Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
If you say you didn't see this coming, you're asleep or lying.
http://consumerist.com/2013/01/25/mo...are-surcharge/

More Than 50 San Francisco Restaurants Accused Of Scamming Customers & Employees By Pocketing Health Care Surcharge
January 25, 2013 By Chris Morran

For more than four years, dozens of restaurants in San Francisco have been tacking on surcharges to diners’ bills, claiming that the money was to go toward health care costs. But it turns out that millions of those dollars were just going into restaurant owners’ pockets.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that starting in 2008, some owners decided that, rather than raise their menu prices to cover city-mandated health care costs, they would just add a surcharge to customers’ invoices. In some cases the surcharge was a flat amount, in others it was a percentage of the total bill. Regardless, this money was to be used for health care for employees.

But per the city’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement, that just wasn’t happening. It tells the Chronicle that in 2011 alone, $14 million was collected via these surcharges, yet only around one-third of that ever went to health care.

“It was pocketed back to the restaurateur,” said San Francisco Supervisor David Campos, who says that some restaurant employees were actually denied health care when they shouldn’t have been.
The City Attorney is expected to announce an amnesty program today that would forgive violators if they fess up to the skim and pay back some of that money to employees.

“Requiring these people to pay restitution is a compromise,” Assemblyman Tom Ammiano tells the Chronicle. “If it was up to me, I’d throw them in jail.”

One pizzeria has already settled with the city for failing to provide health care benefits to 115 employees between 2009 and 2011. Those employees will receive a total of $205,000 in reimbursement from the owners, who will also pay a $15,000 penalty to the city.
__________________
Davek Bonemender ~ Guild Leader of Sunrunners ~
~ Retired with 8 years of service ~
~ Semi-unretired 2012 ~

Man that just rolls off the tongue nicely.

Originally Posted by Karthanon View Post
I know, you're in Ottawa, Davek. Still, I can't help but /poke you.
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
And you wonder why I don't play nice with you? You leave my man buttons alone.. Those are Davek's.
Davek is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:57 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.