Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Darden tests limiting worker hours as health-care changes loom

In an experiment apparently aimed at keeping down the cost of health-care reform, Orlando-based Darden Restaurants has stopped offering full-time schedules to many hourly workers in at least a few Olive Gardens, Red Lobsters and LongHorn Steakhouses.

Darden said the test is taking place in "a select number" of restaurants in four markets, including Central Florida, but would not give details. The company said there has been no decision made about expanding it.

In an emailed statement, Darden said staffing changes are "just one of the many things we are evaluating to help us address the cost implications health care reform will have on our business. There are still many unanswered questions regarding the health care regulations and we simply do not have enough information to make any decisions at this time."

Analysts say many other companies, including the White Castle hamburger chain, are considering employing fewer full-timers because of key features of the Affordable Care Act scheduled to go into effect in 2014. Under that law, large companies must provide affordable health insurance to employees working an average of at least 30 hours per week.

If they do not, the companies can face fines of up to $3,000 for each employee who then turns to an exchange — an online marketplace — for insurance.

"I think a lot of those employers, especially restaurants, are just going to ensure nobody gets scheduled more than 30 hours a week," said Matthew Snook, partner with human-resources consulting company Mercer.

Darden said its goal at the test restaurants is to keep employees at 28 hours a week.

Analysts said limiting hours could pose new challenges, including higher turnover and less-qualified workers.

"It's a real problem for restaurants," said Howard Penney, a restaurant analyst and managing director for Hedgeye Risk Management.

Darden, the world's largest casual-dining company and one of the nation's 30 largest employers, said it offers health insurance to all its approximately 185,000 employees. Many are offered a limited-benefit plan. That type of coverage is being phased out under health-care changes, which will ban annual limits for most plans.

About 25 percent of Darden workers are full time, meaning they work more than 30 hours a week. Though employees say Darden already offers traditional health insurance to full-timers, Janney Capital Markets analyst Mark Kalinowski said the cost of providing that could become higher for Darden under the Affordable Care Act. Because that law requires everyone to have health insurance, more workers will likely choose its coverage, Kalinowski said.

"Even a modest jump up in the amount of employees that decide they want the insurance you're offering could have a meaningful impact on your bottom line," he said.

Under the system Darden is testing, employees are to be scheduled for no more than 28 hours each week. They can run over that if things get busy, but Darden acknowledged they are not supposed to exceed 30 hours.

At a new Olive Garden in Stillwater, Okla., former busboy Keaton Hasty said employees were routinely limited to 29 1/2 hours.

"It was 29 1/2, and they'd kick you out," said Hasty, a college student who now works at a pharmacy. "They'd always print off a little slip every day and say who was getting close."

And Michael Walker said when he applied for a job at a new Olive Garden in Hammond, La., he was told that except for a few "key training positions," only part-time jobs were available for hourly workers.

"Without having full health care … I don't see that as an option," Walker said. He decided to stick with his current job at another restaurant.

Darden told analysts last year it would consider changing its mix of part-time and full-time employees to reduce costs.

Darden has been aggressively keeping labor costs down. It has cut bartenders' pay and required servers to share tips with them. It also has eliminated busboy positions at Red Lobster and reduced the number of servers working each shift at that chain.

by Anonymousreply 7901/04/2013

(cont'd)

Labor costs as a percentage of sales have dropped steadily from 33.1 percent in fiscal 2010 to 30.8 percent in the most recent quarter

by Anonymousreply 110/08/2012

Bastards.

Yes, their employee turnover will rise and I hope they realize it.

Why not just follow the law, get better, more loyal workers, and stop all this 28-hours-max-per-worker-week stuff.

by Anonymousreply 210/08/2012

Because companies are FUCKING EVIL and will ANYTHING to lower their cost.

This is exactly why we need universal health care, so employees aren't terrified of losing their insurance.

by Anonymousreply 310/08/2012

Time for the restaurant union to start passing out cards at Olive Gardens.

by Anonymousreply 410/08/2012

This is reason #10,002 why we need Universal Health Care.

by Anonymousreply 510/08/2012

I second R5. Nothing short of single-payer is acceptable.

by Anonymousreply 610/08/2012

Good, I hope they fail.

More independent cafés and restaurants can have their business.

by Anonymousreply 710/08/2012

[quote]More independent cafés and restaurants can have their business.

I just hope the result isn't that independents fail to afford insurance and don't hire full-time staff in turn.

by Anonymousreply 810/08/2012

Too bad the president didn't go for single payer. And too bad minimum wage wasn't raised an extra $10 an hour -- also ensuring that, say, restaurant servers could not be paid short of minimum (despite the scapegoat excuses of their tips).

by Anonymousreply 910/08/2012

You're surprised by this?

Critics said that businesses would cut full time workers, and the net result of the law would be negative for the average person.

Bureaucrats are morons. Lacks and Darden are just the beginning...

by Anonymousreply 1010/08/2012

[quote]Because companies are FUCKING EVIL and will ANYTHING to lower their cost.

Costco has proven that you can pay a living wage, offer health insurance, and save on labor costs by lowering turnover and reducing shrinkage. The opposite of how Republican-leaning companies lower labor costs.

There's a perverse sense of satisfaction Republicans get out of holding others down - screwing people and declaring themselves "winners."

It's not solely about lowering labor costs.

by Anonymousreply 1110/08/2012

Aren't most of those jobs filled by students anyway? I think they suck and are assholes, but we are talking about shitty chain restaurant jobs after all.

I think where you'll see his next is in retail, and then you'll see an exodus of employees.

by Anonymousreply 1210/08/2012

All those workers will apply for Medicaid, charity care etc all @ the tax payers expense, you know the hard working middle class folks who pay their fair share of taxes, unlike corporations like Dardon who get massive tax breaks. This should be illegal !!

by Anonymousreply 1310/08/2012

R13 gets it- dingdingding!!!

If you have enough political clout to "convince" (bribe) a congresscritter to "exempt" your small (or not so small) biz from some regulation then you have an advantage. Otherwise you are better off A) shipping the job offshore or B) "diversifying" so that your biz doesn't fall under the law.

I'm sure that everyone here takes advantage of every tax break they can- small biz, homeowner interest deduction, etc.- but cannot stand it when other people "take advantage of the system".

The number of service businesses that are talking to "temporary labor" contractors, in an effort to circumvent this bill has skyrocketed. I know- it's my business.

By 2015, 90% of waiters/cashiers will be employed by "temp services" that don't have to provide insurance.

Thank God for Obama!

by Anonymousreply 1410/08/2012

Operators of small businesses are going to be cutting full time employees throughout 2013 to under 50, to stay under the Obamacare tax.

Here's the thinking of one small business owner:

Here is what I am doing for the rest of the year -- working with every manager in my company so that as of January 1, 2013, none of our employees are working more than 28 hours a week.   I think most readers know the reason -- we have got to get our company under 50 full time employees or else I am facing a bill from Obamacare in 2014 that will be several times larger than my annual profit.  I love my workers.  They make me a success.  But most of my competitors are small businesses that are exempt from the Obamacare hammer.  To compete, I must make sure my company is exempt as well.  This means that our 400+ full time employees will have to be less than 50 in 2013, so that when the Feds look at me at the start of 2014, I am exempt.  We will have more employees working fewer hours, with more training costs, but the Obamacare bill looks like about $800,000 a year for us, at least, and I am pretty sure the cost of more training will be less than that.

This will be unpopular but tolerable to most of my employees.  The vast majority of them are retired and our company is merely an excuse to stay busy, work outdoors, and get a little extra money.

But this is going to be an ENORMOUS change in the rest of the service sector.  I have talked to a lot of owners of restaurants and restaurant chains, and the 40-hour work week is a thing of the past in that business.  One of my employees said that in Hawaii, it was all the hotel employees could talk about.   Many chains are working on mutli-team systems where two teams of people working part-time replace the former group of full-time employees.  2013 is going to see a lot of people (who are not paid very well to begin with) getting their hours and pay cut by 25%.  At the same time that they are required, likely for the first time since many are relatively young, to purchase health insurance.

It is really going to get crazy, as the owner above speculates:

It will be interesting to see what solutions emerge.  My bet is that it will become standard for people in the service sector to work two different jobs for 20-25 hours each with two different companies.  This will be a pain for them, but allow them to keep their income up.  The hard part may be coordinating shifts between companies.  For example, a company that divides their shifts into mon-tue-wed vs. thu-fri-sat cannot share employees with one who divides their shifts between morning and afternoon.  If given time, I would guess that just as the mon-fri workweek emerged as a standard, companies may adopt standard ways of dividing up the work weeks for part-timers, making it easier for schedules to mesh.

by Anonymousreply 1512/03/2012

greedy cunts. because the bottom line comes first no Matter what

by Anonymousreply 1612/03/2012

R17, ALL restaurant and gas station and hotel chains will be doing the same thing. This company is just being open about the change.

My company has spent the last 6 months changing corporate structure so we can cut all employees (except executive staff) to 28 hours or less.

My company provides staffing for big companies, many fortune 500. The poor guys will find that their checks are cut by half, and that we cannot use them in other facilities without breaking the law, so they have to go elsewhere. This is over 10,000 people. We've tried every possible way, but none of them allow ANY profit for the company, and thus we have to cut hours.

This law is going to kill the poorest people, and it breaks my heart. These are good, hardworking, nice men and women. My office staff has called me, crying, because we have to cut the hours of the best guys they know to comply with the law, but we can't without going broke.

by Anonymousreply 1812/03/2012

hold me David

by Anonymousreply 1912/03/2012

[quote]This law is going to kill the poorest people, and it breaks my heart.

Oh, spare us. The people that will be affected in this way didn't have access to proper health insurance through their employers anyway. And the "small business owner" you quoted in R15 is full of shit. And with the additional support for individuals built into the ACA, at least those people who don't get access to health care through their employer will have access to proper insurance in the new exchanges and the federal support to afford it.

by Anonymousreply 2012/04/2012

R20-

When your hours get cut to less than 28 per week, don't bitch.

EVERY company (and I mean EVERY company) that my company works with is cutting "non-essential" staff to less than 28 hours/week.

Look at the business journals. Look at the job tracking sites. ALL of them are cutting hours to sub28/wk.

by Anonymousreply 2112/04/2012

Death to Republicans!

by Anonymousreply 2212/04/2012

[quote]When your hours get cut to less than 28 per week, don't bitch.

It's not going to happen but thanks ever so much for your concern.

[quote]EVERY company (and I mean EVERY company) that my company works with is cutting "non-essential" staff to less than 28 hours/week.

And yet you are conveniently unable to actually name any of these companies and the "analysis" you cited in R15 was completely bogus.

[quote]Look at the business journals. Look at the job tracking sites. ALL of them are cutting hours to sub28/wk.

Please feel free to actually list these business journals and provide links to those sites. We'll be waiting.

by Anonymousreply 2312/04/2012

[quote]To compete, I must make sure my company is exempt as well.

I truly hope you're out of business by the end of 2013

by Anonymousreply 2412/04/2012

[quote] I'm sure that everyone here takes advantage of every tax break they can-

And you would be wrong. Except for a short time when I was an independent contractor almost 30 years ago, I've only ever taken the standard deduction.

by Anonymousreply 2512/04/2012

Why were some unions and businesses allowed to Opt-Out of the new health care bill?

by Anonymousreply 2612/04/2012

If you have enough pull with a powerful congresscritter you can get exemptions. Look at Goldman Sachs.

Unions are a "bloc" that always votes for Democrats. They will always get special treatment, just like churches will from Republicans. The big banks will always get special treatment from both parties.

It's a sick (and dying) system.

by Anonymousreply 2712/08/2012

Psycho R18 (and all the other posts you made): do you not see where this is going? Obama plays a long game. Shitty publicity will hurt businesses with retail customers.

And when enough evil fucks do this, they'll just amend the law from 30 hours to 3 hours. How many part-timers can they get at 2 hours a week?

And, this is the best part--after all of the Republican governors turn the exchanges over to the feds, Congress will pass the Medicare buy-in, i.e., the public option, and it will be the first and most obvious choice for consumers on said exchanges will be Medicare. The idiots are giving up control of information, which is the biggest currency in the 21st century.

There will be single payer through this gimmick be 2024.

by Anonymousreply 2912/08/2012

Anyone else seeing hours cut and restructuring?

I met my best friend from HS at a Applebee's today, and even the managers are being cut to 28 hours a week.

by Anonymousreply 3012/24/2012

Aren't these evil companies losing tons of customers and profits over this shit they're pulling.

Think about it. Do you really want people who are sick and can't see a doctor near your food?

by Anonymousreply 3112/24/2012

It's universal, R31

I hosted 38 aunts/uncles, cousins and family friends for dinner tonight, and since they know that employment is my biz the conversation naturally turned to what was going on in the economy.

My oldest (and coolest) cousin is a VP for a call center, and she just got demoted. Total shock. She now works 25 hours. Major pay cut.

Another cousin got laid off completely on Friday, and his wife is worried she will lose her job as a tech at the hospital. She has already been cut to part time.

My second cousin's husband was also cut to part time, and a family friend took early retirement to avoid layoffs. The younger (16-25) group is either working part time or under the table. I'm just glad my brother is a senior level employee, and is in no danger (yet) of losing his job, even though his company is laying off 10% of the workforce in Jan.

It was NOT an uplifting dinner once all them started talking about work.

I've seen it in my biz, I've heard it from family, I've heard it from the restaurant workers...happy 2013!

by Anonymousreply 3212/26/2012

And yet none of this is showing up in actual, verifiable data, R32. Why is that?

by Anonymousreply 3312/26/2012

I have refused to eat in any of their chain restaurants since their first stupid comment about the healthcare act

by Anonymousreply 3412/26/2012

R33, a closer look at employment data shows a major increase in "part-time" work. A look at "total employment as percentage of populace" shows that we are at historical lows. Many of these changes are coming as 2013 and the first parts of the ACA come into effect. The March numbers will be scary.

by Anonymousreply 3512/26/2012

The obscenely rich corporations can't spare some of their massive profits for their workers' health? How utterly disgusting... I hope R30 and all his wealthy, heartless ilk are raped to death.

by Anonymousreply 3612/26/2012

In short, and as usual, you can't support your assertions. Thank you for confirming that.

Free clue: there are other reasons why employment is lower and part-time employment is higher. And no, they don't have anything to do with the ACA.

by Anonymousreply 3712/26/2012

"...because we have to cut the hours of the best guys they know to comply with the law, but we can't without going broke."

What a vile lie. Just forgo your 7th car and 3rd house, and I'm sure you can scrounge up the cash to help your workers (or do you prefer 'cogs'?) survive.

by Anonymousreply 3812/26/2012

Circuit City thought that they could save money by firing or cutting the hours of their best people. Gee, I wonder how that worked out for them?

by Anonymousreply 3912/26/2012

ROFL.... Are you in kindergarten, R40? I will note that, as usual, you utterly failed to provide even one bit of logic, data, or reason to support your silly assertions. Thank you for confirming that. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.

by Anonymousreply 4112/26/2012

This isn't just happening to minimum-wage restaurant employees -- it's been happening to educated professionals for years.

I couldn't get a tenure-track teaching position at any of the three community colleges that employed me, so I became what they call "an itinerant scholar," someone who drives from college to college to teach one course here and two courses there. BTW, the pay for adjuncts is so awful that when my students found out how little I was paid to teach them, many considered dropping out of college.

Needless to say, adjunct professors have no health insurance and no job security at all.

I finally stopped teaching/hoping for a full-time teaching position and got a government job. It doesn't pay well either, but at least I'll get health insurance and a pension (I hope).

Another profession which used to be full-time is that of dental hygienist. Hygienists used to work full-time and get benefits from their respective dentists, but now that the are only hired part-time, they have to work for two dentists to make ends meet and pay for their own health care.

This is happening all over, and it was happening before "Obamacare" was even on the table.

by Anonymousreply 4212/26/2012

I'm a small business owner. Less than 50 employees so Obamacare doesn't really impact my business. Our model for years has been to pay for health benefits for our managers only. They are our only full time staff (35-40 hrs). The rest of our employees are part time (under 28 hours). We don't have to pay for health benefits for our managers, but we choose to because good managers are like gold, so we compensate them well.

The truth is we place a much higher value on our managers because they are the most loyal, committed and hard working (qualities they must demonstrate before they get promoted), plus they deal with all the bullshit that goes along with managing a part time retail staff. The part time "worker bees" tend to come and go. We do have a few who have been with us a long time, but most turn over in less than 2 years. We've had a lot of success with this staffing model and it doesn't surprise me that larger businesses are adopting it to adapt to the new laws.

by Anonymousreply 4412/26/2012

[quote]BTW, the pay for adjuncts is so awful that when my students found out how little I was paid to teach them, many considered dropping out of college.

Riiiiiiiight!

by Anonymousreply 4512/26/2012

R45? What about that doesn't make sense to you?

It caused my students to wonder if going to college was going to pay off for them in the end.

by Anonymousreply 4612/26/2012

R46-

The poster at R45 believes the government is god. He will defend any position as long as it makes the government look good.

Ignore her.

by Anonymousreply 4712/26/2012

R44, are you really too stupid to understand that your "worker bees" aren't very good and have such a high turnover rate BECAUSE of how you treat them?

Do you expect loyalty from them when you give them nothing? Your condescension just oozes throughout your post. I hope one of your "worker bees" takes out their frustration on you very soon.

It's people like you who are the problem.

by Anonymousreply 4812/27/2012

The story about Darden has already turned. Those who bothered to look at what happened to Darden's proposal found out that the organization took a huge business hit. Apparently, customers read about their plans and it led to a 37% loss in the last quarter. The managers are now turning tail and saying they were only considering this and that it wasn't going to be implemented. Basically, pretending that they weren't seriously considering screwing over their workers. THAT's what will happen to any business stupid enough to say that they will cut worker hours b/c of Obamacare.

"This month the company publicly addressed speculation about how it would adjust to the so-called Obamacare national healthcare overhaul, promising NOT to slash hours for any of its 45,000 full-time employees.

The announcement came after the restaurant giant ran a controversial pilot program in which it hired more part-time workers to see if it could cut its healthcare costs once President Obama’s reforms are implemented in 2014.

Darden won’t be required to provide access to health coverage for its part-time workers, who constitute three-quarters of its 185,000 workforce.

But Otis said Thursday that the company’s actions were “misinterpreted” as “a stand against healthcare reform.”"

by Anonymousreply 4912/27/2012

Heaven forbid they should just look for another job.

by Anonymousreply 5012/27/2012

So what are all of those other restaurant chains, call centers, gas stations, etc that are supposedly cutting hours? Can you provide us with links defending your statements? Anything verifiable? Those business journals you mentioned - can you provide us with the name of the journal and the date of publication? Can you show us any evidence that part-time employment in relation to full-time employment is now increasing at a faster rate than it already was prior to the ACA passing?

by Anonymousreply 5112/27/2012

People will just not be loyal or bust their ass for a job if they are treated like 'worker bees' or insignificant and unworthy of benefits. That's just life. So corporations who only care about management bonuses instead of producing a great product along with a contented staff will do dumb shit like offer no benefits or make people get 2nd jobs to survive. Those part time workers will just not produce as much b/c you haven't given that person a reason to invest in the company. One would think businesses had common sense, alas, they are too stupid for words and think that saving 3cents is smarter than paying those cents now and reaping the benefits of a loyal staff later.

I don't get it. I run my program in a way that makes those working for me feel that I'm concerned, that they are needed, that they are part of making what we do a success. They receive benefits and in turn are loyal 'worker bees' instead of disinterested flakes who have no reason to give a shit if the company is a success or not.

by Anonymousreply 5212/27/2012

This is a typical job listing nowadays:

FT/PT: Part Time

Hours: Part Time – Hours approximately 12-18 hours per week; includes daytime, evening, and Saturday hours. Ability to act as a substitute for other hours as needed desirable. Flexible hours required. Must be able to work day, evening and Saturday hours. Library hours are M-TH 9:00-8:00, F-S 9:00-5:00

Salary: Salary: $9.45 per hour. No benefits.

----------------------------------

Now, please, someone tell me how you are supposed to live with a job like this? Oh, it's part-time, but you must be available whenever the fuck they want you. And, maybe only 12 hours a week. And, you get a randomized schedule so you can't get a second job. And, you get under $10 an hour with no benefits at all.

I mean, even an at-home mom who wanted some extra money wouldn't benefit from this because the random hours would cause her to have to pay a babysitter, who would make more than she earns.

This is the world the Repugs wanted and it's the world they now have. I want a fucking guillotine!

by Anonymousreply 5312/27/2012

What should we blame you on, R54? You absolutely stink of failure on all counts.

by Anonymousreply 5512/27/2012

R48, are YOU too stupid to read my post. I made it very clear that our staffing model is successful and profitable and has been for many years. There is no reason to change it. It's a good way to run a small retail/service business that employs mostly unskilled workers. If we needed to reward part-time "worker bees" with benefits to be successful we would. But we don't. We have no problems hiring.

Health benefits should be available to all citizens through Universal Healthcare. It's long overdue. I don't know why we're still burdening businesses with it. Employer provided healthcare is an antiquated system that started back in the dark ages of WW2, when there was a labor shortage and companies needed a carrot to entice workers. Since then the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed and there are 10 workers for every job. You do the math. No one should be surprised that more and more employers are getting out of the game.

Employers are not responsible for educating our children, building roads, bridges and tunnels, providing security (police and military), etc., or anything else that is necessary for the common good. Why healthcare? It's stupid.

by Anonymousreply 5612/27/2012

R56

Employer health benefits are "tax free" and that is why they were offered- a way of "paying" more without giving the government 30%.

The level of government interference at every level of healthcare is the reason it is so expensive. Why should a knee replacement, or kidney transplant, or LASIK cost 10x in the US compared to less regulated markets like Singapore or Costa Rica?

Get the government out of healthcare completely, at every level, and prices will drop quickly.

by Anonymousreply 5812/28/2012

Gee, R58, that must be why all of those countries with "socialized medicine" have health care costs that are so much higher than ours. And why Medicare is so much more expensive than private insurance.

Oh, wait....

Tell me, does it even occur to you to *think* before posting such idiotically false drivel here?

by Anonymousreply 5912/28/2012

R56, just because you can get away with treating people as if they are worth less than shit on the bottom of your shoe doesn't mean it's a good business model.

The only person that model is good for is you, asshole.

by Anonymousreply 6012/28/2012

No one is forcing people to work for me, shit for brains @ R60. If they aren't happy, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Sometimes they do, and that's fine. I pay my staff a competitive wage and treat them fairly. I don't owe them health benefits and....you must agree, because you voted for representatives and a President who don't require me to.

The fact is, if I had to insure every single person who works for me I would be out of business OR my products and services would cost A LOT more, which I'm quite certain you would be the first in line to bitch about.

Put aside your misplaced resentment and work for change where it counts. We need Universal Healthcare, PERIOD. There is no other way.

by Anonymousreply 6112/28/2012

I'm laughing my ass off at the naive rubes here who keep saying they will only patronize local Mom and Pop shops.

Newsflash: they don't pay benefits either and never have. Most don't even pay all the taxes they should and often pay their employees under the table. Cash income is great in the short term, but not so good when you haven't contributed to SS and you need to get credit, but oops!, can't show any earnings.

by Anonymousreply 6212/28/2012

It truly is disgusting. They don't even pay enough in the first place for the average worker to purchase health insurance. And when they're required to provide it as employers, they further screw employees by cutting hours and weakening their own work force. The sad part is they know they can get away with it because there is no shortage of people to work service jobs, even though high turnover would undoubtedly make the business suffer. It's not anything to do with what's right or what they can afford - it's all driven by an evil ideology. Really, I don't know how any average citizen could support or vote for this ideology.

by Anonymousreply 6312/28/2012

[quote]it's all driven by an evil ideology

It's all driven by profit, sweetheart. I know it's a tough concept to grasp, but businesses need to make money in order to survive and grow and be able to offer employment.

by Anonymousreply 6412/28/2012

R64-

So, you work?

And it does it pay you more than sitting around at home?

If so, you are working for PROFIT! Good for you!

I know that most people here will hate you for having a job, or (god forbid) owning a small company, but unless people WORK for PROFIT then society doesn't advance.

Now, god forbid you find a way to make MORE money by putting your friends and family to work, and creating hundreds of jobs. If you did that, you might earn a few million dollars a year...and that is bad, and needs to be punished.

They don't care that you use half your income to pay for your nieces and cousins to go to school, or for rent for your great aunts, or for medical treatments for your second cousins husbands mother, or for Susan Komen and MoDimes or whatever- it only matters that you try to help.

No, you should be taxed so we can kill brown people, and give big bailouts to the banks, and support big companies, and pay off the debt the parasites in government have accrued...

No wonder you're moving your company to Panama.

by Anonymousreply 6512/28/2012

Hey, asshole business owner who treats his workers like shit, how much profit did your company make this year? How much of a salary did you take this year?

Now, let's see if you lie by saying you made less than you did so you don't look like an even bigger piece of shit than you already do even if it makes you look less successful or whether your ego will keep you from under-reporting your profit even to an anonymous message board where we'll think you're a bad business owner.

I vote that you will just not answer because the fight between your oversized ego and your non-existent brain will render you mute.

by Anonymousreply 6612/29/2012

I do quite well, thank you, R66. I wouldn't have bothered to invest in owning a business at all if the rewards weren't great. Too much risk, hassle and stress 24/7. In fact, I'm already planning an exit strategy (selling the business) that will allow me to retire early. I'm really happy with my life and the choices I've made.

by Anonymousreply 6712/29/2012

Give us some numbers, R67.

You are so typical. The lord and his serfs in the modern world. You are immoral and inhumane. Congratulations. I hope you suffer in the way you deserve.

by Anonymousreply 6812/29/2012

If you want to help the poor workers then go and eat at the restaurants. That way the business will be so profitable the owners won't mind paying the insurance.

Let's see you put your money where your mouth is and see if you will actually DO anything to help these people you think need help.

by Anonymousreply 6912/29/2012

R67-

The "serfs" don't realize that the top .01% (and their servants in the government) have made opening and running a business a risky proposition..outside the risk of time, sweat, tears, blood and money. You can do a great job, give great service, provide great jobs for people, provide a product people want...and one little violation of some obscure regulation can bankrupt you. No wonder the US is dying.

The top .01% don't want competition, they want cashiers, waiters and caddies. That's why they control the government and write the laws to benefit their needs, and fuck the 99.9%.

Too bad it's falling apart. Got gold? Guns?

by Anonymousreply 7012/30/2012

[quote]Employer provided healthcare is an antiquated system that started back in the dark ages of WW2, when there was a labor shortage and companies needed a carrot to entice workers.

Wrong. Did you make that up? Because it isn't even close to the truth of how employer provided healthcare came about, dummy.

by Anonymousreply 7112/30/2012

Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a direct result of wage controls imposed by the federal government during World War II.[17] The labor market was tight because of the increased demand for goods and decreased supply of workers during the war.

Federally imposed wage and price controls prohibited manufacturers and other employers from raising wages enough to attract workers. When the War Labor Board declared that fringe benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance, did not count as wages for the purpose of wage controls, employers responded with significantly increased offers of fringe benefits, especially health care coverage, to attract workers.[17]

by Anonymousreply 7212/30/2012

Thanks, R72.

by Anonymousreply 7312/30/2012

Wow. A respectful, and open admission of being wrong. R71 r73 you must be on the wrong board.

If you look at why health care costs have gotten so out of control, you might want to look at how this "loophole" has perverted the system. Google "Rothbard" and "insurance" or "rockwell" and "health care" and you'll see why dozens of layers of government red tape have made health care in the USA so expensive...and how repealing ALL laws on medical care would make it better, cheaper and more universal.

by Anonymousreply 7412/30/2012

[quote]Wow. A respectful, and open admission of being wrong.

You should consider following that example.

by Anonymousreply 7512/30/2012

LOL, R74. You're confused. R73 is not R71.

R71 has yet to come back here to admit his embarrassing blunder. He's hiding under the stairs in the fetal position, rocking back and forth while sucking his thumb.

by Anonymousreply 7612/30/2012

R76-

I see you were the one who posted at R73.

How sad.

by Anonymousreply 7712/30/2012

I guess the asshole business owner doesn't like discussing actual numbers. Doesn't want us to see how much he's taking out of the business for himself while fucking over the people who work for him and help him make that money.

Total asshole.

by Anonymousreply 7812/31/2012

Still waiting...

by Anonymousreply 7901/04/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.