Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you read the links in the post I quoted, you would see that they didn't "wait until now."
I've no doubt that they have employed every loophole available to them over the years, including, as was noted, under-scheduling, firing people who worked long enough to be made permanent, etc.
My point was simply that they didn't have to join the bandwagon of employers who take advantage of the opportunity to take advantage.
But why be ethical when you don't have to.
They are only going by the law, one the Democrats put into force.
Sleazy or not... these corporations are the ones who employee the largest part of our workforce. It's just like those who complain that corporations don't pay enough in taxes. They do... legally. They work within the legal framework of the tax laws. And this is just another example. They will do what they need to to financially survive. I had the bigger fear that they would start laying folks off right and left instead of just cutting hours. Does it make it right? No. But.. see how we fare when these "sleazy" corporations go out of business and the jobs go out the door. Which will be worse, having your hours cut, or losing your job completely?
They may survive, but they won't grow. Not if they continue to cut the legs out from under the people who would be their customer base.
Kind of like cutting the legs out of the already insured?
It's ok when the government does it and tells you that you had a substandard policy because you didn't have maternity and pediatric coverage. That 50-64 year old woman really was lacking in coverage wasn't she.
Thankfully the government put everything right by booting her and now she can pay more for that coverage.
By making less, the employees will be eligible for subsidies, it's DB's way of shifting HCI costs to the employee and tax payer. Was David's Bridal providing the 2500 employees HC Insurance prior to Oct 1? My guess would be no.
That's the most irrational logic I've heard. You actually want people to work less so they can take money from the government? Have you noticed that our nation is broke and you want to take away money earning opportunities in the private sector?
That's the most irrational logic I've heard. You actually want people to work less so they can take money from the government? Have you noticed that our nation is broke and you want to take away money earning opportunities in the private sector?
See which way the country is headed with logic like that ?
If you read the links in the post I quoted, you would see that they didn't "wait until now.".
A Memo went out 2 days ago.. I'd say thats "now"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
I've no doubt that they have employed every loophole available to them over the years, including, as was noted, under-scheduling, firing people who worked long enough to be made permanent, etc.
You having now "doubt", isnt the topic of the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
If you read the links in the post I quoted, you would see that they didn't "wait until now.".
A Memo went out 2 days ago.. I'd say thats "now"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
My point was simply that they didn't have to join the bandwagon of employers who take advantage of the opportunity to take advantage.
But why be ethical when you don't have to.
You actually have nothing to substantiate that claim. If you're going to pretend you know what you are talking about, please dont make crap up that you dont know is true, and then pretend others have to comply with your made up scenario.
Actually it shines the understanding. If they make less money then they qualify for "government help".
That poster must be a big government savior fan.
Woohooo! Us hardworking taxpayers get to continue to foot the bill!
Let's see. We haven't even seen this supposed e-mail so we don't know what it says.
In addition, we do know that even large (more than fifty employees) employers are not affected by the employer mandate until 2015.
In addition, we have seen other employers cut employee benefits and claiming that those changes were required by the Affordable Care Act (like the dropping of spousal coverage) when we know that those claims have been lies.
So in this context you really expect us to believe that this employer is somehow being forced to do this by President Obama?
Yes, and the food at Applebee's stinks, but its also Obamas fault they are losing money too according to the far right. lol.
Hopefully, they're all 2012 Obama voters working there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
