Red Lobster - First Casualty of Obamacare

[pornstarwannabe]

Quote:
"Darden Restaurants Inc. declined to give details but said the test is only in four markets across the country. The move entails boosting the number of workers on part-time status, meaning they work less than 30 hours a week.

Under the new health care law, companies with 50 or more workers could be hit with fines if they do not provide basic coverage for full-time workers and their dependents. Starting Jan. 1, 2014, those penalties and requirements could significantly boost labor costs for some companies, particularly in low-wage industries such as retail and hospitality, where most jobs don't come with health benefits."

link


So, we knew this was going to happen.

 

[Black13]

Oh no... no more Red Lobster.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Oh no... no more Red Lobster.

Worse than that. Companies may make majority of their workforce part-time rather than pay the penalty. Also, some companies today have healthcare plans that do not meet the minimum standard set by Obamacare... that means employees will be put on part-time and lose their coverage.

 

[Sean]

Worse than that. Companies may make majority of their workforce part-time rather than pay the penalty. Also, some companies today have healthcare plans that do not meet the minimum standard set by Obamacare... that means employees will be put on part-time and lose their coverage.

So corporates are cunts. Big news!

 

[Black13]

*grabs popcorn*

 

[pornstarwannabe]

So corporates are cunts. Big news!

I like to look at it this way: Congress thinks of themselves as clever, and set out to craft a law to provide universal coverage.

Then the SC rules that Congress cannot coerce the states to accept the new Medicare rules. This results in millions not being covered by Obamacare.

Then companies find loopholes to avoid coverage and penalties. Workers will still get coverage, but they'll get gov't subsidized plans from the exchange (i.e. expensive and crappy).

And I get to laugh because, yet again, Congress cannot draft a law to save their lives.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Quote:
"Darden Restaurants Inc. declined to give details but said the test is only in four markets across the country. The move entails boosting the number of workers on part-time status, meaning they work less than 30 hours a week.

Under the new health care law, companies with 50 or more workers could be hit with fines if they do not provide basic coverage for full-time workers and their dependents. Starting Jan. 1, 2014, those penalties and requirements could significantly boost labor costs for some companies, particularly in low-wage industries such as retail and hospitality, where most jobs don't come with health benefits."

link


So, we knew this was going to happen.

You didn't know this was going to happen.

 

[Sean]

I like to look at it this way: Congress thinks of themselves as clever, and set out to craft a law to provide universal coverage.

Then the SC rules that Congress cannot coerce the states to accept the new Medicare rules. This results in millions not being covered by Obamacare.

Then companies find loopholes to avoid coverage and penalties. Workers will still get coverage, but they'll get gov't subsidized plans from the exchange (i.e. expensive and crappy).

And I get to laugh because, yet again, Congress cannot draft a law to save their lives.

Corporates were limiting hours to avoid paying benefits when I lived there, and that was ten years ago.

 

[unregistered]

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Uninsured part time workers age 26+ is just about to reach critical mass.

 

[phrodeau]

Congress will do a bit of tweaking legislation, to be followed by a deafening GOP trumpeting that Obamacare is a total, abject failure.

 

[mercury14]

Worse than that. Companies may make majority of their workforce part-time rather than pay the penalty. Also, some companies today have healthcare plans that do not meet the minimum standard set by Obamacare... that means employees will be put on part-time and lose their coverage.

Your link says that Red Lobster is already only 25% full-time employees. They also already provide health insurance to their FT workers. Apparently the company has been shifting workers to PT status and reducing wages for years so this isn't a new thing. Red Lobster is also saying that they plan on giving their employees a cash credit of the same value as their health plans for them to go use an exchange. Not sure what's wrong with that.

I'm not sure about you but I'm a little skeptical that a company with 180,000 workers can't afford to pay just a quarter of them even basic benefits. This is a profitable corporation with a $55 share price that pays it's shareholders a fat $2 per share dividend. If you want to know whether or not a company can afford to pay its workers I think you should look at the big picture.

 

[mercury14]

Now that full time that used to be 40 hours, is now reclassified by Obama care as 30 thirty hours, Americans can expect to see more and more part time work. After all the BLS classifies full time and part time the same, no?

No it makes a distinction and tracks people working part-time for economic reasons. It's right there every month in their report. You do read their reports that you complain about endlessly, right?

OF COURSE YOU DON'T!

 

[Busybody]

You didn't know this was going to happen.

we all predicted it

 

[Busybody]

and this as well

Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]

To All My Valued Employees,

As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.

I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.

Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.

Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore – to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel

 

[Busybody]

Darden CEO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Otis,_Jr.

Im surprised no one as YET has called that BLACK MAN A RACIST

 

[mercury14]

Then the SC rules that Congress cannot coerce the states to accept the new Medicare rules. This results in millions not being covered by Obamacare.

You mean Medicaid. States do not have to accept money that's free to them to provide their citizens with health coverage, you're right. A few Republican governors are saying that they will turn down free help for their people because they're assholes. Let's see if they actually do it and how many years they can stick it out. It's really hard to turn down federal freebies when trying to make the budget work each year. If you blame Obamacare for this though you're thinking about it wrong.

Workers will still get coverage, but they'll get gov't subsidized plans from the exchange (i.e. expensive and crappy).

Plans from the exchange are identical to any other plan and not crappy at all. They're given out in a marketplace of several private-sector insurers using free-market principles to keep costs low. This is an idea that Republicans should be for.

And I get to laugh because, yet again, Congress cannot draft a law to save their lives.

There are plenty of things you can criticize in Obamacare - really, there are some serious issues. But this isn't one of them.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Money invites abuse and theft. Lotsa money guarantees abuse and theft.

 

[Tryharder62]

I thought something smelt fishy but I was worried it was me.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Not the first, and certainly not the last...

Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]

To All My Valued Employees,

As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best. [...]

Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me. [...]

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...bama-reelected-and-raises-taxes#ixzz28tCtLcI9



What the beautiful people, the Libs, the Left, the Democrats and even the soft Republicans of Bastiat's "Broken Window" Economics always forget when they enact their beautiful plans for Utopia is Mises' "Human Action."

Life is not static and people react to change and modify their behavior. The Utopians always assume that everything is going to remain the same when they build their fanciful economic models. They think x tax will lead to y return but F(y) <> F(yi+xyi). Ironically, in general, reducing x increases y while increasing x reduces y.

Even if you can make them see this point, it will not deter them for the subjective, in their minds (desires) outweigh the objective (reality/economics) and they are more than happy to tell you if you will just listen and actually believe that they will fuck you in order to better the life of some nebulous, unnamed victim.

Case in point:


Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%.” It’s now 15%. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.
Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

 

[mercury14]

So some guy is telling his employees that they might be fired if they vote for Obama.

And he says that taxes aren't passed on to the consumer but taken as profit losses. I take it you don't support this article at all?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Some guy is telling his employees that they will be fired if Obama wins.

He is going John Galt.

He is in the service. If there are fewer customers due to the economy, partly due to taxes (you know, FAIRNESS DOCTRINE as outline above in Obama's own words), then he cannot pass on his costs.

You are so would up on your party and candidate that all economic sense goes out the window as soon as you begin posting and because you cannot make a positive case for your side, you lash out in anger at everyone else on the other side as being liars, hypocrites..., gypsies, tramps and thieves.

 

[mercury14]

Some guy is telling his employees that they will be fired if Obama wins.

He is going John Galt.

He is in the service. If there are fewer customers due to the economy, partly due to taxes (you know, FAIRNESS DOCTRINE as outline above in Obama's own words), then he cannot pass on his costs.

You are so would up on your party and candidate that all economic sense goes out the window as soon as you begin posting and because you cannot make a positive case for your side, you lash out in anger at everyone else on the other side as being liars, hypocrites..., gypsies, tramps and thieves.

Tell me what Siegel's personal income tax rate has to do with the company's ability to pay taxes. And what taxes do you think Obama is trying to raise on Westgate?

 

[mercury14]

I think if your guy here wanted to keep more of his money he should not have sexually harassed an employee by offering to pay her $1 million dollars for a fuck. Dude was found guilty and had to pay $5.4 million because of it.

He didn't settle. He was found guilty by trial.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

S'rious.


Read the letter, this time, strive for comprehension. Try, for the first time in your life, to put yourself into the shoes of those of us who have to produce instead of living off of the government teat from the largess of the public weal...


You think you are making the case FOR the Democrats and President Obama, but in reality, you are giving us more than a glimpse into his and your party's thought process and it is a dark, scary place and more and more people who voted for you in 2008 are beginning to see it. You think that the debate was won on Romney's bold, brazen lies, but the truth is, the Republican you were convinced you could beat with little or no effort has exposed that charade by merely pointing out the known alternative to "fairness...,"


Economic Reality.


If you ask your government to treat someone "fairly," the only way it can ever accomplish that task is to treat someone "unfairly."
A_J, the Stupid