Papa Johns reduces worker hours in response to Obamacare.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by leenak

the problem is that Papa Johns and many other places have been doing this for years. Ensuring that their employees work as much as they can without them legally having to provide benefits. Since the healthcare limits are lower than the current part time limits, workers hours will be reduced so companies can continue to avoid providing them health benefits while getting the maximum hours out of them that they can. Walmart, Papa Johns, Pizza Hut, McDonalds, Burger King, Applebee's, Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Longhorn, Domino's pizza, etc, etc.

This has been going on for a while, if people care now, that is good, but its interesting that people didn't seem to care before now.

I must confess I didn't care before mainly because I don't eat at any of those places.

I'd suggest people that care about this boycott them and let them know why.

It worked in the 60's with grapes so I don't see why it wouldn't work now if people truly cared about the places they eat at.

[leenak]

Originally Posted by Peace

I must confess I didn't care before mainly because I don't eat at any of those places.

I'd suggest people that care about this boycott them and let them know why.

It worked in the 60's with grapes so I don't see why it wouldn't work now if people truly cared about the places they eat at.

I don't eat at those places either but I think we are in an age where multiple part time jobs is the norm and growing. Because businesses find it cheaper to not care about you as an employee and not provide benefits.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Anuba

Seeing such biased "reporting" is shocking to a foreign observer, honestly... it's halfway between news and North Korean propaganda.

To be fair, that's a segment from Fox and Fiends.

There should be no expectation of un-biased reporting on that show.

But your assessment is correct.

It is halfway between news and North Korean propaganda.

Maybe even a little more than halfway.

[Ugg]

Alaska Moose posted this from a NFIB pdf back on page two.

I think everyone is arguing about this issue without taking this into consideration.


[1] A business owes a free-rider penalty ONLY if it meets two conditions.

 If it has more than 50 full-time employees or full-time equivalents. Each 120 hours per month of part-time labor counts as a full-time equivalent.
 If one or more of its employees receive premium credits (government subsidies) to help purchase health insurance in the exchange.

[2] An employee ONLY receives a premium subsidy if he meets two conditions.

 The employee’s household income must be less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), which varies with family size. For a family of four, 400% FPL = $88,200. Household income includes the income of the employee’s spouse and of other dependent
members of the household.
 The employee’s portion of the insurance premium on the employer’s plan must exceed 9.5% of the employee’s household income.

So, to me it looks as though Papa Johns or Walmart or any of the other slime ball companies that don't provide health care for their employees will not get a free ride. They'll either have to provide coverage or get a bill from the feds.

[leenak]

Originally Posted by Ugg

Alaska Moose posted this from a NFIB pdf back on page two.

I think everyone is arguing about this issue without taking this into consideration.


[1] A business owes a free-rider penalty ONLY if it meets two conditions.

 If it has more than 50 full-time employees or full-time equivalents. Each 120 hours per month of part-time labor counts as a full-time equivalent.
 If one or more of its employees receive premium credits (government subsidies) to help purchase health insurance in the exchange.

[2] An employee ONLY receives a premium subsidy if he meets two conditions.

 The employee’s household income must be less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), which varies with family size. For a family of four, 400% FPL = $88,200. Household income includes the income of the employee’s spouse and of other dependent
members of the household.
 The employee’s portion of the insurance premium on the employer’s plan must exceed 9.5% of the employee’s household income.

So, to me it looks as though Papa Johns or Walmart or any of the other slime ball companies that don't provide health care for their employees will not get a free ride. They'll either have to provide coverage or get a bill from the feds.

If I'm understanding correctly, it would seem to close the part time loop hole that many companies use today. It'd seem that it would benefit companies to increase the amount of full time employees rather than reduce them then.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by leenak

This has been going on for a while, if people care now, that is good, but its interesting that people didn't seem to care before now.

Like anything else people care when they hear about it but after a few days or weeks it's been replaced by something else.

Originally Posted by Peace

I must confess I didn't care before mainly because I don't eat at any of those places.

If you watch any commercials, movies, TV shows or play any video games odds are you enjoying the benefits of less than stellar employer/employee relations. Violations (not paying OT, misclassifying freelancer employees as independent contractors, etc.,) and just shady practices (hiring for a full time, staff position but classifying it as freelance so the employer doesn't have to offer benefits) are common in workplaces out here big and small. CA is trying to crack down but it's rampant and many people don't want to risk getting found out and losing their job.


Lethal

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

To be fair, that's a segment from Fox and Fiends.

There should be no expectation of un-biased reporting on that show.

Oh, I know the deal with FOX News... what I meant was that as a foreigner it remains hard to take in that such a thing can exist, let alone thrive.

Political journalism in Sweden is about as neutral as it gets. The papers have columnists who express openly leftist or rightist views of course, but the big TV channels have a policy of unbiased reporting. Of course, personal bias can sometimes be read between the lines in subtle details or the occasional involuntary spasm when they're saying something they don't agree with, but 99% of the time it's just matter-of-factly, stone faced reporting without colorful adjectives. We have no O'Reillys, Hannitys or Becks (no Maddows, Olbermanns or Matthews either for that matter), that type of role simply doesn't exist.

And then, to see FOX News, just reeking of fabrication, with bias and disdain injected into every syllable, interviews that seem scripted, guests and hosts who nod fervently in agreement with eachother (nobody with opposing views is allowed within a 10 mile radius anyway)... it just sends chills down my spine and makes me think... about freedom of speech vs freedom of thought, about journalism that lets the viewer make up his/her own mind vs journalism that crams bias down your throat. FOX News isn't something I'd show to the outside world and go "Look! Freedom of speech FTW!". It has nothing to do with freedom, FOX is a tool for enslavement.

[bruinsrme]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

I'm not quite following you, but, I can tell you that somebody is already paying for medical care for Darden and Papa John's employees. If it isn't being paid for by the company, then, a lot of it is being paid for by you and me, through taxes and through higher rates at the doctor/hospital, and, for insurance.

So the question for you, and, Papa John's, is how best to provide healthcare for the general public. Because we decided already as a society that we are not going to let people die in the streets. But we never quite decided (until now) how to provision and pay for it, and, a lot of people don't like Obamacare. So, what do they want? What do you want?

So if we are already paying then we should have the need to raise taxes, fine people or businesses for following obamacare laws,
(I clearly mean tax). After all we are already paying.

[Sydde]

May be just this thread, but it seems kind of curious that the businesses being discussed have something to do with food. I wonder what kind of relationship food might have with health care.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by bruinsrme

So if we are already paying then we should have the need to raise taxes, fine people or businesses for following obamacare laws,
(I clearly mean tax). After all we are already paying.

under obamacare, these people who aren't currently paying anything for getting medical services, they'll have to buy insurance to help pay for their bill instead of just getting a free ride

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

which again I point back to my comment about why the 99% has a problem with the top 1% greed. The 99% have been for a long getting screw over by the people at the top. This is why. There greed is to the point that they can not afford to go from 40% profit margins to 38.5%.

You should take a look at the tax tables to see who pays taxes. The more you earn, the largest amount of money you put in the tax coffers. You will also notice that approximately 47% of Americans don't pay taxes.

----------

Originally Posted by P-Worm

Apple pays a dividend. A dividend is when they take excess profits and return it back to shareholders. The stock was also doing fine before they payed a dividend (the dividend is a new addition). That kind of flies in the face of decreased profits means leading Apple out of business doesn't it?

P-Worm

So, the shareholder receives a dividend. Right? Then the shareholder pays all his bills, and the remainder is his or hers profit.

----------

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

actually it's kind of surprising that a pizza chain like papa john's even has workers doing more than 30 hours in the first place. Having lots of "part-time" workers instead of full time workers has been a long standing way to dodge providing benefits to workers

Most companies get away with not having benefits of any kind for their workers by hiring part-time, or just a few hours per week.

----------

Originally Posted by samiwas

Oh, I get it now. If Apple makes $38 billion in profit instead of $41 billion in profit this year, they will end up going broke. I'm glad you cleared that up.

Just say it: they can more than likely easily afford healthcare without killing their business, they just don't want to. It's not hard.

No. That's not what I said. This is what I said: the market value of any company's stock (not only Apple's) drops when its profits drops. I din't say that Apple will go broke.

However, when a company's market value drops, so does the shareholders' profits (the stock loses value).

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

You should take a look at the tax tables to see who pays taxes. The more you earn, the largest amount of money you put in the tax coffers. You will also notice that approximately 47% of Americans don't pay taxes.

Really? They don't have taxes taken out of their pay checks? They don't pay tax when they fill up their car with gas or buy merchandise from a store? They don't pay property tax?

America’s 47 percent: An enduring myth

According to the Tax Policy Center, more than 53 percent of American households paid federal income taxes in 2011. The next largest percentage of households, 28.3 percent, paid no federal income tax but did pay the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That’s more than half of the 47 percent Romney cites.

The reason those Americans are paying payroll taxes? They have jobs. They’re working to pay bills and feed families and move up to a better job. They do not have their palms facing up, ready for the next government handout.

The reason this 28 percent pays no income taxes? They qualify for tax deductions and exemptions because they make little money and have children. Many of those deductions and exemptions come thanks to the tax cuts championed by President George W. Bush last decade. Romney, by the way, wants to extend those tax benefits.

An additional 10.3 percent of U.S. households pay no federal income taxes because they’re elderly and retired. Many in this group aren’t taxed on their Social Security benefits, which they paid for from wages they earned by years of working. What’s left is 6.9 percent of households, non-elderly and not working, that don’t pay income or payroll taxes. While some in that group may be perfectly happy with joblessness, even the least charitable among us can acknowledge that some of the 6.9 percent includes people trying to find work, people wanting a better life.

Emphasis mine.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

You should take a look at the tax tables to see who pays taxes. The more you earn, the largest amount of money you put in the tax coffers. You will also notice that approximately 47% of Americans don't pay taxes.).

They can't afford to because they don't earn enough thanks to the likes of Romney and Walmart who have shipped so many jobs overseas. Also, we have to thank the anti-worker Republican Party who think that underpaid peons is the way forward for this country.

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

Really? They don't have taxes taken out of their pay checks? They don't pay tax when they fill up their car with gas or buy merchandise from a store? They don't pay property tax?

America’s 47 percent: An enduring myth


Emphasis mine.

People in the workforce pay federal work taxes. And of course there are all kinds of taxes all Americans pay. For example, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, gift tax, inheritance tax, telephone tax, utilities taxes, and on and on...

----------

Originally Posted by Ugg

They can't afford to because they don't earn enough thanks to the likes of Romney and Walmart who have shipped so many jobs overseas. Also, we have to thank the anti-worker Republican Party who think that underpaid peons is the way forward for this country.

Are you aware of what branch of government creates the tax laws and tables?

And Apple plus most US companies ship jobs overseas, and so our government. We even bail-out companies in Europe. We even bailed out GE to work overseas, and so several "green" technology companies, including some that went belly up right after

Anti-worker? Then we must blame both the Republicans and Democrats, not just one side. Do you really believe that all corporations are owned by Republicans, and that only Papa John's hires part-time or pays minimum wages? Do you really believe that the labor laws are created by Republicans alone?

I got news for you: most US companies make their products overseas, simply because there isn't such a thing as minimum wage over there. There is a good chance that the computer you are using to post in this forum was put together by a child, or a person earning $3.00 per day. If you want to blame anybody, then blame the people who create that laws that allow shipping jobs overseas.

[leenak]

Funny how someone still wants to throw around the 47%, you know we should really make sure those elderly and people that don't make enough money (oh and many are still paying payroll tax) aren't mooching...

The more you earn, the more taxes you pay but due to various loopholes, those on the bottom tier can pay a higher percentage of taxes.

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

You should take a look at the tax tables to see who pays taxes. The more you earn, the largest amount of money you put in the tax coffers. You will also notice that approximately 47% of Americans don't pay taxes.[COLOR="#808080"]

Debunk so many times any one using is clearly someone who can not think for themselves. They just spit out the stuff idiots from the GOP say. It more speaks the lack of understanding of the issues than anything else.

Also I have looked at it. Again the top 1% pay less in percentage of there income than I do.

They cheat the system. The middle classes is the one that gets screwed. Also cost of living is not linear with income. It is a logarithmic growth. Really what you want is a more even taxing of people disposable income. Only way to do that is to have a progressive tax system.

Also you need to counter the highly regressive taxes like SS, medicare, government fees and sales tax.

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by leenak

Funny how someone still wants to throw around the 47%, you know we should really make sure those elderly and people that don't make enough money (oh and many are still paying payroll tax) aren't mooching...

The more you earn, the more taxes you pay but due to various loopholes, those on the bottom tier can pay a higher percentage of taxes.

The number comes from the IRS website. Hey, wait a minute! I am old and pay a lot of taxes

[Peace]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

The number comes from the IRS website. Hey, wait a minute! I am old and pay a lot of taxes

How much does the State of Alaska give you for that pipeline ?

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

Debunk so many times any one using is clearly someone who can not think for themselves. They just spit out the stuff idiots from the GOP say. It more speaks the lack of understanding of the issues than anything else.

Also I have looked at it. Again the top 1% pay less in percentage of there income than I do.

They cheat the system. The middle classes is the one that gets screwed. Also cost of living is not linear with income. It is a logarithmic growth. Really what you want is a more even taxing of people disposable income. Only way to do that is to have a progressive tax system.

Also you need to counter the highly regressive taxes like SS, medicare, government fees and sales tax.

No. I am not a Republican, and you are being silly. When you take care of your taxes next time, look at the tax tables in the IRS booklet for filing taxes. You will notice the different tax brackets versus income. The IRS provides those booklets for you, not the GOP.

I don't disagree with you in that some tax reform should take place.

----------

Originally Posted by Peace

How much does the State of Alaska give you for that pipeline ?

For the pipeline? I don't own the thing

Ah...you must be talking about the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

What I don't understand is why other States with natural resources such as oil, or gold and other minerals don't create a State permanent fund dividend like ours. While most of Alaska (over 60%) is owned by the Federal government, the State leaders still managed to create the PFD for the people long ago.

By the way, I pay Federal taxes on that too. But most of my taxes are because of the following:

a. I retired one time at the age of 46 after 20 years in the military
b. I work full time during the week, and part time during the weekend. Will retire once more in six years.
c. Own property, so I pay lots of property tax locally.

I am not rich by any means, barely middle class (with my wife's help, of course).

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

N....
For the pipeline? I don't own the thing

Ah...you must be talking about the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

What I don't understand is why other States with natural resources such as oil, or gold and other minerals don't create a State permanent fund dividend like ours. While most of Alaska (over 60%) is owned by the Federal government, the State leaders still managed to create the PFD for the people long ago.....

alaskans......socialists every one of them !

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

alaskans......socialists every one of them !

Somewhat true.
-------------------------

Off subject: Which Americans don't pay work taxes:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...Income-Tax.pdf

This one clearly explains who pays most of the total Federal (Income) taxes, and is very informative as it keeps politics aside:
http://www.businessinsider.com/who-p...es-2012-8?op=1

[scottness]

It might be good to consider the Papa Johns employees a little further.

People want to boycott Papa John's because Papa John's doesn't want to cover healthcare for their employees.

Result: Papa John's ends up laying off employees because their business suffers from the boycott.

Which is worse? Less hours for employees, or employees get laid off? Assuming we're talking about the boycott for the employee's benefit, the boycott doesn't make a lot of sense.

I get wanting to send a message to the guy in charge, but the boycott actually hurts the people you're wanting to protect more.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by scottness

It might be good to consider the Papa Johns employees a little further.

People want to boycott Papa John's because Papa John's doesn't want to cover healthcare for their employees.

Result: Papa John's ends up laying off employees because their business suffers from the boycott.

Which is worse? Less hours for employees, or employees get laid off? Assuming we're talking about the boycott for the employee's benefit, the boycott doesn't make a lot of sense.

I get wanting to send a message to the guy in charge, but the boycott actually hurts the people you're wanting to protect more.

If you stopped buying pizza, but assume you merely shift your buying power to a company that does pay healthcare for its workers, you increase the profits of a good business while deflating Papa Johns.

[Peace]

The food industry has one of the highest turnover rates in the country and the skill level in the pizza market is pretty low.

It wouldn't be very hard to find a job.

As a retired chef we used to have a saying.

The good thing about being a cook is you can get a job just about anywhere.

[scottness]

Originally Posted by hulugu

If you stopped buying pizza, but assume you merely shift your buying power to a company that does pay healthcare for its workers, you increase the profits of a good business while deflating Papa Johns.

You're right, BUT, Papa John's employees still lose their jobs because of lost income. The guys at the top will not lay themselves off or punish themselves. The guys at the bottom will take the hit.

This is assuming the whole point of the boycott is to protect Papa John's employees from fewer work hours/lost wages... I think it's making an unfair situation for the employees worse.