Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Darden tests limiting worker hours as health-care changes loom

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
EDIT: I actually find it funny that Darden held out their hand for a waiver, GOT ONE, and are now turning their back on Obama for helping them out! All I can say is, "How does it feel?"! Sadly enough, it is the working stiffs who will get screwed! Not the Corporation and certainly NOT the corrupt politicians who create these ridiculous laws that the rest of us have to follow, while they live the high life!


I see this a bit differently. First of all, The Corporation will never be screwed by either party in DC. All the jargon tossed around by Obama and the Democrats suggesting that they are anti-corporate is smoke and mirrors with donations and elbow rubbing between the party and the corporate suits telling the true story. With that in mind, one also has to look at the combination of uncertainty around the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling (I *think* the Democrats and insurance companies were uncertain about whether Roberts would take the bribe in the end and rule the way he did, but I could be wrong... maybe there were no doubts and they fully believed he was in their pockets.) That uncertainty is what lead to these one year waivers. Every business out there which recieved one is conveniently a large donor to both parties. Furthermore, none of the businesses which received a waiver will have to worry about so much as one quarter cycle of lost profits because they are guaranteed to one year lead-in to adjust their prices, salaries, and work shifts to whatever degree is needed to ensure they don't lose profits.

Finally, Obamacare "revalations" are meaningless at this point in the election cycyle. Everyone who is on board with Obama has come to Jesus over their thoughts on Obamacare just as everyone who is on board with Romney has. Those on the Obama bandwagon either love it or can live with it, those with Romney either believe he will eliminate it or trim it somehow. That means that it actually benefits Obama to have more of his corporate financiers coming forward with tales against Obamacare and stories of how Obamacare will hurt them. The reason for this benefit lies in that OWS sector of angry little youths who are currently unlikely to drag their carcasses to the voting booth because they are disillusioned and disgruntled angst machines. If, by some manner of articles such as these, the emo crowd gets their groove back and decides "Ooh, Obama disappointed us, but he's still an enemy of big business!" they just may take the time to go vote like they did 4 years ago.




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


You sure these big corporations are hurting?

Darden Restaurants sued in overtime case
www.bizjournals.com...

Darden quadruples PAC donations to $684K
articles.orlandosentinel.com...

This is about pie sharing and I think they want it all for themselves.

Obamacare Yomamacare.Forget the label. What about the issue? Do you have insurance? I hope so. I also pray you never have to use it.
How would you plan healthcare for the largest employment sector in the country? Keep in mind their pay scales versus the cost of living these days. And Please do not play cold hearted with the ole " they should have got theirs " speech. Is it fair for someone in the same business to make 90 times more just because he/ she is skilled at working numbers and manipulating people. That is the art of management you know.
Look I have nothing but respect for folks who create an idea and build that into a successful business. Ironically these are some of the best people to work for in regards to loyalty,respect and compensation. As for someone who prefers to buy the third extra house knowing one of his employees can not afford to have their heart checked. They can go to China where they belong. Who needs them? Their only agenda is greed. Not the betterment of the company, employees or community.
People who contribute to society should not be denied basic needs of existence while others wallow in greed.
This is not capitalism it's darwinism. Last time I checked you can't be an evolutionist and religious or spiritual at the same time. We spend nine times more on defense than on our health and social system. From the look of things that money isn't spent on our veterans or foot soldiers so where are our priorities? Blame Clinton, Bush , Obama who ever you want. We have to decide what kind of country we want. We can't claim one way but act another. That's the same thing we accuse politicians of doing. Seems to me we have turned isolationists as a community and instigators as a nation. While it's cool to make headlines this topic actually effects living people and some of them could be your family or neighbors.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   


Sometimes for one to learn they must first clear their mind of what they thought they knew! I am not always right, but unlike those who get mad when they are proven wrong, I am happy that someone taught me what was right, versus going thru life spewing ignorance......
reply to post by seeker1963
 

You, my friend, are a wise man. My favorite quote is from Michelangelo "I am still learning". I learn every time I talk and listen to someone new. Thank you. Furthermore I have no problem apologizing when I am wrong. It is the human thing to do.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   


But hell, Obamacare has opened the door for the Feds to require Americans to purchase crap. In a few years who knows? Maybe we'll all be Federally mandated to eat no fewer than 1 meal per week at a restaurant, getting our little IRS:
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Welcome to the United Socialist States of America, where the individual has no rights, no say, no representation, and no JOBS, However, I'm sure that they will give us all free cheese, mammograms for women, and the finger,,,,uh, I mean finger exam for our prostates.
If they force us to eat at a restaurant once a week, I'm sure Michelle will tell us what we are allowed to order. No ketchup on our burgers though. Our local school has already banned ketchup, because Michelle said that it has too much sugar. The Nanny state just keeps on ticking.....



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   


You sure these big corporations are hurting?
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 

I'm sorry. Can you kindly show me where I said that Darden was hurting? I never said such a thing. I suggest you go back and actually read what I DID say. I thought that I was quite clear that the people that will be hurt by these actions are the employees, not the employers. Corporations spend every minute(with a few benevolent exceptions) figuring out how to squeeze the last dollar out of both the consumer and the employee.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   


Finally, Obamacare "revalations" are meaningless at this point in the election cycyle. Everyone who is on board with Obama has come to Jesus over their thoughts on Obamacare just as everyone who is on board with Romney has.
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 

You leave out an important demographic group, the truly undecided. However, the fact that Obama has about 47% SOLIDLY committed to him, while only 25-30% solidly support Obamacare means that even among Obama supporters, a significant portion do not favor the Affordable Health Care Act.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jplaysguitar
dont most places do this now?


They do in my area, want a job that gives you more than 10 hours a week even with a degree? forget about it. Even a large percentage of county employees are not employed full time. Worst part is, after they decide you have been there long enough and deserve a raise or an increase in hours, they will purposely schedule you when they know you have to be at your other job so that you can't show up to work at one of your jobs resulting in being let go.

This is not new and has nothing to do with Obama care, employers have been trying to avoid benefits for as long as I have been in the workforce, 12 years or so.

In fact, I have never had a job with benefits even with a college degree because no one highers full time, unless you have excellent connections.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   


This is not new and has nothing to do with Obama care, employers have been trying to avoid benefits for as long as I have been in the workforce, 12 years or so.
reply to post by calstorm
 


I am sorry to inform you that you are quite incorrect. Until the AHCA was passed there was NO Federal LAW REQUIRING employers provide health insurance for any employee. Some companies had their own policies that said they would provide health care for full time employees, but they were not required to do so. Now, most large employers are REQUIRED to provide health care. Those that fail to do so, will be fined for each employee that they fail to provide coverage for. Although there are no criminal penalties for failure to comply, the IRS can withhold taxes due to such companies. No company will allow that to happen. Prior to this law, companies that played the game Darden is playing were merely doing it to increase profits and decrease expenses. NOW, they will do it to avoid paying penalties.
That is a HUGE difference.Boards of Directors will not tolerate penalties, since tdoing so will severely hurt the bottom line. Believe me, I was on several boards, and I can tell you that for a fact.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
You leave out an important demographic group, the truly undecided. However, the fact that Obama has about 47% SOLIDLY committed to him, while only 25-30% solidly support Obamacare means that even among Obama supporters, a significant portion do not favor the Affordable Health Care Act.


It's very similar with abortion and gun control, though. I don't believe that everyone who votes D supports abortion or is in favor of stricter gun control, but they clearly feel that there are extenuating circumstances. In some regards, the GOP has been their own worst enemy in regards to abortion and, if Romney gets elected and leaves Obamacare in place, they stand the chance to hurt themselves further. The GOP held a majority for Bush's first 6 years and not one effort was made to do something productive in favor of the party line regarding abortion. I think, at least from my personal views, that entirely removed abortion from the table as a platform to get/reject voter support. There was once a time when I would have voted for a politician who didn't line up with my expectations solely because they stated an intent to protect the unborn. Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice? Not happening. The same is true in reverse about gun control. The GOP did not do enough to reinstate our Second Amendment Rights when they had those 6 years of control, nor did the Democrats exactly wage an assault against the remains of the Second Amendment during Obama's first 2 years. That tells me that the issue is a conceptual difference in parties rather than anything based on reality and the only reason for the issue's heated debate is to perpetuate the illusion that there are core differences between today's parties. (Notice I am not suggesting these differences are superficial between Conservatives and Liberals, as the ethoses most non-centric voters identify with are very much alive and very much in play... but they are used only as pawns by the actual politicians who would never really change the world because it would remove that artificial difference they depend on to ensure one of the chosen rises to power.)

In many ways I will be amazed if Romney actually casts Obamacare out. Thrilled, yes... heartened, you betcha... but still amazed. I anticipate some barricade, created behind closed doors by the leadership of both parties, will rear its head to provide a plausible excuse to leave that disgrace on the books to forever perform its desired task of eroding our right to self and decimate our prosperity further.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


My apology perhaps I misunderstood. It seemed the context of your OP was how this company was being forced to limit worker hours due to health care reform. I agree we should have the freedom to make our own choices but the reality is there is a limit and should be. Despite our best intentions some of us needs regulating and lots of it. So where do we draw the line. Is it based on your idea of government meddling or mine? The art is to get a dialogue going about how to preserve freedom while maintaining compassion and respect for our fellow citizens. Maybe if we as a country stop pointing the finger we could find a solution.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I have a suggestion for everyone posting in this thread no matter which side you are on. Instead of eating in a Darden restaurant or any corporate chain, why not eat at a local restaurant? Why not support people in your own community? Live local, eat local, think local... return to your roots. The food is better too.




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Another problem soon to be realized is the fact that part time workers will be forced to buy insurance for themselves and families.

Yes ObamaCare somehow gets "assistance" to pay the rates but those who must pay will not be getting any kind of automatic raises either.

Big problems soon to be seen..

Many full timers will see the same, and the chances of them seeing raises are slim at best.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


If they could dramatically bring down the cost of living, this would be a good thing. Sadly, they are doing the opposite, causing things to increase in price. I have a pet theory, that this is done intentionally so as to end "bigotry".

Historically, during economic down turns people become more intolerant(racism and hostility towards homosexuals was very, very low during the 1920's compared to the 1930's). A good portion of the "elite" are homosexuals and or/ of a certain ethnic heritage that faced discrimination.

By forcing an economic downturn, while at the same time forcing unprecedented change(let's face it, homosexuals where regarded as deviants even ten years ago), and attaching an economic gun to the back of everyone's head(it is possible to get fired for opposing things) they may hope to utterly destroy these things when things improve. And any social bigotry that does happen is directed at boy's, young men and men. A group always viewed as "expendable" by society.

Look at newspaper articles, bigotry still happens with full social blessing, it is just targeted at males. And in that respect, that seems to be mostly global. I suppose it could be a short term lightening rod as most men would merely wish to get on with their lives, but their is a saying that holds true " shared suffering can breed comradeship".

By causing men to suffer globally, it causes men who would normally be at each others throats to be able to identify and feel a sense of empathy towards each other. Granted being aware of this does not change my radical stances in terms of the Gender War, and in some cases tastes overwhelmingly bitter.

Also, it enables for women to be collectively shamed into silence a generation or less down the road. To what end I have no clue, but the first pebbles have already started rolling in that regard( what I perceive as the first pebbles that will cause an avalanche against women is the articles suggesting that maybe they got it wrong in regards to life, family and careers).

The only reason this seems to tie in together is, we are on the verge of a life changing economic revolution because of new technological advancements. Advancements that could very well end human civilization if the proper steps aren't taken(distributionist steps). 3D printers are going to radically change our society by drastically cutting the cost of living. In such a world if random chaos is left in the thrown, you could end up with a handful of people really well off, and everyone else, millions of people living in absolute destitution(or a communist dystopia).

The only capitalistic way to ensure both the survival of our economic system and the survival of humanity would be to drastically reduce the number of hours people work so there is more room for others to work. And if an economy is service based, then as populations expands and contracts, there will always be enough job's.

Any attempt at mass government welfare would end up creating a horrifically stagnate culture, an idiocracy doomed to decay and self destruction.

I know this seems a bit all over the place, but it all intertwines. That said, I mostly certainly disagree with the methods and hope it backfires wonderfully, and causes humanity another dark age. As the definition of evil is that the ends justify the means. If a better world is to be built, then the means of building it ought to be fit to exist in the type of world that is being dreamt of.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


I see more and more businesses, opting out, on growth. Workers will have to do even more, because of Obamacare. WHY would a small business WANT to hire more then 50 people?


If you employ 50 or more, you will face a major choice. Businesses with 50 or more employees will have a choice beginning in 2014: they can sponsor a health plan for 100% of their workers (even those signed up for government-subsidized health insurance) or pay $750 per worker in penalties to the federal government.




If you employ 25-49 people, you won’t face this choice. The government won’t require companies with fewer than 50 employees to offer health insurance starting in 2014, and therefore these companies won’t have to contend with possible fines like their big brothers. But while firms with 50 or fewer workers would be exempt from coverage provisions, they will still have to contend with rising premiums.


How Will Obamacare Affect Your Small Business?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   


Maybe if we as a country stop pointing the finger we could find a solution.
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 

My friend, I agree with you 100% on that. My close friends here at ATS know that before I entered my last career as a tenured Professor, I ran a small corporation of under 25 employees. I provided health care at my own cost, because I wanted my employees to concentrate on the job, not on worrying about whether their families would be able to afford health care. If one of my employees did something that caused a problem, instead of pointing a finger, I got my entire workforce together, and we discussed how we could ensure that we learned from the error, and how we could improve the process. I firmly believe that the standard philosophy of finding who is at fault, and firing them, only results in having that same thing happen again some time. Too bad our politicians and MSM do not understand that.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   


I have a suggestion for everyone posting in this thread no matter which side you are on. Instead of eating in a Darden restaurant or any corporate chain, why not eat at a local restaurant? Why not support people in your own community? Live local, eat local, think local... return to your roots. The food is better too.
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 

Good suggestion. I would follow it, but I already eat at a small local restaurant, called our dinner table. We grow all our own food organically, not because we cannot afford to go out, but because I want my wife and I, our married children who visit and our grandchildren to 1.) experience eating together as a family and 2.) know that the food they are eating is healthy and safe from pesticides and GMO grown food. We save all of our seed, and grow from start, so that we know that we are not eating any GMO. I have been saving seed for over 50 years now.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   


Another problem soon to be realized is the fact that part time workers will be forced to buy insurance for themselves and families.
reply to post by xuenchen
 

Excellent point. It seems that just about everyone on this thread fully understands the problems that exist in this present situation. The old Prof is proud of you all Peace.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   


That said, I mostly certainly disagree with the methods and hope it backfires wonderfully, and causes humanity another dark age.
reply to post by korathin
[more
Actually, in some ways , I believe we may already be in a sort of "Dark Age". Those that think they are enlightened with the current "politically correct speak", are actually fumbling around in the dark along with their comrades, who are convincing them that they are in daylight.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
sorry, double post.

edit on 10-10-2012 by ProfEmeritus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Of course Obama care forces employers to minimize their exposure to full-time employee costs mandated by it. This is a deliberate aim of Obama care, to force more citizens to be dependent on the Government to provide for them. The medicare roles expand, and (beholding) life-long Democrat voters along with it.






top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join