Restaurants to mitigate health care costs by cutting hours

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


What percentage of call ins really relate to an ill employee or one of their children?

I have no numbers to give you, but can say that my belief is that it is well below 50%. When you talk service level employees, you are talking about employees who typically have less motivation to show up for work in a timely manner.

From someone who manages restaurants.




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
My GM of Waffle House told us that when obama care goes into effect that businesses that employ workers 30+ hours that company will have to provide healthcare, or reduce the hours to under thirty, then you are responsible , o provide your own healthcare, if not you'll get fined, don't pay the fine go to jail or taxes are taken or both. I won't buy it cause it goes against everything that my Constitution stands for, to live my life and do with my body AS I SEE FIT.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytheroy
My GM of Waffle House told us that when obama care goes into effect that businesses that employ workers 30+ hours that company will have to provide healthcare, or reduce the hours to under thirty, then you are responsible , o provide your own healthcare, if not you'll get fined, don't pay the fine go to jail or taxes are taken or both. I won't buy it cause it goes against everything that my Constitution stands for, to live my life and do with my body AS I SEE FIT.


Unfortunately, that is basically the plan.

ETA: for what its worth, we offer insurance to our hotel and restaurant employees. We are a higher end place, though. Places with lower revenues may not be able to afford it.

Our insurance plan, as it is for 2013, fully complies with Obamacare as it requires for 2015. It sucks. I am opting out and we are getting insurance through my wifes place

Regardless, the business models will have to be adjusted. In my mind, it is standard that you spend half of your revenues on wages and benefits. If that isn't the standard in other companies, then perhaps they should rethink the way they treat their employees.
edit on 18-10-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dishonored
I liked the part where the article said "puts unique challenges on chain restaurants". Yes, those same chain restaurants that sell a pizza for $10-15 that only cost $2-4. The greed within this country is like a cancer that infects and destroys everything it comes into contact with. As if chain restaurants weren't already cutting hours and treating their employees like cattle before this.


Wow... just wow. Clueless 101. If the company doesn't make a profit on the product they close down. In order to make a profit you charge MORE than it costs to make the product. They have to pay salaries/wages, building rent, state and federal taxes, utilities, and of course they have to buy the raw product itself.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
They can try this, but most places are already running on skeleton crews these days anyways. There's only so much that one human being can feasibly do.

On the other hand, it sounds as though we're about to have a glut of new part time jobs coming available.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I have never worked for a restaurant that provides healthcare.
Never heard of it, so this is just some lame A@%$## excuse to dump hours and further mess with the unemployment issue,



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Our company sent out a memo starting 1 1 2013 that if your mate can get insurance but uses ours it will cost $2000 a year more than it would this year. So my insurance will go from $240 a month to over $400 but the wife is retiring so were both going on hers that will only be $200 a month and my company will give me $2500 for getting off of theirs. Crazy times trying to figure this all out



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
the more that shut down the more mom and pop shops can come back.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by thefurryone
 


Darden is only doing it for profit; they already have a waiver exempting them from the health insurance. I knew McDonalds had the waiver from an article I saw earlier this year; so I kept searching until I found out if Darden did. Darden is following the example that Wal-Mart has had in place for years.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jibajaba
 


Thats what I was thinking; also that unions will form and chain companies that won't hire full time workers will eventually go under. Once I see how this shakes out I'm only shopping at chains that offer employees full time employment (that is if the employees want it). The other upside is that until this stabilizes, retirees and medically discharged vets will be able to get jobs easily. We already have health care.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefurryone
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I don't like chain restaurants but, food costs a lot more than most people think and I'm gonna sound like a chain apologist here. Chains do get some volume discounts, but they usually have to buy from select distributors. They don't get to shop around for prices. Then they have to pay franchise fees(a lot of chains are actually franchises).
You would be surprised how many loss leaders than chains run. Even if they don't actually lose money on a sale, it's hard to make money a nickel at a time. You have to do an incredible volume. The $5 pizzas at Littles Ceasars comes to mind. I don't know that the food cost would be $2, but I'll bet it's not a lot more. Even so, they only sell them for $5 and the difference isn't all profit. Most of that goes to other costs. Even if they net $1 on each one, how many can each store sell everyday? McDonald's is likely netting pennies on the dollar menu items that make up a huge percentage of their sales. Changes in costs that are pennies here and there turn into millions of dollars when you take volume into account. It's not hard to understand why these companies work they way they do, but it's the employees that are already struggling to survive that get screwed again.


Ingredients for the pizza costing $2 does not mean the pizza cost $2. They have to pay rent, wages, electricity etc... It's like me saying my cost of living is only $600 a month because that is my mortgage. In reality, it's quite a bit higher. It seems we are in agreement, that the cost is more than people imagine.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Daedal
 



"In light of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, restaurant companies and franchisees are looking into ways to lower costs to save money, including cutting employee hours. "


AND

There my friends goes the last bit of customer service. This will make an already painfully slow business even worse.

But hey that doesn't matter...





No it won't. Restaurants have to staff for the amount of business they have and if they can cut hours they were not working hours where those employees made tips. In the chain restaurants people are paid by the hour and if they can cut then they were over staffed. In this business it is already cut to the skin. Only difference is the guests - you and I - are less likely to be served by a contagious and diseased individual because their heath care needs will be tended to. Healthy employees are more economical to run a business with. Sick days cost American business's an estimated ___I don't know but it's a lot. They will save that money as well as lawsuits brought on by customers who got served by that 'sick" person and were injured because he forgot to present their nut allergy card to the chef. Things like that add up.


Man you are really rolling in the BS now friend.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefurryone
reply to post by newcovenant
 


They will now screw virtually all of their employees by employing part time workers almost exclusively. The article says that only full time employees working 30 hours or more have to be offered benefits, so Darden is testing 29.5 hour work weeks to make sure they don't have to offer benefits. What it doesn't say is that this will likely make the corporation a lot more money because instead of providing more workers with health benefits, many employees who currently have health benefits will lose them due to no longer being full time.



Bingo and there it is! Thats why we dont hear an angry outcry. You see socialisim is really the friend of capital. Force hours down and folks to pay for their own or take a fine.....gets the monkey off the back of capital. Its people helping people.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Restaurants? Everyone!

Whole larger companies will divide into multiple "less-than-50-employee" companies, then they will "contract out" with each other as sub-contractors so the end result will be the same work accomplished. Obama-care will not apply to any of them. One person can own more than one company at the same time.

While they wait for the permits and licenses to go through to do this, everyone goes on 39 hour weeks with no hope of 40 or more hours. Obama-care will not apply to any of them.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Regardless...you are finally talking about a topic I know about. If hours are cut they are going to be managerial hours. Please do continue what ever argument you are trying to make. Your fan club awaits.....



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Regardless...you are finally talking about a topic I know about. If hours are cut they are going to be managerial hours. Please do continue what ever argument you are trying to make. Your fan club awaits.....


I realize that things vary from state to state in this regard, so forgive me if I am ignorant of your states guidelines.

But in the state of Texas a "manager" is someone who is charged with supervising employees, guiding business decisions, and is salaried. A "supervisor" can be all of the above and hourly.

You can "cut" managerial hours all you want....but they are paid a salary. To have any impact you would have to determine a "new" payrate for the job, then get the manager to agree to work it (or pay them unemployment when they decline and file a claim).

A salaried person works to complete a job. If your managers aren't working at least 50 hours a week, then they aren't earning their money. To do the job in a restaurant properly, you might need more like 60, with some additional desk time at home for scheduling, etc.

ETA: the proper strategy is to cut hourly employees, preferrably the ones that make true minimum (untipped positions), and have salaried people work to fill those hours in This get more hourly employees below 30 hours while not increasing your payroll costs.
edit on 19-10-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   


Regardless...you are finally talking about a topic I know about. If hours are cut they are going to be managerial hours. Please do continue what ever argument you are trying to make. Your fan club awaits.....
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Sorry they don't cut manager's hours. We make up for the labor shortage when business volumes are low. Besides that we are paid salary so no overtime. It's actually cheaper to have less employees and a "hands on manager". The manager still has to account for budgets,staffing ect... Plus now he/she can be the fry cook or dishwasher for a couple of hours. This is the new way and oh so good for the bottom line.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by newcovenant
 


What percentage of call ins really relate to an ill employee or one of their children?

I have no numbers to give you, but can say that my belief is that it is well below 50%. When you talk service level employees, you are talking about employees who typically have less motivation to show up for work in a timely manner.

From someone who manages restaurants.


Figures. You are a bad manager.

I would say 70%.

70% is legit and the rest ...they don't even want to work for you.

Many workers call (most, no offense) in because their manager has overstaffed.

At least with regard to server staff. I don't know any kitchen people that call in sick without knowing their job won't be there when they decide they want it, so they are out of the discussion. Nature of the kitchen.

He or she (that bad manager) knows they can get the hourly people at 2 bucks an hour and so call in everyone they have, just in case they need them as they do not know how to look at last years ledger and figure this year MIGHT BE A LOT LIKE THAT!!! and gauge server staff accordingly. And they sure as heck can't pick up the slack if they had to even though technically that's what they have to do. A good manager makes their people money. They make the owner money and the staff money.

This isn't rocket science folks.

Managers job is getting the people fed WITHOUT COMPLAINT.

Managers complain that their workers, their people call in for random reasons. That's BS. Straight up. It's the same people that call in. Some people NEVER call in.

MANAGERS bring in everybody and their mother (just in case) and pay them nothing. Then they blame random people for not showing up to make their hourly, when it is a job that depends on tips and gratuities, and they have MANY MORE people than they need for business.

Let me tell you this...if that employee knows they are going to make enough money to put food on the table and gas in the car by showing up they will be there, and if they don't, they won't. Many times you as a manager have to ask yourself...will this person at least break EVEN TODAY???? Will they pay the gas I am asking them to spare to keep their job? Typical upper end response. Not even connected.

edit on 19-10-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


I answer so many questions in a day you probably can't imagine a statement like "you are rolling in the bull#" doesn't tell me anything.
edit on 19-10-2012 by newcovenant because: now i know the hors are up



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Regardless...you are finally talking about a topic I know about. If hours are cut they are going to be managerial hours. Please do continue what ever argument you are trying to make. Your fan club awaits.....


I realize that things vary from state to state in this regard, so forgive me if I am ignorant of your states guidelines.

But in the state of Texas a "manager" is someone who is charged with supervising employees, guiding business decisions, and is salaried. A "supervisor" can be all of the above and hourly.

You can "cut" managerial hours all you want....but they are paid a salary. To have any impact you would have to determine a "new" payrate for the job, then get the manager to agree to work it (or pay them unemployment when they decline and file a claim).

A salaried person works to complete a job. If your managers aren't working at least 50 hours a week, then they aren't earning their money. To do the job in a restaurant properly, you might need more like 60, with some additional desk time at home for scheduling, etc.

ETA: the proper strategy is to cut hourly employees, preferrably the ones that make true minimum (untipped positions), and have salaried people work to fill those hours in This get more hourly employees below 30 hours while not increasing your payroll costs.
edit on 19-10-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


With all due respect...
Give me some time to regroup...and I will hit them item by item.



edit on 19-10-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join