Obamacare cost...

[Uncle Ted]

That's just an unintended consequence of the legistlation. Companies aren't going to shell out 10k for a health plan when they can pay a 2500 dollar fine. The fact that companies are going to have more employees working less hours is another unintended consequence.

Those that have never tried to run their own business can't understand such simple concepts. It requires too much thinking.

[il Padrino Ute]

I can imagine swift legislation following to prevent companies with certain thresholds of employee numbers from having no full-time employees in order to avoid giving them healthcare.

This is a stupid move, inviting the government to increase regulation.

Also, Papa John's pizza tastes like glorified school lunch pizza, so avoiding buying them due to unfair labor practices (this is why unions can still be relevant) will be an easy task.

Should the government involve itself in the private sector to force any business to comply with an overly burdensome law like Obamacare?

The steps taken by businesses to do this are the consequence of a shitty law that was forced on the citizens. Rather than increase regulation, perhaps the idiots who foisted this upon everyone ought to reconsider what they've done and repeal the shitty law.

[The_Douger]

Those that have never tried to run their own business can't understand such simple concepts. It requires too much thinking.

Well, the policies enacted are so unfavorable to small business. I don't know how we'll have any economic recovery over the next several years while this is being implemented.

A small business owner has to pay for the health plan on both sides, and the employee doesn't see what it costs. All they see is what they pay, which goes up all the time as well.

I think we're in a lot of trouble.

[Lost Student]

This is a stupid move, inviting the government to increase regulation.

Are you saying that Papa John's decision is stupid? All they are doing is reacting to the current situation to try to maintain profitability. What else would you have them do?

[old_gregg]

Should the government involve itself in the private sector to force any business to comply with an overly burdensome law like Obamacare?

many consider osha overly burdensome

[old_gregg]

what is the cost of under/uninsurance? what about the cost of bankruptcy that results in significant part from medical costs? the incremental cost is not in the trillions.

[il Padrino Ute]

many consider osha overly burdensome

I agree that many consider OSHA as such. But OSHA is about workplace safety, not forcing a business to provide health insurance for the employees. That's an apples to oranges comparison.

[The_Douger]

what is the cost of under/uninsurance? what about the cost of bankruptcy that results in significant part from medical costs? the incremental cost is not in the trillions.

OSHA is in place to protect people against negligent employers with regards to safety, ie, protect rights.

Employers have never been required to provide a health plan. Until now.

[old_gregg]

I agree that many consider OSHA as such. But OSHA is about workplace safety, not forcing a business to provide health insurance for the employees. That's an apples to oranges comparison.

both are concerned with a business's obligations to an employee.

Employers have never been required to provide a health plan. Until now.

that is not a good argument. employers were not required to comply with osha until it was passed. that does not speak to its pragmatic worth as a law.

[il Padrino Ute]

both are concerned with a business's obligations to an employee.

Why is health coverage for a business an obligation?

[old_gregg]

Why is health coverage for a business an obligation?

it's not, but that's a mischaracterization of obamacare anyway. employers pay a tax for employees receiving federally subsidized insurance from an exchange who otherwise do not have an employer sponsored plan. it's only an obligation in the same sense that employers offering suta, futa, ss, etc., are also obligations.

[The_Douger]

both are concerned with a business's obligations to an employee.



that is not a good argument. employers were not required to comply with osha until it was passed. that does not speak to its pragmatic worth as a law.

Sure it is. Again, OSHA is about safety in the workplace. Laws are enacted to guard people's rights. Healthcare provided by your place of employment is not a right. Being safe in your place of employement is.

It is not, and has never been a business's obligation to provide a health plan. If they want to do so, that's their choice. This backbreaking legistlation is going to result in more unemployment and more people seeking reprieve through government entitlement programs.

[old_gregg]

Sure it is. Again, OSHA is about safety in the workplace. Laws are enacted to guard people's rights. Healthcare provided by your place of employment is not a right. Being safe in your place of employement is.

pretty authoritatively stated, that.

It is not, and has never been a business's obligation to provide a health plan.

see above

This backbreaking legistlation is going to result in more unemployment and more people seeking reprieve through government entitlement programs.

see above

[The_Douger]

Mkay. Good talk.

[wuapinmon]

Are you saying that Papa John's decision is stupid? All they are doing is reacting to the current situation to try to maintain profitability. What else would you have them do?

This is political brinkmanship and grandstanding. Negatives I see from this "decision" are.

1. It makes me disinclined to ever eat there again (honestly, not that I'm missing much, the pizza is middling at best), and I can't be the only person to react this way to his statements.

2. This kind of attitude shows how very little he thinks of his employees. Papa John's is not a family company.

3. This is the kind of action that makes me believe that the rights of workers to bargain collectively should be honored.

4. This is precisely the kind of thing that could cause politicians to enact legislation to prevent owners meeting certain thresholds of employees from doing this kind of nefarious scheduling.

5. Is the reduction in hours really worth the increased HR costs of managing and scheduling and covering missed shifts of an extra 20-25% employees; losing business due to slow delivery times from higher employee turnover; and the crushing training costs of bringing that many more employees up to speed on the proper execution of their jobs with the concomitant high turnover that not offering full-time brings?