Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurants to shift more workers to part time to avoid ObamaCare

[Anonymous]

How are part time workers cheaper than full time?
You will have to employ more people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was completely foreseeable. Health insurance is a huge cost for employers. I would blame Obama for this, not the employers.

We need a system that doesn't base health insurance on employment.

Look you poor toothless people don't want the insurance? Don't get it.
I'm going to keep it and forbid you from using any of my tax money when your cancer or whatever is advanced.
Dummies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are part time workers cheaper than full time?
You will have to employ more people

If businesses employ workers part-time rather than full-time, the businesses can avoid lots of required employee benefits that are required for full-time employees. Those employee benefits are very big -- about 40% of the money businesses pay for employees goes to these benefits.

Unscrupulous businesses commonly try to re-classify full-time employees as independent contractors and/or part-time employees specifically to avoid these costs, and face investigations and fines from the Department of Labor as a result.

[Anonymous]

Another failed policy by a community organizing rookie

You do realize that every idea espoused by the Affordable Care Act was once championed by a Republican? That Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich were once behind the mandate? No, of course you don't because you're a fucking idiot, And you're the reason why we can't have nice things, like actual national healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was completely foreseeable. Health insurance is a huge cost for employers. I would blame Obama for this, not the employers.

We need a system that doesn't base health insurance on employment.

Didn't Hilary Clinton try that already? You'd think she was asking families to give away their first born. Can't win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was completely foreseeable. Health insurance is a huge cost for employers. I would blame Obama for this, not the employers.

We need a system that doesn't base health insurance on employment.

Didn't Hilary Clinton try that already? You'd think she was asking families to give away their first born. Can't win.

But, since Democrats aren't for it, the power-hungry branch of the GOP can be for it. At least temporarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was completely foreseeable. Health insurance is a huge cost for employers. I would blame Obama for this, not the employers.

We need a system that doesn't base health insurance on employment.

Yeah, it's called single payer - you know, what the rest of the developed world has but what we are too stupid to move to here b/c the troglodytes in the Republican Party and those who vote for them rail against it as "socialist." Fucking morons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was completely foreseeable. Health insurance is a huge cost for employers. I would blame Obama for this, not the employers.

We need a system that doesn't base health insurance on employment.

They don't have to make profits by harming employees, though. They can shift costs to the consumers. Paying a few cents more for a lobster is no big deal.

+1

And if you can't afford a few cents more for your cheap quality lobster, stay the fuck home and cook for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a small business owner from out of the DC area. I do not fault those restaurants, even though I feel badly for their employees.

For around the past 3 years, the recession has hit my business and similar businesses in my area very hard. Our customer base dropped as much as 30% from where it was prior to the recession. We are the most successful of our type of business in our area, and I know that other, similar businesses in our area have been hit harder.

Most in our customer base (blue collar-middle class) are suffering through the recession: lost jobs, lower wages, higher gas prices/utilities/food prices, so raising prices, even a bit, to bring in more revenue is not an option. If we raise our prices, even a bit, customers who are sacrificing to pay for our services will no longer be able to pay. Raising prices will result in lower revenues for us, so we have to hold our prices where they are at.

I don't want to fire my employees, because they are valuable, talented employees who work hard for me and are dedicated to giving their best. My overhead has gone up significantly (for example, my highest electric bill from this past summer was double what the highest bill was last summer, even though we have taken steps to cut back on energy usage). The only option I have been left with is to cut my own salary. I have been working for the past 2 years and not drawing any salary in order to help my family business of over 20 years to make it through the recession. Fortunately, my spouse makes enough that our family is fine.

Just now, as things seem like they might be turning a corner, we have Obamacare looming. I guarantee you that I am will not A) hire any more employees B) will consider cutting back hours/employees to avoid the extra expense C) might consider closing down this once successful family business if A and B do not work.

My story is not unique. It makes me very sad. Business owners are not the demons many of you would like to believe. My employees do not know that I have not drawn a salary, nor do my customers. So please think before you disparage business owners and employers. We have done our share of carrying the burden, and have sacrificed more than you know.

Small businesses are different and are largely exempt from Obamacare. Darden Restaurants is a publically traded corporation that owns and operating 2,000 restaurants.

Exactly. Please learn the specifics of the law and what the actual requirements are for small business. And, if you don't want business bearing the burden of health care, then tell the retards in the Republican Party to stop blocking single payer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was completely foreseeable. Health insurance is a huge cost for employers. I would blame Obama for this, not the employers.

We need a system that doesn't base health insurance on employment.

They don't have to make profits by harming employees, though. They can shift costs to the consumers. Paying a few cents more for a lobster is no big deal.

It might not be a big deal to you, but I bet these companies have done the research and determined that more people on the margin will stop coming to their restaurants if they raise the prices than if they change more of the staff to part-time. I'm sure that if they thought they could charge a buck (or whatever amount) more per lobster and make a greater profit compared to shifting to part-timers they would do so.

That's the problem. The only thing that matters is money. Why not make a smaller profit (still a profit) but treat employees well?

It's a business that survives by making money. If it can't make a profit, it goes out of business, which would be bad for the employees. If it can make a profit, why are we all better off if the customers lose more money in prices than if the employees get paid less?

I didn't say they shouldn't make a profit. I just don't think they should maximize profit at the expense of employee welfare. It's easier to spread the cost among millions of diners to cover the cost of health insurance for thousands of employees. So yes. I'd rather spend $2 more (or however much) on my dinner if it helps employees get $400 month health insurance.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was completely foreseeable. Health insurance is a huge cost for employers. I would blame Obama for this, not the employers.

We need a system that doesn't base health insurance on employment.

They don't have to make profits by harming employees, though. They can shift costs to the consumers. Paying a few cents more for a lobster is no big deal.

It might not be a big deal to you, but I bet these companies have done the research and determined that more people on the margin will stop coming to their restaurants if they raise the prices than if they change more of the staff to part-time. I'm sure that if they thought they could charge a buck (or whatever amount) more per lobster and make a greater profit compared to shifting to part-timers they would do so.

That's the problem. The only thing that matters is money. Why not make a smaller profit (still a profit) but treat employees well?

It's a business that survives by making money. If it can't make a profit, it goes out of business, which would be bad for the employees. If it can make a profit, why are we all better off if the customers lose more money in prices than if the employees get paid less?

I didn't say they shouldn't make a profit. I just don't think they should maximize profit at the expense of employee welfare. It's easier to spread the cost among millions of diners to cover the cost of health insurance for thousands of employees. So yes. I'd rather spend $2 more (or however much) on my dinner if it helps employees get $400 month health insurance.

Even if that works for some restaurants it won't work for all. The Bertucci's in Arlington just closed. Big successful chain but it couldn't make it in this economy. Maybe it could have if it could have lowered prices or paid less for health care.

In addition, most businesses need investors. An investor won't buy your argument. If I can make a slightly higher return with my money in one restaurant than another, I'll pull my money out of the one that is more generous than the market requires to its employees.

I assume you agree that if they charge more per lobster they will get fewer customers. At some point they've already discovered the right combination of price and willing customer that maximizes profit. There's no reason to assume they'll be able to charge enough more to cover the increase in health care cost without losing too many customers.

Bertucci food was just meh. Is it possible that it closed due to performance.

[Anonymous]

And, Bertucci has been closing stores in the area as early as 2003, well before the Affordable Care Act.

[Anonymous]

Red Lobster and Olive Garden is not good food. I don't know how they have survived so long. In addition, Red Lobster is over priced, one crab leg for $25.00. I can go to an all you can eat crab leg buffet for $35.00. Why would I give Red Lobster $25.00 for one leg.

[Anonymous]

Howamy restaurant employees are even full time to begin with?