Skip to main content

View Diary: Taco Bell franchise the latest to use Obamacare as an excuse for treating workers badly (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have a very hard time believing these places (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karmsy, dkmich, notrouble

    ever had full time employees to begin with.  Does anyone have any data on how many people at fast food jobs work 40 hours a week. I would think they were already only having people do 36-38 hours, to avoid paying benefits.

    •  When I worked fast food, there were 4 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alexandra Lynch, Utahrd, rosarugosa

      full times employees. The general manager, the kitchen manager, and two other people that had worked there for eons and were friends of the franchisee. The rest of the 40+ employees were working 20-30 hours a week, which often meant you ended up 40-50 hours a week when people randomly called off or just didn't show up.

    •  We will find out... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bluesee, Not A Bot

      ALL,

      Someone was wondering why they would need to initiate this policy now despite the effective date of the provision being 2014.

      Say you take a full time worker and cut his hours in half to 20 hours, what happens?

      1) Well some people will quit entirely and they need to be replaced. Hiring the replacement and training them will take time.

      2) If you cut 10 employees hours to 20 hours, then you now need 10 more employees, again, hiring and training them will take time.

      Now, why would any restaurant want to wait until the provision kicks in?

      If a restaurant does that then they need to start providing health care the day the provision takes effect for their 40 hour workers, thus it makes sense to replace them and reduce them before hand so they are ready with as few 40 hour workers as possible (or even zero 40 hour workers) the day the provision takes effect and dodge the Obamacare tax from day one.

      Moreover, President Obama has promised higher corporate taxes, so I'd imagine that these companies are in no mood to wait until that happens to start saving costs so they can pay those higher tax rates. If I owned a restaurant, I'd do the same thing. After all, someone has to pay the cost of those tax increases and its sure is not going to come out of profit, why should that happen? That is not fair to the people that own the business.

      Additionally, cutting full time staff also saves these companies on other costs that full time workers receive too.

      With the Obama economy making the US worse off than we were in 2008, I'd presume these companies are preferential to starting to save as much money as they can as quickly as they can.

      George

      •  George? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        UnionMade, howd, Dube, DemInSeattle
        With the Obama economy making the US worse off than we were in 2008, I'd presume these companies are preferential to starting to save as much money as they can as quickly as they can.
        Really?   we are "worse off" than we were in 2008?

        OK, you just outed yourself, so I will give you one slap back.

        Maryland tried to get the arch enemy of all working, middle class people in the USA Walmart t, to pay 8% of their wages into health care for their employees  rather than hire them part time, then handed out sheets that detailed how to qualify for Medicaid , as if they were destitute or close to it. That Medicaid meant other worker's taxes, other state residents had to carry the burden of providing Medical Health Coverage that a company with 263 billion dollars in sales was too cheap to provide its employees but was good for 100 billion dollars to the offspring of the founder.

        There are thousands and thousands of companies that are successful, and growing and much much smaller than a Walmart or the parent of Taco Bell or Pepsi or other franchise operation.  They offer hea!lth care! not excuses!

        You can stop crying a river for the hit to the millionaires and billionaires dividend payouts. If they can't afford a living wage and health benefits in their very profitable businesses , they need to move over and give it up to someone who can.either do it or get out of the way.

        Even slaves prior to 1865 were treated better than what workers for those companies I mentioned are treated as today and  worse is intended for them starting right now.

        Obamacare, the Patient's ACA is a start, and a good one, even if it very modest at present. Your preaching doom and resignation and attempts to sink it with your late arriving 642214 johnny come lately number  is duly noted. And rejected.

      •  Pepco Had -57% Tax Rate for '08-'10 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DemInSeattle

        Kinda hard not to have your corporate tax rate increased when your effective tax rate for 2008 to 2010 was -57%.  Yes,  Pepco, parent corporation of Taco Bell paid -57%, please note that is a minus sign preceding the 57 which indicates that not only did they not pay any corporate tax, but actually got money from the government.  

        The American business model is failing the public, but, of course, that is feature and not a bug.    

        Poor man wants to be rich. Rich man wants to king. And the king ain't satisifed until he rules everything. B.Springsteen

        by howd on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:33:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site