Return to the Hot Topics Forum

 o
The War Against Employees

Posted by jerzeegirl 9 (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 15, 12 at 11:09

IMO this restaurant owner takes his rage against the President's victory one step too far.

He is planning to charge his customers an Obamacare surcharge. The customer has the choice to either pay a 5% surcharge on their bill OR reduce the server's tip.

What a prince!

John Metz said he will add a 5 percent surcharge to customers' bills to offset what he said are the increased costs of Obamacare, along with reducing his employees' hours.

"If I leave the prices the same, but say on the menu that there is a 5 percent surcharge for Obamacare, customers have two choices. They can either pay it and tip 15 or 20 percent, or if they really feel so inclined, they can reduce the amount of tip they give to the server, who is the primary beneficiary of Obamacare," Metz told The Huffington Post. "Although it may sound terrible that I'm doing this, it's the only alternative. I've got to pass the cost on to the consumer."

Here is a link that might be useful: link


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 15, 12 at 11:35

Not surprised. Denny's is a skenky place, at least here in the mid-Atlantic and south. Very racist, very intolerant. I hope his servers understand how he sees them, since they are the ones doing all the work so he can be part of the 1%.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Reminds me of the owner of Papa Johns and the way he treats his employees.

And lives here:


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I don't see a problem.

That should wake up some.

This lets the customers know what Obamacare is going to cost them.

I'd print it on the menu--"Obamacare surcharge."

The truth shall set you free.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Many job seekers, employees, suppliers and customers will pay one way or another for rules, regulations, mandates, taxes, inflation, competition etc, but many effects won't be transparent.

Getting political about business is a good way to lose customers.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by jomuir z5 detroit (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 15, 12 at 11:59

Maybe he should add to the bill, the amount being added to offset his corporate welfare/tax breaks/mega salary. Oops, that would be too large a figure for customers to stomach. What a jerk.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Who cares where he lives, David?

It's his money, he pays taxes and employs people that allows them to provide for themselves and their families, and provides a needed service.

He worked for it, it took the risks associated with the business venture, and he should anywhere he darn well pleases and in any fashion he wants.

I imagine the businesses and individuals that contributed to building his home and that still help maintain it appreciate the jobs associated with it too.

No one is stopping anyone else from pursuing their dreams and being successful, too.

But one has to work many hours and have the determination and talent to do it. Something tells me this man doesn't spend his time on the internet posting pictures of people that have more than he does and slamming them for it.

He spends it more wisely and therefore has that success.

Class Envy.

It ain't pretty.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

The last time we went to a Denny's the service was so slow that we walked out.

The place was very dirty as well.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Or... we have the option of getting up, walking out, and never frequenting such places again. Boycotting works wonders.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

The problem with a boycott is it harms the workers.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Good servers are very hard to find and keep.

Anyone worth more money shouldn't have much trouble finding work at other businesses or in other industries unless they live in a very economically depressed area.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 15, 12 at 12:43

So, once again, it's up to the help to compensate.

Even migrate.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Or, one can patronize businesses it supports.

Regarding Chick Fil A, FROM CP October, 2012:

"Despite protests and predictions that the fast-food chain would be hurt by the publicity, Chick-fil-A appears stronger now," reads the statement.

"When compared with the same period 2011, Chick-fil-A in Q3 2012 broadened its past-month user base (chain "regulars") in 28 of the 35 U.S. media markets where the fast-food restaurant chain is monitored in Sandelman & Associates' Quick-Track� study."

Sandelman & Associates, which describes itself as a "market research firm that tracks attitudes, awareness and usage for the restaurant industry," noted other trends positive towards Chick-fil-A.

Follow us

In their survey of 30,000 fast-food customers, the research group also found that Chick-fil-A's market share was up 0.6 percent and its ad awareness increased by 6.5 percent."

*

It will be interesting to see how Papa John's does, and Denny's.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Oh, so you think he's throwing his employees under the bus for the free publicity?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I think business owners like this guy are greedy jerks with poor leadership.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Another idiot who thinks he can shift the blame allthwhile it's him who sucks at running a successful business.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

It's his money, he pays taxes and employs people that allows them to provide for themselves and their families, and provides a needed service.

Well, except providing health insurance for his employees.

Hope those waiters don't have TB and cough on your salad.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I don't eat at any kind of restaurants that don't serve what I can, and will, eat... and Denny's or pizza places don't make the list. So I'm not hurting anyone in reality.

Even so... I think I'd still have to boycott a corporation owner who treated his employees that way... throwing them under the bus for his politics and/or greed. I can't support him, even though I do feel for his workers. But ultimately, who wins if I keep frequenting such an establishment? Hint: it ain't the workers.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

The problem with boycotts is not enough people boycott a business for long enough to make much of a difference.

With a growing population of consumers on steroids there's always a fresh supply of new customers.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Papa John's came to mind too, like you David. I don't care if the franchises are having a hard time with Obamacare. They shouldn't cut hours of their employees. Sounds like it's time for Papa John's to foot part of the bill. It's what I keep asking.

Who is supposed to make up the difference in premium/surcharges (whatever the new penalty is if one doesn't have coverage)? Is the answer really patrons at Denny's? Or franchise owners? That doesn't seem to put the onus in the right place.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Posted by demifloyd 8 (My Page) on Thu, Nov 15, 12 at 11:51

I don't see a problem.
That should wake up some.

This lets the customers know what Obamacare is going to cost them.

I'd print it on the menu--"Obamacare surcharge."

The truth shall set you free.

*****************************************************

You go right ahead and enjoy YOUR Dennys.
I don't eat there; it's a disgusting establishment. lol


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Oh, the scourge of Obamacare! Poor Papa Slops, as we locals call it, will need to raise his bread with ragu sauce .11 cents to provide health care to his workers who earn about 6.00 per her.

Yes, I have seen his house. Those 6.00 people helped "build" it.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I think the contrast between reveling in their 40,000 sq foot private castles while refusing to pay for health insurance - even if it means tacking on 13 cents a pizza - is the sort of idiotic behavior of the CEO class today that leads to the Occupy movement, if not tumbrils and guillotines.

Kids can't get health care while this guy lives like that. And wonder why Romney didn't get elected.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees


I don't see a problem.
That should wake up some.

This lets the customers know what Obamacare is going to cost them.

I'd print it on the menu--"Obamacare surcharge."

The truth shall set you free.

To be honest, I think THAT would drive customers away faster than any boycott of moral outrage.

People are much more likely to be concerned with their own wallets, and are very visual. SEEING the "Obamacare surchrge" in black and white will drive them to a place that doesn't advertise that it is burying the costs in it's price.

I think it would be a PR move that would have the opposite intended effect.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I agree with upping the price of pizzas and denny's. Don't cut hours or employees' tips. Or they could just get less profit. I know, dirty words! But the reality is, as I previously suggested woudl happen, middle Amercia will foot the bill. I hope not too many more of the realities come to fruition as I suspected they might. Still waiting for the other shoe and it's coming!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Perhaps.

People should understand that Obamacare has a financial impact on businesses that will be passed on to them.

I'm sure Obama is counting on the fact that businesses will think the same thing and just buck up and take it.

That's the problem--for decades taxpayers have been bucking up and just taking it.

I think that is about to change.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I would never have given Denny's my money before this and I certainly won't now.

I also won't give the Poppa John's guy any of my money.

I do not think it's ok for mega wealthy business owners to take advantage of the very people that helped them get there (their employees).

Clearly some people here have no problem with that.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

So you'd change your dining habits if the price went up 0.4 % - 12 cents a meal - which allows health insurance to 40 million.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

That's the problem--for decades taxpayers have been bucking up and just taking it.

That's the biggest crock of all since your taxes have been the lowest they have been EVER! It's the math republicans do to make themselves feel better


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

The will start leaving and finding better places to work. The food businesses have been abusing workers for a long time and since the internet started it is the workers opportunity to have a place to let each other know where the good and bad jobs are. There are many sites that let them anonymously tell what goes on behind the scenes. After reading some of the sites you may never eat out again.

Here is a link that might be useful: Google: restaurant worker forum


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Posted by jerzeegirl 9 (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 15, 12 at 14:01

That's the problem--for decades taxpayers have been bucking up and just taking it.

That's the biggest crock of all since your taxes have been the lowest they have been EVER! It's the math republicans do to make themselves feel better

*

The "crock" is that you made an assumption about what I posted.

My comment about "bucking up and just taking it" was referring to the unfair distribution of taxes and the scandalous waste and fraud of our tax money.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"My comment about "bucking up and just taking it" was referring to the unfair distribution of taxes and the scandalous waste and fraud of our tax money."

Oh the wars that we haven't paid for and the president is in the process of stopping. OK.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Papa John's is giving away $2 million free pizzas. How much do you think that promotion will cost him? And yet he can't afford health insurance for his employees?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

amen sista! well stated jerzee, well stated


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Imagine how much good publicity he could get for being one of the first to stand up and applaud the healthcare act and saying he is happy to provide healthcare to more people.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

And remember ... these people touch your food.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

If Starbucks manages it selling $5 coffees, and thrives, surely a smart businessperson can manage it selling $10 waffle dinners. All this guy is doing is advertising what a poor money manager he is.

Good luck with that, bub.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Uh oh, Demi!

Hiring someone for 30 hours a week obligates the employer to buy that person insurance.

Any thoughts about how employers might respond??? LOL!


Here is a link that might be useful: source


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

What's your point nik? I believe that full time employment is currently 28 hours.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"I think that is about to change."

Do you mean like the Pres.not being reelected? Oh, wait.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Uh Oh.

Lots more part time workers.

Lots more food stamps.

Lots more cell phones.

Yea, the giveaways won.

Just like Obama wants it--people totally dependent on the government and not having any idea how much money it really takes to live--because for some, they've NEVER had to pay for everything themselves--the government directly pays their living expenses like housing, food, cell phones, medical expenses.

But enough pocket change for booze, drugs, fingernails, fast food and gasoline.

What happens when the golden geese stop laying?

We're going to find out.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

But enough pocket change for booze, drugs, fingernails, fast food and gasoline.
Your truly disguting!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

But enough profits to build a 40,000 sq ft pseudo-castle, pretending to be king, while refusing to cover his employees health insurance by increasing the price of his pizzas a pittance, making a total arse of himself, and likely harming his business in the process, as his employees and clientele realize what a complete jerk he is.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

No, the people that take taxpayer money for housing, food, children, and medical care and spend personal money on booze, drugs, fingernails and fast food are the ones that are disgusting.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Off topic were you ever NTEU?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

On topic its good seeing how bitter the losers are!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Who's bitter?

Were you speaking to me about NTEU?

If so you will need to spell it out and I might entertain answering you.

Alas, it looks like you misspelled "disgusting" and "you're"
so I cannot state for certainty, but it seemed pretty obvious that you were referring to me, Labrea, because you quoted me prior to that comment.

Now, seeing as how I have NEVER said anything like that to you (and Lord knows with some of the things you've said through the years there have been ample opportunities) I've managed to contain myself. In fact, I don't get torqued up enough to even consider typing some nasty remark like that.

And here I am entertaining answering a question which could very well and most probably is an insult to me.

See how well adjusted, calm and generous a person I am?

Hardly "disgusting" and most definitely on a higher road, I yam.

I'm not the one that seems bitter or out of sorts.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Alas, it looks like you misspelled "disgusting" and "you're"
...................................................................... ........ (blah, blah, blah) and Lord knows with some of the things you've said through the years there have been ample opportunities) I've managed to contain myself. In fact, I don't get torqued up enough to even consider typing some nasty remark like that."

Yeah, YOU'RE (is that better) a peach and a delight to be around.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"But enough pocket change for booze, drugs, fingernails, fast food and gasoline."

Unfortunately, a lot of public aid recipients do fit this description. From my personal contacts, not most, but sadly, too many. Some grew up this way, and took it for granted, some took advantage of the system just because they could, some were somewhat lazy, and some just broke by heart because they were very uncomfortable asking for public assistance. Most of the latter group were ultimately productive citizens.

Unless you've been in the position of actually determining eligibility for the applicants, including the paternity information, assets, income, etc., done the home visits and the re-determinations of eligibility, you don't have a clue.

That's a fact.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

LOL gone scan mistress have you? I mispell often & probably will continue to you have my permission to note it as much as you might enjoy or not enjoy or whatever it is you get out of playing kick me.!
Losers plural yep that's my take bitterness that's also my take lashing out with blanket elitist statements I find the disgusting! It is my humble or exalted take not an opinion.

I'm enjoying the hell out of it!
Just and idle question about being or not being in a union no biggy so no need to make a biggy out of it.

You'll need someone else to fight with I'm enjoying your lashing out it smells like Lanvin's Bitter Voter!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

The misspelling wasn't a critique--I make typos frequently myself-- my mission was to be very very accurate and not make assumptions about "your disgusting." There "your disgusting."

Not a lot.

But I do want to be accurate.

Of course I wasn't in the NTEU when I worked for the federal government.

I was able to excel in my career without requiring union backup for losers and slackers.

Now, this peach is headed to that dreaded closet!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I wonder how these business owners sleep at night.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

slprmen I cr nteret and then she and I and such a nice blurplaropy braaaaaahhh!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"The misspelling wasn't a critique"

I have never called anyone a liar on this board.

I have been accused of it before though.

You're right, Demi. You were just being inquisitive and helpful. My apologies.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Resident clown does not realize her own status. Too bad, could have a good comedy routine like Rodney "Can't get no respect" Dangerfield.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 15, 12 at 20:52

Okay I realize presenting FACTS does little good, but just thought I would throw these out. This whole "tempest in a teapot" about restaurant employees has me SMH.

Here ya go.

2012 RESTAURANT INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
Sales: $632 billion
Locations: 970,000
Employees: 12.9 million one of the largest private-sector employers
Restaurant-industry share of the food dollar: 48%

$1.7 billion: Restaurant-industry sales on a typical day in 2012.

1.4 million: Number of positions the restaurant industry will add in the next decade.
Restaurant-industry job growth has outpaced the national economy in 12 consecutive years, from 2000 through 2011.

93%: Percentage of eating-and-drinking place businesses that have fewer than 50 employees.

93% OF RESTAURANTS HAVE FEWER THAN 50 EMPLOYEES!! And also, from personal experience having family members in the restaurant industry, very few restaurants have FULL TIME employees unless they are in management.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I think she's drunk.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"Caleb Melby of Forbes has graciously done the math on Obamacare�s cost to Papa John�s and according to his analysis, to cover the cost of Obamacare, the pizza chain would have to raise prices by 3.4 to 4.6 cents per pie -- way less than the 11 to 14 cents Schnatter claims he needs.

And there are other changes the chain could make to save some money, Melby notes, like not giving away 2 million pizzas for free at a cost of between $24 and $32 million to the company, for example."

Here is a link that might be useful: Papa John's Obamacare Costs Are Far Less Than Price Of Free Pizza Giveaway


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Ah well (they were voting for Romney because he would create more jobs for them to disparage the holders of those jobs) . I use to date a lawyer who a partner at WR Grace (they were such a great crew, remember) he was absolutely mad for me! I was young & cute but I thought he was a pathetic in a lot of ways! He always voted against his own social interests for economic reasons! Sad he died of AIDS 22 years ago if I had stayed with him, hell who knows I might have become Republican and you would all be excoriating me for making disparaging remarks about the flotsam & jetsam of the underemployed.
I mean he would have at least left me one of his apartments and certainly the house up near Woodstock, he hated his mother & she would have been the only other beneficiary for his millions after the hospitals took their chunk. Ah well L'Amour Toujours!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Anyone remember that jerk Tom Emmer? His assertion that waiters & waitresses make $100,000 a year & should be exempt from minimum wage. The idea is always the same with these floaters.
We want to make more! We want you to make less! Then we want to crap all over you for not being able to afford health care or retirement.

Emmer was making the point that federal law allows states to drop the minimum wage to $2.13 an hour for those making more than $30 a month in gratuities. Minnesota is among the few states that doesn't allow that adjustment, meaning that at small restaurants, with low gross revenues, employers must pay the prevailing minimum wage of $5.25 an hour. At larger establishments, with higher grosses, the minimum is $6.15.

Oh lawdee lawdee no they actually have to pay people who work for them1


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Posted by jerzeegirl 9 (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 15, 12 at 20:55

I think she's drunk.

*

That's not nice thing to say and that is nothing but an insulting personal remark, jerzeegirl.

I didn't engage you and here you are accusing me of being drunk while posting.

What shall we do about that?

Sorry to disappoint you, but alcohol's not my thing, either.

I only infrequently indulge in caffeine and perhaps four drinks or so a year--maybe a margarita or two, vodka slush on Christmas Eve, a glass a champagne at New Year's.

Never tried marijuana--whether it was against the law or not, I never understood wanting to alter one's mind.

There are much better ways to spend one's time than using drugs or alcohol.

But since you mentioned it, jerzeegirl, it's obvious that some DO drink and post.

Actually, that would explain a lot.

*

The fact of the matter is that businesses are going to pass on the costs of Obamacare to customers.

They are also going to hire less people and offer less hours to work.

When are people going to understand that nothing is free?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"it's obvious that some DO drink and post."

I agree. Your posts make much more sense when I realize that you have been drinking.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Posted by frank_il z5Illinois (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 15, 12 at 22:32

"it's obvious that some DO drink and post."

I agree. Your posts make much more sense when I realize that you have been drinking.

*

DO you really want to go there, Frank and Jerzeegirl?

You already have.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Really, why would you want to emphasize "DO"? That does not even make sense. Say it out loud Demi. DO you see what I mean?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

You guys really don't want to get into a "who's got a buzz on" routine. One thing I do know, and that's that the drunks are the first to project their dirty little secret onto someone else, so...


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Not intentional, Frank, you must be paranoid.

I type very fast and often accidentally capitalize the second letter.

DO you understand that you aren't important enough for me to bother to send "messages" to?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

So Elvis, you agree that Demi may have been drinking?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Posted by elvis 4b WI (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 15, 12 at 22:39

You guys really don't want to get into a "who's got a buzz on" routine. One thing I do know, and that's that the drunks are the first to project their dirty little secret onto someone else, so...

*

That's what I think, too, Elvis.

I'm usually the last to get that people are drunk, smoking pot, on illicit or prescription drugs, or having mental problems because it's just not part of my life.

I wake up every day assuming that most people I encounter are well intentioned, polite, sober, and don't have a criminal record.

It's an assumption I shouldn't make, and certainly I suppose I shouldn't make it on this forum or any others.

Actually I'm sitting here taking a break from my closet with a half a cup of Sleepytime tea with a shot of Agave Syrup.

Tearing the bone out of a Thursday night! ;)


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"DO you understand that you aren't important enough for me to bother to send "messages" to?"

Your last couple of messages were directed at me. Seriously, are you delusional?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Demi, I'm leaving this thread. There's something up with those guys tonight. Too many angry and mean pills, maybe. See ya. ;D


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Posted by elvis 4b WI (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 15, 12 at 22:52

Demi, I'm leaving this thread. There's something up with those guys tonight. Too many angry and mean pills, maybe. See ya. ;D

*

I agree, Elvis.

Too many people interjecting themselves into conversations that didn't involve them, wanting attention by posting only to try to bait and make nasty and false accusations.

It's a nasty business of which I want no part.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"Demi, I'm leaving this thread."

Dang, that will be a major loss for the thread. We will miss you.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"I agree, Elvis."

Double ouch.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Hmm, not chastising me for my suggestion. Perhaps we will be seeing her on comedy central with her own show called "Woe is me, woe is me, why is every body always picking on me."


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I'm a drunk! I just not an active one right now & BOOOOOY has this topic digressed into something I'm ohhhhh so familiar with!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

No, the people that take taxpayer money for housing, food, children, and medical care and spend personal money on booze, drugs, fingernails and fast food are the ones that are disgusting.

It's this statement that makes me draw the conclusions that I did. Fingernails? What does that even mean? Why would you publicly state something as absurd as this?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

jerzee, it's the recurring 'kiss up, kick down' attitude that is displayed by critics of those using the social safety net.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

" Why would you publicly state something as absurd as this?"

We all know the answer to that. She is incredibly unpleasant.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Frank, will you marry me?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

CP, of course I will. You don't even have to ask.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

F: you had me at "delusional".


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"F: you had me at "delusional"."

I don't blame you. Clearly, you can tell that I am a sweet talker.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

a very ugly thread almost saved by a bit of humor


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 3:27

He's just exhibiting a bit of Frankness.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Why isn't the onus on the Insurance companies to lower premiums? Premiums that have been rising over the past few decades until they're no longer affordable by the average or lower than average income family?

When every little penny owed needs to be passed on downhill, somewhere along the line someone is making too damn much for no apparent reason, if you ask me.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Be Frank!

Seriously. It's their standard business model: Getting rich exploiting people. No wonder it's getting defended here.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I doubt if their will be any admission about what was meant by fingernails.

Here's another way to look at the Papa John's flap. The owner of Ian's Pizza has been paying his employees' health insurance for years and he feels that Papa John's having to raise prices will level the playing field for him.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"The fact of the matter is that businesses are going to pass on the costs of Obamacare to customers.

They are also going to hire less people and offer less hours to work. "

If business is there company's will hire and offer more hours. They will not walk away from business just to be "spiteful". That's just plain nonsense. The facts that will drive the business have little , if anything to do with Obamacare.

As far as passing the cost on, not to worry it's probably just all those disgusting people spending "our " money that but them anyhow. It will be good to have the takers pay back.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

In addition to the usual delusional, hateful, and just outright nasty, there's this little tidbit that got overlooked:

Lots more cell phones.

which of course is not true. But when you live in that self-created information disadvantaged bubble, you believe all those right wing talking points.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Well, rats, Frank -- there go our federally-subsidized booty calls.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I was considering reporting this thread. Instead, I'm saying to your faces. Don't say anyone has been drinking. That's just slanderous. Even if you suspect it, don't smear the person in a public forum. Even if it was true, you are dragging down the forum with such idiotic behavior acting this way. How rude. Would you shout out drunk! and point your finger in public? I suspect you'd have a bit more decorum. Shame on you!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I can't wait until Jodik receives her first health care premium in 2014.

GASP!...this is a ripoff..a thousand dollars a month for a couple???

can't wait!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Just lighten up rob. It's a manner of speaking in sarcastic terms, not an accusation.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I find no humor in it. It's not joke material. I'd say if someone said it about you or anyone on this board. I really think it crossed the line. I already dislike the name calling, but this is below the belt.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by sweeby Gulf Coast TX (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 10:08

So Americans get health insurance through their jobs.

And employers are screaming that now, because of Obamacare, they'll have to provide health insurance for their employees.

The whole "part-time so no benefits" gig is not new, folks. Companies have been doing it for years to avoid providing benefits.

And if companies don't provide health insurance - EXACTLY HOW ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WORK THERE SUPPOSED TO GET IT?

What's your answer Demi?

Going back to school is a viable option for intelligent child-free adults. But what about people who have fewer resources (education, intellect, natural ability) or have young children to care for, and who can't afford the time or money to do that? Even taking on one or two more part time jobs won't help them. No benefits, remember?

What, exactly, are these people supposed to do Demi!?
You're so compassionate - What's your plan?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Then how about responding to what is really offensive?

Uh Oh.

Lots more part time workers.

Lots more food stamps.

Lots more cell phones.

Yea, the giveaways won.

Just like Obama wants it--people totally dependent on the government and not having any idea how much money it really takes to live--because for some, they've NEVER had to pay for everything themselves--the government directly pays their living expenses like housing, food, cell phones, medical expenses.

But enough pocket change for booze, drugs, fingernails, fast food and gasoline.

What happens when the golden geese stop laying?

This is way more offensive than what you are complaining about. Talk about below the belt. You are looking at it.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Brush, what's your point? I'm self-insured at the moment and it costs me $590/month for one person for minimum coverage. If jodik were to pay less than twice that in two years' time, she & her husband would be making out better than folks are right now sans Obamacare.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

One doesn't justify the other though, right jerzee? It is offensive, but that is one of those strong holds that isn't going to disappear. The problem is, there is some veracity to it. It's one of those things that conservatives say always happens and liberals say never happens. But it's in the middle. I quit a long time ago, trying to refute it.

But sweeby, this is deepening an alredy existing problem. Doncha think? People are working again, but it's way beneath their experience, and subsitance of living. It is a problem that has become epidemic.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by sweeby Gulf Coast TX (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 10:30

I agree Rob, that many Americans are working beneath their abilities and qualifications, and that's a big problem. (And I can't really see how improving their qualifications is going to help that, KWIM?)

But my fundamental question is a simple one -- LOTS of Americans hold these relatively low-level jobs; and they work very hard doing them. And the businesses that employ them (part time) make lots of money.

What are THESE people supposed to do for health insurance?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

So should Congress lower the hours worked requirement for part-time in order to mandate coverage? Because I think that would be a great idea.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

rob, I heard on one of the news shows that employers are exploring "independent contractor" status for their employees. In that way the employer doesn't have to worry about providing any benefits to his employees.

Well, they can go ahead and try it but there are specific IRS rules as to who qualifies as an independent contractor and so it might be illegal.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Well Circus,

We pay our own too, double plus some over yours. According to forecasts, the premiums will climb about 44% before 2014. Do you really believe AHCA is going to cut premiums in half? Where do you find such information? CBO contradicts your belief.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Posted by brushworks Zone5-Ohio (My Page) on Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 9:37

I can't wait until Jodik receives her first health care premium in 2014.
GASP!...this is a ripoff..a thousand dollars a month for a couple???

can't wait!

**************************************************

I am against the current GOP version of Obamacare (forced FOR PROFIT insurance). Howver, there are a couple of good things in it:
1)Pre-existing conditions must be unsured.
2)Limits on insurance removed.
3)shopping around through state lines will force the ins to charge less.

The reason the premiums went up in the past couple of years is becasue the private ins feared Obamacare-that they will have to take in pre-existing conditions etc.

My understanding is that Obamacare will keep the private ins in check (as much as one can)because people will be purchasing lower cost ins, so in order to stay competitive, they technically speaking should not be raising their premiums....but who knows? I'm sure they'll find ways.

I'm actually for Fed funded medical facilites (non-profit), ran by private management and NO private insurances involved. This way you would really see huge reductions in private health ins. I can't help it, but I guess I like socialism....if it's good "for the people". Call me silly ;)


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

All of which is moving towards single payer.

Expand Medicare for all.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"The whole "part-time so no benefits" gig is not new, folks. Companies have been doing it for years to avoid providing benefits."

We know that. So why couldn't Democrats figure out what employers would do when Obamacare dictated 30 hours=full time?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Contractors. I forgot about that one. That should be shut down too.

So how do we get away from employer supported insurance? We can't just put the onus on every American for something that has been financially supported for so long, and allowing the employers to get off scot free. How do we get there?!

___________________________________________________
notto, premiums went up because Congress mandated all coverage be guaranteed issue (July 1997) without a safety net. The pool of use got larger without a large enough money pool. That is use, expanded faster than premium intake. That doesn't even touch on the costs of every expanding medical testing or prescription drugs.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

We know that. So why couldn't Democrats figure out what employers would do when Obamacare dictated 30 hours=full time?

nik, I honestly don't know why you are saying that since full time is currently 28 hours.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Posted by rob333 (My Page) on Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 10:51

Contractors. I forgot about that one. That should be shut down too.
So how do we get away from employer supported insurance? We can't just put the onus on every American for something that has been financially supported for so long, and allowing the employers to get off scot free. How do we get there?!

___________________________________________________
notto, premiums went up because Congress mandated all coverage be guaranteed issue (July 1997) without a safety net. The pool of use got larger without a large enough money pool. That is use, expanded faster than premium intake. That doesn't even touch on the costs of every expanding medical testing or prescription drugs.

**************************************************
There are a lot of reasons why ins premiums go up. I mentioned only one fear- Obamacare. The true reason is GREED.

IMO, private insurances have plenty to insure, without messing with peoples' lives. Private insurances can be availbale for healthcare for people, but they shouldn't be as involved as they are. They have bigeer fish to fry in auto ins, home ins, life ins....etc. They don't need to meddle in healthcare to the degree that they do.

I am very passionate about this. I believe in free enterprize where we create lots of compettition to keep the ins costs down. The only way to do this is insurance "by the people for the people".

Other posters:
Medicare should be revamped. Too much scamming going on.
I would like to see Medicare incorporate the uninsured, and better managed. Get rid of Medicaid.
The entire medical care needs to be revamped. Prices need to come down etc. The money should come from OUTSOURCED companies !


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by sweeby Gulf Coast TX (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 11:48

"We know that. So why couldn't Democrats figure out what employers would do when Obamacare dictated 30 hours=full time?"

If the rules dropped the FT definition to 15 hours, then those businesses would just hire twice as many part-time workers and give them only 15 hours. That's how the scam works. And with unemployment what it is, they could probably get away with it for a good long while...

I like HG's idea of a surcharge for part-time employees -- basically, something that would remove the financial incentive to have two part-timers instead of one full-time employee.

But really - I think the ultimate answer is divorcing health insurance from employment. The two have nothing to do with one another!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

But my fundamental question is a simple one -- LOTS of Americans hold these relatively low-level jobs; and they work very hard doing them. And the businesses that employ them (part time) make lots of money.

What are THESE people supposed to do for health insurance?

We have 3 dozen plus relatives that work part-time, temporary, seasonal or under-the-table jobs since they don't want, can't work, can't commute to, or can't find local full time jobs.

Most as well as their dependents are on Medicaid.

With Medicaid expansion, more will qualify.

Their greatest health issues are preventable.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

notto, insurance companies have actuaries who base rates on foreseeable events and predicted outcomes. Fear doesn't play a part. At least be logical. Yes, lots of reasons. Obamacare doesn't "scare" them. They see the logical progression of how it'll play out as the idea had already begun on state levels. They're dealing with the reality in states which has shown a predicted course.

I think that's what I am getting out. Employers are screwing employees over and not doing their share. Hire people at part-time rates and work them to death, while paying them the least. That's gotta stop. That's the corporations/1%'s fault, (WalMart for example) not the government's fault. I don't think the government stops them enough, by letting them get out of helping everyone. I think if you have an employee, they should get benefits. Tough sh-t if it eats into your profits. Yes, it'll cause people to have to run their business differently, but it's time for something different, before we all implode.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

The smart folks telling others how they should run their business should put their money/effort/risk/equity/credit where their mouth is by starting a business or two, then hire full-time workers, plus provide them with benefits.

As I mentioned in another thread, many job seekers and workers are voluntary part-time workers.

They want part time work. Many can't or won't accept full time work, overtime, nights, weekends, second/third shift, out-of-town, out-of-state, or on-the-road work, so they never move up the ladder.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by sweeby Gulf Coast TX (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 12:25

"Many can't or won't accept full time work, overtime, nights, weekends, second/third shift, out-of-town, out-of-state, or on-the-road work, so they never move up the ladder."

I'm sure that's true Mark -- So for those who can't work full time, should they not have health insurance?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

posted by demifloyd:
"It will be interesting to see how Papa John's does, and Denny's."

I don't know why it matters. It's not a contest ... that was last Tuesday.

If Proctor and Gamble's (for an example) bottom line isn't hurt by the fact that I won't purchase thier products, that still has nothing to do with my personal conscience and the fact that I cannot feel good about myself if I am buying from them.

No one engages in a boycott without hoping it will affect the company they are boycotting, of course, but it's still not a reactive action based on that ideal. Its a proactive statement of one's personal moral viewpoint, or at least, it is for me.

Everything isn't about money for everyone, no matter how much of a sharkish, dog eat dog, free without any limits market some on the right would like to see rule here.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

The smart folks telling others how they should run their business should put their money/effort/risk/equity/credit where their mouth is by starting a business or two, then hire full-time workers, plus provide them with benefits.

Mark, by the time a company has worked their business up to 50 employees, I should hope they have enough padding in their profit margin to afford this.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I'm sure that's true Mark -- So for those who can't work full time, should they not have health insurance?

We have programs to help those that are struggling financially - Medicaid, Child Health Plus, food stamps, subsidized private/public housing, WIC, HEAP, Emergency HEAP, daycare, furnace/boiler/water heater maintenance/repair/replacement, winterization/weatherization, TANF cash assistance, STAR property tax exemption, free cellular phones/minutes, local/private assistance etc.

Many businesses employ less than 50 workers, plus use a lot of temps, part-timers and seasonal workers, so they won't be covered anyway.

Much of our local part-time workforce consists of young relatively healthy workers that still live at home in middle class and upper middle class households that aren't concerned about insurance.

Many poor people that desperately need jobs can't find them since they're filled by young workers, or second/third jobbers working for spending and entertainment money.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

John Metz (Denny's franchise owner) is already walking back his surcharge threat.

I've only been in a Denny's twice in my relatively long life - both in Maryland. And whoever said "skenky" was spot on.

Here is a link that might be useful: Moons over my hammy


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Mark, by the time a company has worked their business up to 50 employees, I should hope they have enough padding in their profit margin to afford this.

Maybe, but being able to afford and willing to pay are different issues.

In many cases and investment in productivity via computerization, automation, communications, specialized tools, specialized equipment, workplace efficiency upgrades, outsourcing etc makes more sense.

As long as there's an over-supply of unskilled, low skilled job seekers, wages and benefits will remain low.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

One of my friends had a post elsewhere:

A company firing their employee then blaming Obama is like a man beating his kid then turning to the mother and saying "See what you made me do?"


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Posted by rob333 (My Page) on Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 12:05

notto, insurance companies have actuaries who base rates on foreseeable events and predicted outcomes. Fear doesn't play a part. At least be logical. Yes, lots of reasons. Obamacare doesn't "scare" them. They see the logical progression of how it'll play out as the idea had already begun on state levels. They're dealing with the reality in states which has shown a predicted course.
I think that's what I am getting out. Employers are screwing employees over and not doing their share. Hire people at part-time rates and work them to death, while paying them the least. That's gotta stop. That's the corporations/1%'s fault, (WalMart for example) not the government's fault. I don't think the government stops them enough, by letting them get out of helping everyone. I think if you have an employee, they should get benefits. Tough sh-t if it eats into your profits. Yes, it'll cause people to have to run their business differently, but it's time for something different, before we all implode.

*****************************************
Rob,
I know about the actuaries. I live next door to 2 of them...I live in the ins capital of the world, and that is what the ins brokers, and employees around here were primarily using as an excuse for rate hikes in the last couple of years. The premise was that they weren't sure about the FULL effect that the Obamacare will have on their profits....Hey I know it's BS, and possibly a local scare, so people don't vote for Obama?

I agree about employers taking advantage of employees by not providing benefits. That is why I believe that instead of Medicare and Obamacare, we should have a HEALTHCARE tax on employers and a small amount to employees, creating healthcare for everyone. I know I'm dreaming.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 13:31

"See what you made me do?"

So much for the "party of personal responsibility", blame it on the employees, unions, urban voters, women, Latinos, Blacks, "takers" and OBAMA!

And anyone else I forgot to include.

Actually I pity people who feel this way.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Here in New York where much of our property taxes fund Medicaid, workers without the skills, ability or willingness to work full time, year round or higher paying jobs put a large burden on property owners, homeowners, businesses and landlords subsidizing their healthcare costs.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Amen to that!

"...employers taking advantage of employees by not providing benefits. That is why I believe that instead of Medicare and Obamacare, we should have a HEALTHCARE tax on employers and a small amount to employees, creating healthcare for everyone."

I totally think that's what they should do! I'll dream with you.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"we should have a HEALTHCARE tax on employers and a small amount to employees, creating healthcare for everyone"

It works and works well......BUT it means pretty much eliminating the Health Insurance industry and good luck with that in the US.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

JZ, it is my understanding that Obamacare defined full time as 30 hours, not 28. If you have a source that states 28 hours, please post a link.

I do know that each state can define what constitutes a full time employee.

Here is a link that might be useful: IRS Notice 2012-58


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by sweeby Gulf Coast TX (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 14:01

"We have programs to help those that are struggling financially - Medicaid, Child Health Plus, food stamps, subsidized private/public housing, WIC, HEAP, Emergency HEAP, daycare, furnace/boiler/water heater maintenance/repair/replacement, winterization/weatherization, TANF cash assistance, STAR property tax exemption, free cellular phones/minutes, local/private assistance etc. "

So people who can't find 'full-time' (however it's defined) work with benefits should be condemned to a life of poverty and government assistance?

Because if you're not POOR you don't qualify.

You do realize that for some people, the necessity of qualifying for Medicaid forces them to choose a life of poverty?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

JZ, it is my understanding that Obamacare defined full time as 30 hours, not 28. If you have a source that states 28 hours, please post a link.

jlhug: I am just trying to find out why Nik is so disturbed about full time being 30 hours under Obamacare. I don't understand the point she is trying to make. Maybe you do and can answer for her?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

So people who can't find 'full-time' (however it's defined) work with benefits should be condemned to a life of poverty and government assistance?

No, they can make it in America if they're willing to try.

Obama says so.

It doesn't matter whether you're black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you're willing to try.

Here is a link that might be useful: You Can Make It If You're Willing To Try!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

JZ, why don't you as that question instead of asking her why she is using 30 hours as full time instead of the 28 hours that you seem to think is correct?

From my experience, even 30 hours is a reduction in hours required to be worked before one is considered full time. I don't ever remember being considered full time unless I worked something like 38 hours.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by sweeby Gulf Coast TX (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 14:48

You can make it if you try --
You just can't get health insurance.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Healthcare, like education, is a basic human right. When the majority of Americans get that concept things will change. As long as so many think healthcare is only the right of a "some" Americans it will stay as it is.

Honestly I have great faith things will change sooner rather than later. It is clear the more progressive demographics are growing and the conservative demographic is shrinking. Time will tell but I think the tide has turned.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

For kicks, I ran the numbers of several of our relatives working part-time jobs, or average paying low skilled full time jobs.

Here's the results:

For the most part your coverage stays the same. If you are living in a state that was offering Medicaid to a larger share of the poor than required by federal standards, the law has required your state to lock in those more generous eligibility rules through 2014. At that point the law expands Medicaid to all individuals and families with incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

Since 2011 the law has also offered states incentives to expand their Medicaid program's coverage of home- and community-based care and to allow patients to designate a provider to coordinate their care.

Beginning in 2013 the law will provide additional federal funding for states to cover preventive services through their Medicaid program. Some of these benefits might be added, or might already have been added to your plan. But the court found that states cannot be penalized if they decline to comply with the expansion, raising questions as to how effectively the federal government will be able to implement it.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

So it sounds like NY will be getting some federal relief for Medicaid? Not that one would expect your property taxes to go down......


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

I eat out MAYBE six times a year. Usually birthdays or special occasions. No fast food joints. First weekend in December I take my sisters someplace nice. This year we're going to 1500 Ocean at the Hotel Del Coronado. Watch the surf lap the shore and the ice skaters skate while drinking dirty Martinis. (Well, I don't drink that stuff but they do.)

-Ron-


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by sweeby Gulf Coast TX (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 15:23

Mark - I'm not poor. In fact, I'm well-educated and work many more than 30 hours per week. And I pay a LOT of taxes.

But I'm self-employed. Which means my employer (me) can't provide me with decent health insurance. As a 50-something woman in 'good' (but not perfect) health, I can't GET decent health insurance.

I did not say I can't AFFORD decent health insurance. (Even though it's hideously expensive.) I said I can't GET decent health insurance. And even though the health insurance I pay exorbitantly for doesn't cover much of anything, I believe in personal responsibility, so I carry it anyway.

Healthwise - I'd probably be BETTER off if I were broke and on Medicaid.

But in what universe is this fair? rational? In anybody's bests interests?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

JZ, why don't you as that question instead of asking her why she is using 30 hours as full time instead of the 28 hours that you seem to think is correct?

Jlhug: Please read this slowly so you understand what I am saying.

Forget about the 28 hours-28 hours is a number I pulled out of the sky. Change it to 24 hours. Change it to 32 hours. I used 28 hours because some employers consider 28 hours full time (places where I have worked). BUT some consider it part time. We all know that employers get to decide what is part time and what is full time - there is no federal standard. My question is why is 30 hours such a big outrage to Nik? She mentioned it twice as if it were the most horrible thing that could happen to a business owner and I still don't understand why this bothers her. Would she like Obamacare better if it required 32 hours or 35 hours instead of 30 hours? Would that make nik happy?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Not that one would expect your property taxes to go down......

I'm looking at about an 8 percent increase next year on 19 properties in one county alone.

About 40 to 50% of 2013 the tax levy will fund Medicaid alone.

Fortunately I have a lot of room to raise rents, add units and demand is excellent.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

JZ, I can read and understand what I read.

I suggest that your question was very obscure. Here's what you posted at 10:54 this morning;

Nik - "We know that. So why couldn't Democrats figure out what employers would do when Obamacare dictated 30 hours=full time?"

JZ - "nik, I honestly don't know why you are saying that since full time is currently 28 hours."

If you were intending to ask why she was upset about 30 hours being full time, you failed. If you wanted to say her claim that the Federal government said full time was 30 was incorrect and that the Federal government said full time was 28 hours, then you succeeded.

Bottom line is you never asked why she was incensed about the government declaring full time as 30 hours. You implied that she was incorrect and that full time was 28 hours.

I'm sorry, I read what is written and do not try to read between the lines to understand the real question. I guess I feel that if you can't directly ask the question you want answered, then why bother trying to hedge around it?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 16:02

You can make it, and then give it to insurance companies.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Ooo, OOo! Pick me, pick me! I have the answer!!!

How about we have no more part time and full time, just workers. Never gonna happen, right? The distinction only exists to deny benefits.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

How about we have no more part time and full time, just workers. Never gonna happen, right? The distinction only exists to deny benefits.

Exactly!


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"If the rules dropped the FT definition to 15 hours, then those businesses would just hire twice as many part-time workers and give them only 15 hours. That's how the scam works."

Yep. So what made Democrats think employers would continue to hire full time workers, when they can hire part time workers and completely avoid dealing with Obamacare?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

And if I don't have $1000 per month for insurance, Brush, what then? Will they take an organ, or perhaps a child every month until they're satisfied? Will men in black suits come to my door with baseball bats? Will I get hauled away and thrown in prison? At least then, meals and medical will not be my problem any longer, and I can finally get a little rest.

You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, and you can't get money out of an empty pocket. Apparently, you haven't tried recently.

Also apparent, you have no idea the kind of life I live.

Where do you get this sum of $1000 a month, anyway?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Yep. So what made Democrats think employers would continue to hire full time workers, when they can hire part time workers and completely avoid dealing with Obamacare?

Because it is a bigger pain scheduling 20 part time workers than 10 full time workers. Because full time workers are more serious about their jobs. How pathetic do you have to be to not want the best for your employees who are "building it" for you?


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 17:51

The thinking is they aren't building it, if anything they're resented for being the biggest single operating expense.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 18:01

.....for Jodik

Here is a link that might be useful: source


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Never mind, Jerzee... it's the stock holders they feel indebted to, apparently, and not the workers who actually helped them build not only their corporations, but their reputations as well.

The world is overflowing with self interest and avarice, these days... and it's a race to see which will cause our demise first... that, or global warming.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

jodi: from the piece that OM posted:

Only 3% of small businesses will have to pay the additional 0.9% ObamaCare Medicare tax increase. This tax is only paid on profitable income over $250k (not on the first $250k). Unless Ma' makes over $250k, the Mom and Pop job creators will only gain better health care and tax breaks, not higher taxes.

Hard to figure out what's wrong with these people that they don't see the benefits of Obamacare and I am still interested in knowing what fingernails have to do with it.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 8:56

In addition to the usual delusional, hateful, and just outright nasty, there's this little tidbit that got overlooked:

Lots more cell phones.

which of course is not true. But when you live in that self-created information disadvantaged bubble, you believe all those right wing talking points.

*

Nothing I said was nasty.

It was all the truth.

You don't have any foggy idea what I know or don't know jill, and I can tell you that YOU DO NOT HAVE A FOGGY IDEA of what you THINK you know when it comes to me.

Stop with the bubble business.

I PERSONALLY know of people with multiple "Obama cell phones" and about how they're sold around here and exchanged.

You talk about what you know, but you have no knowledge of what I know and don't know.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

Posted by jerzeegirl 9 (My Page) on
Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 9:42

Just lighten up rob. It's a manner of speaking in sarcastic terms, not an accusation.

*

No it wasn't.

It was mean, nasty, out of bounds and against the rules.

And totally irrelevant.

It was an accusation and 100% false, even if it weren't false, it would still be wrong.

Thank you Rob, for standing up.

I've had it with this behavior, as well.


 o
RE: The War Against Employees

"Hard to figure out what's wrong with these people that they don't see the benefits of Obamacare and I am still interested in knowing what fingernails have to do with it."

I would agree, Jerzee... I would agree. The fingernail thing must be part of some talking point or other... ;-)


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: This thread has reached the upper limit for the number follow-ups allowed (150). If you would like to continue this discussion, please begin a new thread using the form on the main forum page.


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here