Pages

Monday, November 19, 2012

When Obamacare Meets TNSTAAFL

Characteristic of the leftist is that he/she rarely counts the cost of their compassion. Someone else always pays for their free lunch. In this case, ironically and unusually, the bill for Obamacare is being presented directly to the very people whom Obamacare was supposed to "help". Ouch:
With Obamacare due to be fully implemented in January 2014, Metz has justified his move by claiming it is 'the only alternative. I've got to pass on the cost to the customer. The fast-food business owner is set to hold meetings at his restaurants in December where he will tell employees, 'that because of Obamacare, we are going to be cutting front-of-the-house employees to under 30 hours, effective immediately.' Claiming that he is not anti-insurance Metz has said that he understands the problems this will cause for his employees. 'I think it's a terrible thing. It's ridiculous that the maximum hours we can give people is 28 hours a week instead of 40,' said Metz to the Huffington Post. 'It's going to force my employees to go out and get a second job.' 
Obamacare requires businesses or franchises with more than 50 workers must offer an approved insurance plan or pay a penalty of $2,000 for each full-time worker over 30 workers. The program mandates that only employees working more than 30 hours a week are covered under their employers health insurance plan, chains like Olive Garden and Red Lobster are already considering reduced worker hours. 
'Obviously, I'd love to cover all our employees under that insurance,' said Metz. But to pay $5,000 per employee would cost us $175,000 per restaurant and unfortunately, most of our restaurants don't make $175,000 a year. I can't afford it.'
But wait, there's more:
Darden [Restaurants, the Florida-based parent company of Olive Garden, Longhorn Steakhouse, Red Lobster, and other chains] announced last month that it would begin shifting full-time workers to part-time status to save money, cut health costs, and circumvent Obamacare's coverage mandate scheduled for full implementation in 2014. The move would reduce full-time employees' hours to less than 30 hours a week; part-time workers are exempt from the insurance mandate. McDonald's, another big Obamacare-waiver recipient, is considering the same move.

In fact, a survey of members of the Chain Restaurant Compensation Association (CRCA) conducted last year by Hay Group reported that a whopping 77 percent of "quick serve" restaurant operators said they were considering reducing employee hours to change the employees' status from full-time to part-time. At least one Denny's restaurant franchise owner in Florida is cutting hours and has openly contemplated an Obamacare surcharge on meal prices. Jimmy John's and Papa John's are also slashing work hours. Applebee's is mulling a freeze on both hiring and expansion.
I would chuckle if my heart were not so heavy about the creeping Euro-style socialism and iron fist-velvet glove Soviet-style attitudes toward religious conviction embedded in Obamacare. Whodathunkit that the businesses mandated by market-distorting government force to "provide" more health care coverage would have to pass on the increased costs to their customers and reduce their employee's hours to avoid the Obamacare penalties imposed by Washington central planners/fantasizers--just to stay in business?

Of course, the person that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support:
"There's no such thing as a free lunch" is a race-neutral truth. But economically illiterate Obama supporters have now called for boycotts of these businesses and accused them of vengeful "racism" against the president. Instead of sympathy and gratitude for private businesses trying to do right by their workers, customers, and shareholders, the corporate-bashers inundated Twitter this week with profanity-laced condemnations of the restaurant-service industry. One protester tweeted: "@Applebees Your CEO is a racist piece of [redacted], he['s] not hiring because Obama was elected . . . U WILL LOSE CUSTOMERS."

"Red Lobster, Olive Garden [are] using Obama re-election as an excuse to deny employees benefits and living wages," Jon Marquis fumed. Twitter user Daphine Walker sent unhinged, ungrammatical messages to Red Lobster and Olive Garden in all-caps: "I WILL NEVER SPEND ANOTHER CENT ON THIS RACIST COMPANY WHO DOESNT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THEIR EMPLOYEES."

The CEO of Red Lobster and Olive Garden is black. But no matter. Regardless of the actual facts, economic realities, and entirely predictable and inevitable consequences of command-and-control government mandates, it's always about identity politics for the Obama grievance mob
It has been said, in a somewhat facile fashion, that Democrats are the "mommy party" and Republicans are the "daddy party". The Mommy Party focuses on caring, nurturing, sharing, and supporting, and doesn't really think hard about where the money comes from. In fact, Daddy is "mean" when he questions where the money comes from. The Daddy Party, while wanting its "children" to be cared for, also wants them to be independent and self-sufficient. Moreover, the Daddy Party has its eyes on the bottom line, and wonders where the money to underwrite all this expensive compassion will come from.

Well now we know. Interesting that, in this case, much to the chagrin of the clients of the Mommy Party, the cost of the free lunch boomeranged back on those who demanded it in the first place.

UPDATE: After this post was written, management of Hostess, maker of TEOTWAWKI-proof Twinkies and other not-so-healthy confections, opted to liquidate the company in the face of presumedly unreasonable compensation demands made by the confectioner's union.  Interesting how insulated ideologically based demands for a free lunch are from economics...and more than 18,000 workers are jobless as a result.

13 comments:

Christina said...

I said something in another post that is just as fitting here.

Even when people's entire world is crumbling around them, they see fit to blame someone else than own up to their own choices that brought it about in the first place. These people are never going to see how their choice in economic matters is what is causing this.

As someone on facebook said, these people are evil big business blokes who take advantage of their employees' service.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"they see fit to blame someone else than own up to their own choices that brought it about in the first place."

Yes indeedy. If one's worldview consists of greedy capitalists sticking it to the worker, that then blinds the worker to the impact of his/her economic demands.

Ceteris paribus, higher union wages mean fewer jobs for everyone. But they don't care, because "they got theirs".

Carnivore said...

My experience with a few far left friends is that they compartmentalize each benefit. The argument comes down to "Well, of course everyone has a right to health care. We are such a large, wealthy nation, something else should be cut to pay for it." They'll then turn around and say the same thing for increasing some other program. They seem unwilling or unable to comprehend the entire picture. It's almost like a child who demands a top of the line vacation to Disney world and then cannot understand when Dad says the family can't afford it.

El Bastardo said...

"There's no such thing as a free lunch" is a race-neutral truth. But economically illiterate Obama supporters have now called for boycotts of these businesses and accused them of vengeful "racism" against the president. Instead of sympathy and gratitude for private businesses trying to do right by their workers, customers, and shareholders, the corporate-bashers inundated Twitter this week with profanity-laced condemnations of the restaurant-service industry. One protester tweeted: "@Applebees Your CEO is a racist piece of [redacted], he['s] not hiring because Obama was elected . . . U WILL LOSE CUSTOMERS."

AND:

The CEO of Red Lobster and Olive Garden is black. But no matter. Regardless of the actual facts, economic realities, and entirely predictable and inevitable consequences of command-and-control government mandates, it's always about identity politics for the Obama grievance mob


What I can't wait for?

It is the verbal gymnastics they will all do when Obama renigs on Obamacare himself and they all find out the hard way that he passed it to guarantee his election in 2012.

Why?

Because he knows we can't afford it.

If I am wrong?

Then he will pass it anyways, and be known throughout history as the genius who bankrupted his own country for lack of real intelligence.

Politicians may lie; but math and reality tell the truth. And the TRUTH HURTS!

Have fun with four more years geniuses! We will be there to pick up the pieces; you will have to forgive us if we ust plain forget about all of you after.

You made a choice; I am merely standing by your choice. No more consequences for free come the end of Obama, or this country. Whichever comes first.

ScareCrow said...

Sit back and enjoy the firework show - and prey that none of the fireworks get fired in your direction!

:)

El Bastardo said...

I do not say this because I advocate violence; but I purchased a shot gun specifically built for home defense; and a few boxes of ammo. If the wife gets off me; I will have a .45 too.

It is sad it has to be that way when people become so lazy, self righteous, and entitled. Greed, jealousy, and covetousness make people do really wicked things.


I think we need to keep in mind that this stems from the human condition. It is not that I view myself above those who commit this; but that I refuse to believe I don't have a choice otherwise if I do not possess what others have; coupled with a lack to aquire even more resources if I do. I see it more as a number of groups of individuals who have done the chemists equivalent of convincing himself he can boil in acid with no harmful effects. Our "fellow citizens" feel they can steal from others and suffer nothing; while demanding they can reap everything they have not sown.

I suspect it is overblown; but if it is not, I want to ensure that my family has a fighting chance even if I may have to take a bullet.

I will practice forgiveness right before they kill me if it gets that bad.

Elusive Wapiti said...

The Bastard,

The best way to prevent violence is to be prepared for it's eventuality.

Bravo for your preparedness. Ironically that means that you'll probably be among those least likely to have to use it.

El Bastardo said...

Thanks, the reason though in most cases is because I hae the training, the look that I am trained, and the obvious willingness to use force when needed. The killer eyes for lack of a better term.

You stare at a man with eyes like that behind of the barrel of a shotgun pointed correctly at your torso and you will think twice.

Also, if you break in and I catch you off guard; the sound of chuhck-chuhck behind you is enough to make anyone piss themselves.

El Bastardo said...

Man, I checked on your pdate to the story; and I could not help myself. I asked myself the question, and sure enough; I was right. All the "workers" who went on strike the vast majority are "minorities."

When asked what would happen the woman stated that essentially she knew the strike would "liquidate" her job if they went on strike.

http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/local_news/hostess-brands-workers-hit-the-picket-lines

That makes me go hmmm? Honestly, if you know you are going to lose your job why would you continue the strike if the made concessions? They must have been terrible right?

Actually, they may have a real grievance?!

Here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/17/1162730/-Hostess-CEO-Received-300-Raise-Before-Bankruptcy

Sadly, the union may actually be right in that for the past six years of the current health food craze; times have not been kind to the 82 year old company. So their geniuses running their corporate boards raised a ceo salary 300% from 750k to almost 2.6 million!

2.6 mil minus 750k equals 1.85 million!

1.85 million divided by say 30k (genrous package for low entry level worker) equals a whopping 61 workers.

So the salary was not exactly wise when filing for bankruptcy; but the savings would not have saved thousands of workers.

Also, with the Obama health plan to be implented in just over a year; I suspect many more businesses from corporate giants to the little guy declare a chapter 13.

The difference between the two is that the big guys will "sell" to the highet bidder-who just so happens to be overseas!

Ouch; and I was hoping to get work? Damn Child Support is going to murder me.

Elusive Wapiti said...

You touched on another key point...if not *the* key point...if you look like you're switched on, you'll likely have less trouble than someone who looks like a victim in waiting.

But I suspect preparation goes together with attitude...thus they are the very same set of people.

"1.85 million divided by say 30k (genrous package for low entry level worker) equals a whopping 61 workers.

So the salary was not exactly wise when filing for bankruptcy; but the savings would not have saved thousands of workers."


I think you'll need to add another $30k or so for personnel costs (FICA, health insurance, workers comp, etc). This slices the "jobs saved" down into the low 30s. Nope, not very impressive.

Still, I have to admit that the gulf between CEO salary and worker salary cannot hold. On this point the leftist agitators are correct. The optics of a CEO garnering for himself a 300% pay raise while his workers go without are terrible. Small wonder then that such scenes generate so much social unrest.

Such incidents also make me question the wisdom of market morality--capitalism shorn of humanity is inhumane.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Almost missed this:

"All the "workers" who went on strike the vast majority are "minorities.""

It's really too bad there is so much overlap between race and class in our country. It keeps us from realizing that the issue facing us is primarily one of class envy, not one of race.

Also: that woman is a labor kamikaze. She knowingly bit her nose off to spite her face. Things are far gone indeed if the rhetoric is such that ppl would knowlingly put themselves and 18,000 of their fellow Americans out of work just to prove they can play chicken with management and lose.

Christina said...

Such incidents also make me question the wisdom of market morality--capitalism shorn of humanity is inhumane.

This is why I'm so hesitant to embrace the "republican" message of pro-big business.

But at the same time, it was social liberals who traded in absolute values for relative morality: "What's right for you may not be right for me." So who's to say these guys are actually "evil?" We don't know why they made the choices they made...

Gee those founding fathers were seriously on to something when they made all those comments about subscribing to a higher power for ethical and moral accountability.

El Bastardo said...

"Gee those founding fathers were seriously on to something when they made all those comments about subscribing to a higher power for ethical and moral accountability."

Sadly, all but Jon Jay and a few others were Deists; the precursor to Athiests, and then the modern agnostics.

People foolishly make the claim this country is founded on Chrisitan principles. Nothing could be farther from the truth. IF that was the case; then Britain left the US of is own free will. Obviously, that would be a false statement.

The founding fathers knew at that time they needed a "agent of authority" to address the need for seperation that the masses, who were no where near as educated as the founders, would accept to go against British rule. It was not that the People did not want the yoke removed; but feared the cost it would take; especially if they lost.

So, they "held these truths to be self evident" and "naturally" undeniable because only a Creator could bless human kind with "indelable rights."

Jefferson kept all of Christ's words, the "Red Letters" if you will, minus all the "other stuff" in the Bible because he felt it was bogus.

The thing is, the "Creator" was used to justify rebellion. Not because they actually believed.

However, they did believe in their cause, secualr as it was, so much so they risked life and fortune if they lost. Many of the founding 56 did lose their life and fortunes never to regain them.

I said they did not believe in God as far as I'm concerned. At lest not that He is personable.

They did believe in the Revolution, and that the common man was far more noble than he seemed.

SO far, I am losing faith in their belief system. Merely based on what I see. Left to our own devices; we commit self entropy against our collective best interests. Like a praire, we occasionally need to be burned down or the whole thing stagnates.

Life is a cycle, regardless of what you believe.