Staples employees latest victims of Obamacare (1 Viewer)

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

How much do the executives make? I'll bet dollars to donuts that in 99% of these cases of companies screwing with the employees, the executives haven't taken a pay cut.

Click to expand...

I want my donuts!!

http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?t=SPLS

Key executive compensation - 2010 it was $35.6M, 2011 it was $22.3M, and in 2012 it was $16.9M. So in two years they cut their pay by over half.

Click to expand...

Good. Staples is making an effort. I said "In 99% of these cases" - I was making a broad statement, not talking about Staples specifically. But if I'd had to guess, I wouldn't have thought they'd cut executives by that much. Thanks for the link.

Click to expand...

Mr. Cross said:

https://www.change.org/petitions/staples-don-t-cut-part-time-hours-because-of-obamacare?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=45436&alert_id=DnHAtJHOxC_WaUQBbxXMT

Obama should raise the minimum wage for everybody but he only cares about federal employees.

Click to expand...

wdcrob said:

Mr. Cross said:

https://www.change.org/petitions/staples-don-t-cut-part-time-hours-because-of-obamacare?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=45436&alert_id=DnHAtJHOxC_WaUQBbxXMT

Obama should raise the minimum wage for everybody but he only cares about federal employees.

Click to expand...

I know, right? Why does he care so little about the common working man?

You'd have to be a heartless ******* to oppose a rise in the minimum wage, amirite?

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

How much do the executives make? I'll bet dollars to donuts that in 99% of these cases of companies screwing with the employees, the executives haven't taken a pay cut.

Click to expand...

I want my donuts!!

http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?t=SPLS

Key executive compensation - 2010 it was $35.6M, 2011 it was $22.3M, and in 2012 it was $16.9M. So in two years they cut their pay by over half.

Click to expand...

Good. Staples is making an effort. I said "In 99% of these cases" - I was making a broad statement, not talking about Staples specifically. But if I'd had to guess, I wouldn't have thought they'd cut executives by that much. Thanks for the link.

Click to expand...

I still want my donuts!

PS - that's what making "blanket statements" gets you.

Click to expand...

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

How much do the executives make? I'll bet dollars to donuts that in 99% of these cases of companies screwing with the employees, the executives haven't taken a pay cut.

Click to expand...

I want my donuts!!

http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?t=SPLS

Key executive compensation - 2010 it was $35.6M, 2011 it was $22.3M, and in 2012 it was $16.9M. So in two years they cut their pay by over half.

Click to expand...

Good. Staples is making an effort. I said "In 99% of these cases" - I was making a broad statement, not talking about Staples specifically. But if I'd had to guess, I wouldn't have thought they'd cut executives by that much. Thanks for the link.

Click to expand...

I still want my donuts!

PS - that's what making "blanket statements" gets you.

Click to expand...

I'll send some out. Keep an eye on your email.

As far as blanket statements, I don't think my opinion about executive salaries is, on the whole, wrong. Staples is the exception, not the rule. And if business has suffered to the degree that theirs apparently has, of course executive pay will suffer. I just have to wonder... at what point were their salaries on the table? Because you can't go a month in this country without hearing a story of some company that goes out of business while their executives were still making millions and taking home bonuses.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

As a publicly traded company, they have to their stockholders. Their stock is down roughly 50% in the past 4 years. They get the news of a new law that will greatly increase their insurance costs. Should they just accept that additional cost, thus lowering their profit, and likely lowering their stock price further?

Click to expand...

It's a cost of doing business, just like the rent and the electric bill. These companies aren't screwing their landlords, they're paying. They're not looking at their water bills and looking for ways to screw the company out of what they owe. But they know employees come and go. People need jobs. And in this economy, they know they can get away with this.

Yes, they should accept the additional cost, they should pass some it on to the consumer, some of it on to the executives, some of it on to the employees, and they should be looking for ways to change their business model because the one they have now is failing - and that's got nothing to do with the ACA.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. The ACA, though, isn't helping them pull themselves out of the rut they are in. Stock price halved in 4 years. Executive compensation down over 50% the last two years. Who's to say they haven't passed costs onto their customers already (and as supply and demand will tell us, likely hurt their bottom line even more in the process).

Click to expand...

Here's another problem - what are Office Depot and Office Max doing? Competitors may be able to absorb these costs and not increase prices while they wait out Staples who may be less able to absorb the changes.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

As a publicly traded company, they have to their stockholders. Their stock is down roughly 50% in the past 4 years. They get the news of a new law that will greatly increase their insurance costs. Should they just accept that additional cost, thus lowering their profit, and likely lowering their stock price further?

Click to expand...

It's a cost of doing business, just like the rent and the electric bill. These companies aren't screwing their landlords, they're paying. They're not looking at their water bills and looking for ways to screw the company out of what they owe. But they know employees come and go. People need jobs. And in this economy, they know they can get away with this.

Yes, they should accept the additional cost, they should pass some it on to the consumer, some of it on to the executives, some of it on to the employees, and they should be looking for ways to change their business model because the one they have now is failing - and that's got nothing to do with the ACA.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. The ACA, though, isn't helping them pull themselves out of the rut they are in. Stock price halved in 4 years. Executive compensation down over 50% the last two years. Who's to say they haven't passed costs onto their customers already (and as supply and demand will tell us, likely hurt their bottom line even more in the process).

Click to expand...

Here's another problem - what are Office Depot and Office Max doing? Competitors may be able to absorb these costs and not increase prices while they wait out Staples who may be less able to absorb the changes.

Click to expand...

Office Depot "Total Exec compensation" was 28M in 2010, 21M in 2011, and 14M in 2010. CEO compensation went down 34% in the last year. Stock price was above 40 late 2006, is now in the 5s. Office Max merged with them near the end of last year.....which I'm sure resulted in plenty of layoffs for redundancies.

Click to expand...

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

How much do the executives make? I'll bet dollars to donuts that in 99% of these cases of companies screwing with the employees, the executives haven't taken a pay cut.

Click to expand...

I want my donuts!!

http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?t=SPLS

Key executive compensation - 2010 it was $35.6M, 2011 it was $22.3M, and in 2012 it was $16.9M. So in two years they cut their pay by over half.

Click to expand...

Good. Staples is making an effort. I said "In 99% of these cases" - I was making a broad statement, not talking about Staples specifically. But if I'd had to guess, I wouldn't have thought they'd cut executives by that much. Thanks for the link.

Click to expand...

I still want my donuts!

PS - that's what making "blanket statements" gets you.

Click to expand...

I'll send some out. Keep an eye on your email.

As far as blanket statements, I don't think my opinion about executive salaries is, on the whole, wrong. Staples is the exception, not the rule. And if business has suffered to the degree that theirs apparently has, of course executive pay will suffer. I just have to wonder... at what point were their salaries on the table? Because you can't go a month in this country without hearing a story of some company that goes out of business while their executives were still making millions and taking home bonuses.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

As a publicly traded company, they have to their stockholders. Their stock is down roughly 50% in the past 4 years. They get the news of a new law that will greatly increase their insurance costs. Should they just accept that additional cost, thus lowering their profit, and likely lowering their stock price further?

Click to expand...

It's a cost of doing business, just like the rent and the electric bill. These companies aren't screwing their landlords, they're paying. They're not looking at their water bills and looking for ways to screw the company out of what they owe. But they know employees come and go. People need jobs. And in this economy, they know they can get away with this.

Yes, they should accept the additional cost, they should pass some it on to the consumer, some of it on to the executives, some of it on to the employees, and they should be looking for ways to change their business model because the one they have now is failing - and that's got nothing to do with the ACA.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. The ACA, though, isn't helping them pull themselves out of the rut they are in. Stock price halved in 4 years. Executive compensation down over 50% the last two years. Who's to say they haven't passed costs onto their customers already (and as supply and demand will tell us, likely hurt their bottom line even more in the process).

Click to expand...

Here's another problem - what are Office Depot and Office Max doing? Competitors may be able to absorb these costs and not increase prices while they wait out Staples who may be less able to absorb the changes.

Click to expand...

Office Depot "Total Exec compensation" was 28M in 2010, 21M in 2011, and 14M in 2010. CEO compensation went down 34% in the last year. Stock price was above 40 late 2006, is now in the 5s. Office Max merged with them near the end of last year.....which I'm sure resulted in plenty of layoffs for redundancies.

Click to expand...

So they're all just scraping by, sounds like very little to no margin for extra costs in the whole industry to me.

Click to expand...

glumpy said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

As a publicly traded company, they have to their stockholders. Their stock is down roughly 50% in the past 4 years. They get the news of a new law that will greatly increase their insurance costs. Should they just accept that additional cost, thus lowering their profit, and likely lowering their stock price further?

Click to expand...

It's a cost of doing business, just like the rent and the electric bill. These companies aren't screwing their landlords, they're paying. They're not looking at their water bills and looking for ways to screw the company out of what they owe. But they know employees come and go. People need jobs. And in this economy, they know they can get away with this.

Yes, they should accept the additional cost, they should pass some it on to the consumer, some of it on to the executives, some of it on to the employees, and they should be looking for ways to change their business model because the one they have now is failing - and that's got nothing to do with the ACA.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. The ACA, though, isn't helping them pull themselves out of the rut they are in. Stock price halved in 4 years. Executive compensation down over 50% the last two years. Who's to say they haven't passed costs onto their customers already (and as supply and demand will tell us, likely hurt their bottom line even more in the process).

Click to expand...

Here's another problem - what are Office Depot and Office Max doing? Competitors may be able to absorb these costs and not increase prices while they wait out Staples who may be less able to absorb the changes.

Click to expand...

Office Depot "Total Exec compensation" was 28M in 2010, 21M in 2011, and 14M in 2010. CEO compensation went down 34% in the last year. Stock price was above 40 late 2006, is now in the 5s. Office Max merged with them near the end of last year.....which I'm sure resulted in plenty of layoffs for redundancies.

Click to expand...

So they're all just scraping by, sounds like very little to no margin for extra costs in the whole industry to me.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the hijack--but how much of this might be due to so much more business going paperless now than before? I realize that's a different discussion entirely but it sure could be a major factor in play here no matter what the impact of Obamacare.

Click to expand...

Lutherman2112 said:

So Staples mini-med insurance benefits went kaput as of January 1, 2014.

In December 2013 the memo goes out to cut part-time hours.

End health benefits, cut hours to skirt the requirements of ACA, and pocket the money that used to go out as benefits. Cut CEO pay, close stores and cut employees hours back...all seems like money saving maneuvers to me.

I bet Staples wish they had that $120 million for naming rights of the Staples Center for 20 years, let alone the money they put down for lifetime naming rights of the Staples Center.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

glumpy said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

As a publicly traded company, they have to their stockholders. Their stock is down roughly 50% in the past 4 years. They get the news of a new law that will greatly increase their insurance costs. Should they just accept that additional cost, thus lowering their profit, and likely lowering their stock price further?

Click to expand...

It's a cost of doing business, just like the rent and the electric bill. These companies aren't screwing their landlords, they're paying. They're not looking at their water bills and looking for ways to screw the company out of what they owe. But they know employees come and go. People need jobs. And in this economy, they know they can get away with this.

Yes, they should accept the additional cost, they should pass some it on to the consumer, some of it on to the executives, some of it on to the employees, and they should be looking for ways to change their business model because the one they have now is failing - and that's got nothing to do with the ACA.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. The ACA, though, isn't helping them pull themselves out of the rut they are in. Stock price halved in 4 years. Executive compensation down over 50% the last two years. Who's to say they haven't passed costs onto their customers already (and as supply and demand will tell us, likely hurt their bottom line even more in the process).

Click to expand...

Here's another problem - what are Office Depot and Office Max doing? Competitors may be able to absorb these costs and not increase prices while they wait out Staples who may be less able to absorb the changes.

Click to expand...

Office Depot "Total Exec compensation" was 28M in 2010, 21M in 2011, and 14M in 2010. CEO compensation went down 34% in the last year. Stock price was above 40 late 2006, is now in the 5s. Office Max merged with them near the end of last year.....which I'm sure resulted in plenty of layoffs for redundancies.

Click to expand...

So they're all just scraping by, sounds like very little to no margin for extra costs in the whole industry to me.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the hijack--but how much of this might be due to so much more business going paperless now than before? I realize that's a different discussion entirely but it sure could be a major factor in play here no matter what the impact of Obamacare.

Click to expand...

Lutherman2112 said:

So Staples mini-med insurance benefits went kaput as of January 1, 2014.

In December 2013 the memo goes out to cut part-time hours.

End health benefits, cut hours to skirt the requirements of ACA, and pocket the money that used to go out as benefits. Cut CEO pay, close stores and cut employees hours back...all seems like money saving maneuvers to me.

I bet Staples wish they had that $120 million for naming rights of the Staples Center for 20 years, let alone the money they put down for lifetime naming rights of the Staples Center.

Click to expand...

Correct, Staples and the whole industry appear to be in trouble, which raises the question of why we're throwing extra costs on them and other companies and industries just like them in the middle of a stagnant economy.

Click to expand...

Lutherman2112 said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

glumpy said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

As a publicly traded company, they have to their stockholders. Their stock is down roughly 50% in the past 4 years. They get the news of a new law that will greatly increase their insurance costs. Should they just accept that additional cost, thus lowering their profit, and likely lowering their stock price further?

Click to expand...

It's a cost of doing business, just like the rent and the electric bill. These companies aren't screwing their landlords, they're paying. They're not looking at their water bills and looking for ways to screw the company out of what they owe. But they know employees come and go. People need jobs. And in this economy, they know they can get away with this.

Yes, they should accept the additional cost, they should pass some it on to the consumer, some of it on to the executives, some of it on to the employees, and they should be looking for ways to change their business model because the one they have now is failing - and that's got nothing to do with the ACA.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. The ACA, though, isn't helping them pull themselves out of the rut they are in. Stock price halved in 4 years. Executive compensation down over 50% the last two years. Who's to say they haven't passed costs onto their customers already (and as supply and demand will tell us, likely hurt their bottom line even more in the process).

Click to expand...

Here's another problem - what are Office Depot and Office Max doing? Competitors may be able to absorb these costs and not increase prices while they wait out Staples who may be less able to absorb the changes.

Click to expand...

Office Depot "Total Exec compensation" was 28M in 2010, 21M in 2011, and 14M in 2010. CEO compensation went down 34% in the last year. Stock price was above 40 late 2006, is now in the 5s. Office Max merged with them near the end of last year.....which I'm sure resulted in plenty of layoffs for redundancies.

Click to expand...

So they're all just scraping by, sounds like very little to no margin for extra costs in the whole industry to me.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the hijack--but how much of this might be due to so much more business going paperless now than before? I realize that's a different discussion entirely but it sure could be a major factor in play here no matter what the impact of Obamacare.

Click to expand...

Lutherman2112 said:

So Staples mini-med insurance benefits went kaput as of January 1, 2014.

In December 2013 the memo goes out to cut part-time hours.

End health benefits, cut hours to skirt the requirements of ACA, and pocket the money that used to go out as benefits. Cut CEO pay, close stores and cut employees hours back...all seems like money saving maneuvers to me.

I bet Staples wish they had that $120 million for naming rights of the Staples Center for 20 years, let alone the money they put down for lifetime naming rights of the Staples Center.

Click to expand...

Correct, Staples and the whole industry appear to be in trouble, which raises the question of why we're throwing extra costs on them and other companies and industries just like them in the middle of a stagnant economy.

Click to expand...

Isn't decoupling insurance from employment part of the ACA?

Click to expand...

Lutherman2112 said:

So Staples mini-med insurance benefits went kaput as of January 1, 2014.

In December 2013 the memo goes out to cut part-time hours.

End health benefits, cut hours to skirt the requirements of ACA, and pocket the money that used to go out as benefits. Cut CEO pay, close stores and cut employees hours back...all seems like money saving maneuvers to me.

I bet Staples wish they had that $120 million for naming rights of the Staples Center for 20 years, let alone the money they put down for lifetime naming rights of the Staples Center.

Correct, Staples and the whole industry appear to be in trouble, which raises the question of why we're throwing extra costs on them and other companies and industries just like them in the middle of a stagnant economy.

Click to expand...

Isn't decoupling insurance from employment part of the ACA?

Click to expand...

By that do you mean the ACA intentionally seeks to force insureds out of the employer market and onto the exchanges?

Click to expand...

I'd say yes it does.

Now that to me is also a direct violation of the promise to the people that they would be able to keep their coverage and their treaters "period".

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

...Our country is going through a terrible crisis with the implementation of this program ....

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Luther, how an you say that the ACA tries to decouple insurance and employment when it forces large employers (like Staples) to offer more expensive coverage to all full time employees (30+ hours a week)? That seems like the opposite.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

And that's not really whatStaples did, either. They still offer coverage. They have to. They can, though, only offer it to those employees working 30+ hours (because of the law). So they are still offering coverage, which apparently is ACA compliant, but only to those who are full time.

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

matttyl said:

And that's not really whatStaples did, either. They still offer coverage. They have to. They can, though, only offer it to those employees working 30+ hours (because of the law). So they are still offering coverage, which apparently is ACA compliant, but only to those who are full time.

Click to expand...

They don't "have to". As has been stated endless they could follow the rest of the employers and "drop the other shoe" on the tens of million (possibly 100 million) as you have stated in the other thread that will lose their employer based coverage.

Click to expand...

humpback said:

danielmclark said:

jonessed said:

humpback said:

danielmclark said:

jonessed said:

EOs aren't supposed to make or change laws at all, but that doesn't stop it from happening. The entire legal ground the power is based on is vague. It's constantly being stretched.Would the courts shoot it down? I think so, but I don't know for sure. Either way, it would be law until then.

I think it's absurd to believe Bush would have reduced the minimum wage to zero if he could. Do you have any evidence of this?

Click to expand...

Now I know you're trolling. Come on. Killing the minimum wage has been a Republican goal for as long as there's been a minimum wage.

So, that's your rationale? That EO's can be used for any purpose until a court strikes it down? Answer this then: Bush had 8 years with a Supreme Court that leaned so far right it was in constant danger of falling out of its chair. Why didn't he simply use EO's to do things like eliminate minimum wage, make abortion illegal, override every gun law we have, eliminate the Dept. of Education, and accomplish every other stated goal of the Republican party? These aren't things I'm making up, these are stated goals of the party - read the platform sometime. It's enlightening.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Seriously. What a waste of time that was.

Click to expand...

And yet you can't refute the logic of it. If you could, you would. QED.

Click to expand...

Why use logic when we have actual facts?

Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

matttyl said:

And that's not really whatStaples did, either. They still offer coverage. They have to. They can, though, only offer it to those employees working 30+ hours (because of the law). So they are still offering coverage, which apparently is ACA compliant, but only to those who are full time.

Click to expand...

They don't "have to". As has been stated endless they could follow the rest of the employers and "drop the other shoe" on the tens of million (possibly 100 million) as you have stated in the other thread that will lose their employer based coverage.

Click to expand...

Not the same as what was being discussed there. Staples is a large (more than 50) employer. That means that come 2015, they have to offer ACA compliant coverage or pay a fine/penalty/tax of $2k per head. Since Staples has about 50k employees (http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/SPLS--Number_of_Employees), that fine/penalty/tax would be roughly $100M. For a company that's worth half of what it was 4 years ago, they can't afford to just pay a fine of that size to not offer coverage. So YES, they do HAVE TO offer coverage.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Now, the law also says that they can't, I mean actually can not offer that coverage to anyone working less than 30 hours - even if they wanted to. Those are no longer "eligible employees". So what LutherMan said is wrong, in a few places. He said "Staples didn't offer more expensive coverage" - but they did. They just can only offer that more expensive coverage to "full time" or "eligible employees". He then said "they choose to offer no coverage" (again, false) "and cut back hours" (which is true, that's all the did). The fact that these employees are now not eligible for group coverage because they are under 30 hours is the "fault" of the ACA, not Staples.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Those losing employer based coverage, as discussed in the other thread, will be those in the small employer market (under 50). Well, actually, here's a great case for those employees of large employers losing their coverage, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

matttyl said:

And that's not really whatStaples did, either. They still offer coverage. They have to. They can, though, only offer it to those employees working 30+ hours (because of the law). So they are still offering coverage, which apparently is ACA compliant, but only to those who are full time.

Click to expand...

They don't "have to". As has been stated endless they could follow the rest of the employers and "drop the other shoe" on the tens of million (possibly 100 million) as you have stated in the other thread that will lose their employer based coverage.

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

...Our country is going through a terrible crisis with the implementation of this program ....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

matttyl said:

And that's not really whatStaples did, either. They still offer coverage. They have to. They can, though, only offer it to those employees working 30+ hours (because of the law). So they are still offering coverage, which apparently is ACA compliant, but only to those who are full time.

Click to expand...

They don't "have to". As has been stated endless they could follow the rest of the employers and "drop the other shoe" on the tens of million (possibly 100 million) as you have stated in the other thread that will lose their employer based coverage.

Click to expand...

I guess the part time requirements kick in with the rest of the employer coverage requirements? I don't think those old plans have been made extinct yet by ACA, right? Didn't Obama extend that deadline to take advantage of the calendar by pushing the (shoe) drop dead date until after the election? - Maybe this is just Staples' way of getting ahead of the coverage issue without outright just dropping coverage. Given what they and the industry are going through, maybe this is two birds (ie more than one layer of cost), one stone.

I mean really, I'd like to say 'what were Obama & Friends thinking creating an incentive for companies to drop their employees down to <30 hours?' but then of course we know they were really actively desiring those people would be thrown out of their coverage and onto the exchanges. We know this because do the math of the exchanges without these people losing employer coverage one way or another.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

BFS - I'm not the best multiquoter or whatever you did above, so I'll do my best to post answers one at a time.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

1 - No, they can't afford $4k per head that an average company pays for coverage, that's the entire point. Again, 50k employees....that's $200m in total premiums. So instead they cut back to maybe only 20k full timers, and still offer them coverage. That means zero fine/penalty/tax, and only $80m in insurance premiums, and providing coverage for 20k employees. Much better than paying a $100m tax/fine/penalty and providing nothing to anyone.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

2 - I'll see if I can find a link. I do know that in VA (where I live and sell insurance) you can not be on an (ACA compliant) employer plan unless you work 30+ hours a week, and you show up as so on your employers most recent quarterly wage and tax statement. I know this because I wasn't able to add a part time worker to an ACA plan I was setting up until I received notification from the group that her hours were raised from 25 to 30 hours per week. I assume Target is offering this coverage though March as that is when their plan renews, and thus has to become compliant at that time, not as of 1/1/14.

Click to expand...

The employer also has the option of offering coverage to part-time employees (defined as those working 20 to 29 hours per week). If the employer offers coverage to any part-time employees, all of them must be offered coverage.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

3 - I understand there aren't 100m in the small employer market. I never said 100m myself, but I did say tens of millions, which there more definitely are in the small employer market. Further, quite a few employees of large employers will lose their health coverage in 2014 as well, this entire thread is about a few thousand of them (maybe 10-20k of them).

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

... Tens of millions (possibly as high as a hundred million) have already received a cancellation notice or will in the next 12 months, while apparently only 17 million will obtain a subsidy in the first year (which includes many people who previously had no coverage).

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

danielmclark said:

matttyl said:

As a publicly traded company, they have to their stockholders. Their stock is down roughly 50% in the past 4 years. They get the news of a new law that will greatly increase their insurance costs. Should they just accept that additional cost, thus lowering their profit, and likely lowering their stock price further?

Click to expand...

It's a cost of doing business, just like the rent and the electric bill. These companies aren't screwing their landlords, they're paying. They're not looking at their water bills and looking for ways to screw the company out of what they owe. But they know employees come and go. People need jobs. And in this economy, they know they can get away with this.

Yes, they should accept the additional cost, they should pass some it on to the consumer, some of it on to the executives, some of it on to the employees, and they should be looking for ways to change their business model because the one they have now is failing - and that's got nothing to do with the ACA.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. The ACA, though, isn't helping them pull themselves out of the rut they are in. Stock price halved in 4 years. Executive compensation down over 50% the last two years. Who's to say they haven't passed costs onto their customers already (and as supply and demand will tell us, likely hurt their bottom line even more in the process).

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Oh, and about Target specifically....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/target-health-care-part-time_n_4641467.html

3rd paragraph, with me removing a few words for accuracy....

"By offering them insurance, we could actually disqualify many of them from being eligible for newly available subsidies that could reduce their overall health insurance expense," Target said.

So in effect, they are doing their part time workers a favor, thanks to how the law is written.

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

matttyl said:

Oh, and about Target specifically....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/target-health-care-part-time_n_4641467.html

3rd paragraph, with me removing a few words for accuracy....

"By offering them insurance, we could actually disqualify many of them from being eligible for newly available subsidies that could reduce their overall health insurance expense," Target said.

So in effect, they are doing their part time workers a favor, thanks to how the law is written.

Click to expand...

They are doing 90% of their part time workers a favor at the expense of the 10% who took advantage of the existing plan. And all 100% had affordable coverage options under your edit.

Oh, and this is the most interesting piece of your link.

Click to expand...

Dr Oadi said:

Repeal support down to 36% teabaggers defeated again!

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

I'm self employed, and have a grandfathered individual plan. So my answer would be no, my employer (myself) isn't offering a policy from an exchange.

Click to expand...

Lutherman2112 said:

matttyl said:

I'm self employed, and have a grandfathered individual plan. So my answer would be no, my employer (myself) isn't offering a policy from an exchange.

Click to expand...

so you stand to lose business because of the exchange/Obamacare?

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

matttyl said:

Oh, and about Target specifically....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/target-health-care-part-time_n_4641467.html

3rd paragraph, with me removing a few words for accuracy....

"By offering them insurance, we could actually disqualify many of them from being eligible for newly available subsidies that could reduce their overall health insurance expense," Target said.

So in effect, they are doing their part time workers a favor, thanks to how the law is written.

Click to expand...

They are doing 90% of their part time workers a favor at the expense of the 10% who took advantage of the existing plan. And all 100% had affordable coverage options under your edit.

Oh, and this is the most interesting piece of your link.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Oh, and about Target specifically....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/target-health-care-part-time_n_4641467.html

3rd paragraph, with me removing a few words for accuracy....

"By offering them insurance, we could actually disqualify many of them from being eligible for newly available subsidies that could reduce their overall health insurance expense," Target said.

So in effect, they are doing their part time workers a favor, thanks to how the law is written.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

Oh, and about Target specifically....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/target-health-care-part-time_n_4641467.html

3rd paragraph, with me removing a few words for accuracy....

"By offering them insurance, we could actually disqualify many of them from being eligible for newly available subsidies that could reduce their overall health insurance expense," Target said.

So in effect, they are doing their part time workers a favor, thanks to how the law is written.

Click to expand...

Explain this?

These PTers were covered through their employer, and now Target is doing them a "favor" by letting them go get their own insurance on the exchanges?

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

matttyl said:

Oh, and about Target specifically....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/target-health-care-part-time_n_4641467.html

3rd paragraph, with me removing a few words for accuracy....

"By offering them insurance, we could actually disqualify many of them from being eligible for newly available subsidies that could reduce their overall health insurance expense," Target said.

So in effect, they are doing their part time workers a favor, thanks to how the law is written.

Click to expand...

They are doing 90% of their part time workers a favor at the expense of the 10% who took advantage of the existing plan. And all 100% had affordable coverage options under your edit.

Oh, and this is the most interesting piece of your link.

Click to expand...

And all 100% will have affordable coverage options now, so what's the difference? Oh, and the "most interesting part" is very interesting. I think quite a few companies will start doing that.

And honestly, is helping 90% of your workers as the "potential expense" (though not likely) of the other 10% a net benefit?

Click to expand...

danielmclark said:

MaxThreshold said:

danielmclark said:

MaxThreshold said:

My Link.

Click to expand...

The opposition party is always quite certain that a president has acted illegally. If he really had broken a law, they'd have brought a lawsuit by now.

So, no. That was not sufficient.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect you to believe anything that paints Obama in a negative light. Of course, they haven't brought a lawsuit by now because the Senate is run by Democrats.

However, I'm pretty sure there would no sufficient evidence for you.

Click to expand...

Where are you coming from with this notion that I'm some sort of Obama apologist? Honestly. Because the only thing I've written here is objective fact about the use of Executive Orders and the also objective fact that every opposition party spends a president's entire term(s) loudly complaining that he has broken the law in a number of interesting and creative ways. The Democrats did it to Bush, the Republicans did it to Clinton, the Democrats did it to Bush and Reagan... it's how things are.

But you know how I know for sure that there's no broken laws here? You don't need the Senate to bring a suit. And this is a party that launched an investigation that paralyzed the nation over a blow job in the Oval Office. If there was evidence of an actual broken law, they would have him brought up on charges so fast his head would spin.

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

Oh, and about Target specifically....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/target-health-care-part-time_n_4641467.html

3rd paragraph, with me removing a few words for accuracy....

"By offering them insurance, we could actually disqualify many of them from being eligible for newly available subsidies that could reduce their overall health insurance expense," Target said.

So in effect, they are doing their part time workers a favor, thanks to how the law is written.

Click to expand...

Explain this?

These PTers were covered through their employer, and now Target is doing them a "favor" by letting them go get their own insurance on the exchanges?

Click to expand...

Only 10% of the part timers opted for the Target provided coverage. Because the other 90% (or probably some relatively high percentage of that) were eligible for "affordable care" via their employer they were not eligible to have what could have been less expensive coverage after subsidies are factored into the price. They also could face Snogger's wife's situation of being part of the growing trend of dropping from spousal coverage when those spouses can be covered by their own employer plans. So the 10% are forced to look elsewhere (with help in form of specialist to talk to and cash) to find coverage elsewhere. Some of these 10% (36K give or take) will be paying less, some will be paying roughly the same, and some will be paying more but overall the 361K part time employees will be better off. Oh, and Target did say that they would not cut anyone hours and those interested in more hours should pursue that option.

As you hate to read this change creates some winners at the expense of a few losers. Just like every change. Just like keeping the status quo,

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

Oh, and about Target specifically....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/target-health-care-part-time_n_4641467.html

3rd paragraph, with me removing a few words for accuracy....

"By offering them insurance, we could actually disqualify many of them from being eligible for newly available subsidies that could reduce their overall health insurance expense," Target said.

So in effect, they are doing their part time workers a favor, thanks to how the law is written.

Click to expand...

Explain this?

These PTers were covered through their employer, and now Target is doing them a "favor" by letting them go get their own insurance on the exchanges?

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

matttyl said:

Oh, and about Target specifically....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/target-health-care-part-time_n_4641467.html

3rd paragraph, with me removing a few words for accuracy....

"By offering them insurance, we could actually disqualify many of them from being eligible for newly available subsidies that could reduce their overall health insurance expense," Target said.

So in effect, they are doing their part time workers a favor, thanks to how the law is written.

Click to expand...

Explain this?

These PTers were covered through their employer, and now Target is doing them a "favor" by letting them go get their own insurance on the exchanges?

Click to expand...

Only 10% of the part timers opted for the Target provided coverage. Because the other 90% (or probably some relatively high percentage of that) were eligible for "affordable care" via their employer they were not eligible to have what could have been less expensive coverage after subsidies are factored into the price. They also could face Snogger's wife's situation of being part of the growing trend of dropping from spousal coverage when those spouses can be covered by their own employer plans. So the 10% are forced to look elsewhere (with help in form of specialist to talk to and cash) to find coverage elsewhere. Some of these 10% (36K give or take) will be paying less, some will be paying roughly the same, and some will be paying more but overall the 361K part time employees will be better off. Oh, and Target did say that they would not cut anyone hours and those interested in more hours should pursue that option.

As you hate to read this change creates some winners at the expense of a few losers. Just like every change. Just like keeping the status quo,

Click to expand...

Ok, thanks, that's what I'm just trying to follow: the 10% were paying nothing before? Or they were paying something and Target was just picking up part of the tab?

I love change, but you can change 360 different directions. I have a problem when government, which is supposed to be representing all the people, picks certain losers and lying about it in order to gain support for its plan to do so.

Click to expand...

lod01 said:

Looks like AOL has decided to butt #### their employees and blame it on obamacare: You get no gains on your 401k match for that year. Love the part where you can't leave or you get the double butt #######.

Starting in 2014, AOL will distribute the 50 percent company match on up to 6 percent of employees' pre-tax income in a lump sum after the end of the year, instead of paying the benefit throughout the year as it had done previously. That means workers who leave AOL before Dec. 31 won't get the year's company match at all.

Now how do we know they are just using it as an excuse to butt #### their employees? Because IBM adopted this butt ####### technique years ago.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

lod01 said:

Looks like AOL has decided to butt #### their employees and blame it on obamacare: You get no gains on your 401k match for that year. Love the part where you can't leave or you get the double butt #######.

Starting in 2014, AOL will distribute the 50 percent company match on up to 6 percent of employees' pre-tax income in a lump sum after the end of the year, instead of paying the benefit throughout the year as it had done previously. That means workers who leave AOL before Dec. 31 won't get the year's company match at all.

Now how do we know they are just using it as an excuse to butt #### their employees? Because IBM adopted this butt ####### technique years ago.

Click to expand...

Actually lots of companies have been implementing this idea - kinda like some "golden handcuffs" to keep employees through the year. It's an effort to help reduce turnover.

Click to expand...

lod01 said:

matttyl said:

lod01 said:

Looks like AOL has decided to butt #### their employees and blame it on obamacare: You get no gains on your 401k match for that year. Love the part where you can't leave or you get the double butt #######.

Starting in 2014, AOL will distribute the 50 percent company match on up to 6 percent of employees' pre-tax income in a lump sum after the end of the year, instead of paying the benefit throughout the year as it had done previously. That means workers who leave AOL before Dec. 31 won't get the year's company match at all.

Now how do we know they are just using it as an excuse to butt #### their employees? Because IBM adopted this butt ####### technique years ago.

Click to expand...

Actually lots of companies have been implementing this idea - kinda like some "golden handcuffs" to keep employees through the year. It's an effort to help reduce turnover.

Click to expand...

No it's not. it's an effort to #### over the employee. They can also lay off people in November or December and those people don't get the $ for that year. My cousin works for IBM and was considering leaving and had to calculate whether it was better to forgo the $ and leave before Dec. 31st or take the higher paying gig after the 31st.

Click to expand...