Staples employees latest victims of Obamacare (1 Viewer)

[humpback]

<sigh> Which is the point. The courts would shoot it down, there's no way they wouldn't. Because EO's aren't meant to be used that way. The president isn't going to sign an EO to give everyone a raise only to have that taken away a week later. Do you think George Bush - or any of the Republicans since 1980 - wouldn't have reduced the minimum wage to zero if doing it by EO would have worked? Clinton would have raised it but didn't. Why? Because EO's don't work that way.

Do you really think Obama hasn't considered this?

Adonis?

 

[Bayhawks]

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.

Tell us how Obama can raise the minimum wage for non-federal employees, please. In detail.

Apparently by Executive Order the way it sounds. Who needs Congress?

Nope. EO's can't be used to set the minimum wage for non-federal employees. That's the point. Obama can't set the minimum wage for the country. Literally can't. Or else he would.

He could if he wanted to.

No, he actually can't. Literally can't. Because that's not how EO's work. If you knew anything about the subject you wouldn't have started this thread, so I'm trying to educate you. Executive Orders can't be used to affect the federal minimum wage.

You do not know the difference between literally and figuratively.

I challenged you to tell us how Obama can change the federal minimum wage and you haven't done so - because you can't. The only thing you can do is respond with what you think is a clever dig. It's not. Because Obama literally can't affect the federal minimum wage for non-federal employees using Executive Orders. Show me how he can, in detail, or GTFO. Seriously. Spreading lies and misinformation about the process doesn't help anyone.

Sure he can. At least until the courts shoot it down. There is nothing stopping him from issuing an EO on minimum wage and instructing the Department of Labor to enforce it.

This is an absurd argument.

That's like me saying "I'm allowed to murder anyone I want." There is nothing stopping me from doing so, until the police catch me, arrest me, and I'm convicted of murder.

He can't do it. If he were to do so, it would be shot down by the SC. Therefore he can't do it. It is nonsensical to say "he can do it, until he is stopped from doing it" when it is ABSOLUTELY SURE that he will be stopped from doing it.

 

[jonessed]

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.

Tell us how Obama can raise the minimum wage for non-federal employees, please. In detail.

Apparently by Executive Order the way it sounds. Who needs Congress?

Nope. EO's can't be used to set the minimum wage for non-federal employees. That's the point. Obama can't set the minimum wage for the country. Literally can't. Or else he would.

He could if he wanted to.

No, he actually can't. Literally can't. Because that's not how EO's work. If you knew anything about the subject you wouldn't have started this thread, so I'm trying to educate you. Executive Orders can't be used to affect the federal minimum wage.

You do not know the difference between literally and figuratively.

I challenged you to tell us how Obama can change the federal minimum wage and you haven't done so - because you can't. The only thing you can do is respond with what you think is a clever dig. It's not. Because Obama literally can't affect the federal minimum wage for non-federal employees using Executive Orders. Show me how he can, in detail, or GTFO. Seriously. Spreading lies and misinformation about the process doesn't help anyone.

Sure he can. At least until the courts shoot it down. There is nothing stopping him from issuing an EO on minimum wage and instructing the Department of Labor to enforce it.

<sigh> Which is the point. The courts would shoot it down, there's no way they wouldn't. Because EO's aren't meant to be used that way. The president isn't going to sign an EO to give everyone a raise only to have that taken away a week later. Do you think George Bush - or any of the Republicans since 1980 - wouldn't have reduced the minimum wage to zero if doing it by EO would have worked? Clinton would have raised it but didn't. Why? Because EO's don't work that way.

Do you really think Obama hasn't considered this?

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?

 

[jonessed]

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.

Tell us how Obama can raise the minimum wage for non-federal employees, please. In detail.

Apparently by Executive Order the way it sounds. Who needs Congress?

Nope. EO's can't be used to set the minimum wage for non-federal employees. That's the point. Obama can't set the minimum wage for the country. Literally can't. Or else he would.

He could if he wanted to.

No, he actually can't. Literally can't. Because that's not how EO's work. If you knew anything about the subject you wouldn't have started this thread, so I'm trying to educate you. Executive Orders can't be used to affect the federal minimum wage.

You do not know the difference between literally and figuratively.

I challenged you to tell us how Obama can change the federal minimum wage and you haven't done so - because you can't. The only thing you can do is respond with what you think is a clever dig. It's not. Because Obama literally can't affect the federal minimum wage for non-federal employees using Executive Orders. Show me how he can, in detail, or GTFO. Seriously. Spreading lies and misinformation about the process doesn't help anyone.

Sure he can. At least until the courts shoot it down. There is nothing stopping him from issuing an EO on minimum wage and instructing the Department of Labor to enforce it.

This is an absurd argument.That's like me saying "I'm allowed to murder anyone I want." There is nothing stopping me from doing so, until the police catch me, arrest me, and I'm convicted of murder.

He can't do it. If he were to do so, it would be shot down by the SC. Therefore he can't do it. It is nonsensical to say "he can do it, until he is stopped from doing it" when it is ABSOLUTELY SURE that he will be stopped from doing it.

I find your analogy absurd.

 

[Mr. Cross]

Hasn't Walmart been doing something similar to this for years? Even before Obama and Obamacare.

I guess Staples prices aren't low enough for people to look the other way.

Obama is an uncle tom that has sold out to big business.

 

[KCitons]

Hasn't Walmart been doing something similar to this for years? Even before Obama and Obamacare.

I guess Staples prices aren't low enough for people to look the other way.

Obama is an uncle tom that has sold out to big business.

I just want you to tell me who I should blame. Walmart or one of the Presidents?

 

[Mr. Cross]

Hasn't Walmart been doing something similar to this for years? Even before Obama and Obamacare.

I guess Staples prices aren't low enough for people to look the other way.

Obama is an uncle tom that has sold out to big business.

I just want you to tell me who I should blame. Walmart or one of the Presidents?

Both

 

[matttyl]

Depending on the situation, this might actually be a benefit to the employee - especially this one. Let me explain.....

She claims that she was working ~30 hours a week. Lets assume that she's making $10 an hour. So she's obviously making $300 a week, or $1,200 a month, roughly. Now she also claims to be pregnant and have a family (I'm assuming a husband). It's not unheard of for her cost to have a "family" enrolled on her employer's health plan (in this case Staples) to be a few hundred a month - possibly half of her take home pay. She her real take home pay is $600 a month in this example. After all, Staples would be required by existing law (not ACA) to pay at least 50% of the cost of her coverage, but they are under no obligation to pay anything toward the additional cost to add her husband and child to the plan.

Now, though, at 25 hours a week, she's no longer eligible for that health plan as she's "part time". 25 hours a week, the same $10 an hour from before, she's taking home $250 a week, or $1,000 a month. The difference now is, she may be eligible for subsidized coverage on an exchange (depending on her husband's employer health plan situation, or lack thereof). Lets say her after subsidy cost is $200 a month. Take that off the $1,000 of take home pay, and the after health insurance pay is now $800 a month - which is $200 more a month than it used to be.

So - in summary, she's working less and ending up with more money in her pocket. Another HUGE benefit she now has is the ability to pick the lowest possible deductible available, knowing she's going to have a large claim this year (the delivery of her first child). She could pick a plan with a $500 deductible if she wanted to, and we don't know what deductible she had before which could have been more. Instead of being "stuck" with Aetna (the carrier she had before) and the plan(s) that Staples picked to offer - she now gets to choose her carrier and her product that best fits her needs - separating her employment from her health care, which I thought many people were in favor of.

 

[danielmclark]

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?

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.

 

[humpback]

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?

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.

 

[Bayhawks]

I find your analogy absurd.

Based on your irrational, illogical, nonsensical posts in this thread, that doesn't surprise me.

 

[jonessed]

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?

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.

Seriously. What a waste of time that was.

 

[danielmclark]

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?

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.

Seriously. What a waste of time that was.

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

 

[humpback]

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?

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.

Seriously. What a waste of time that was.

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

Why use logic when we have actual facts?

Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007

 

[17seconds]

When a company skirts through the intent of any law and employees suffer, who do you blame? The company or the law?

Obamacare is the first time I've seen people blame the law.

I don't mean saying the law needs to be adjusted to close a loophole, I mean saying "this is Obama's fault". Never seen that before.

The law pretty clearly created a new problem.

Staples created the employee problem. Of the multitude of business decisions they could have made to deal with a new law, they chose to drop employee work hours.

Notice how the Staples person in the article is petitioning Staples and not the US Government?

Also, they are making an assumption it's completely due to Obamacare. Staples said it was for scheduling flexibility. It's probably for several reasons. Who knows other than Staples

Staples made a business decision based on a poorly written law . They don't make the rules, they simply play by them. If the government is going to incentivize businesses to move to part-time labor that's what they are going to do.

But it was completely Staples' decision. They could have closed an underperforming store, or reduced exec bonuses, or dropped some weaker products from their shelves...

Here's the thing I don't understand about the conservative argument... You'll say businesses make or break themselves. They are the creative ones who drive the economy and move our country forward. Making the right business decisions is what leads to success for everyone and it makes our system so great. The government can never do this, only businesses have the power to do it!

But if they make a decision that hurts workers, it's because of the big bad all-powerful government that controls everything. What? I thought businesses were good at figuring out how to operate within the law.

 

[matttyl]

When a company skirts through the intent of any law and employees suffer, who do you blame? The company or the law?

Obamacare is the first time I've seen people blame the law.

I don't mean saying the law needs to be adjusted to close a loophole, I mean saying "this is Obama's fault". Never seen that before.

The law pretty clearly created a new problem.

Staples created the employee problem. Of the multitude of business decisions they could have made to deal with a new law, they chose to drop employee work hours.

Notice how the Staples person in the article is petitioning Staples and not the US Government?

Also, they are making an assumption it's completely due to Obamacare. Staples said it was for scheduling flexibility. It's probably for several reasons. Who knows other than Staples

Staples made a business decision based on a poorly written law . They don't make the rules, they simply play by them. If the government is going to incentivize businesses to move to part-time labor that's what they are going to do.

But it was completely Staples' decision. They could have closed an underperforming store, or reduced exec bonuses, or dropped some weaker products from their shelves...

Here's the thing I don't understand about the conservative argument... You'll say businesses make or break themselves. They are the creative ones who drive the economy and move our country forward. Making the right business decisions is what leads to success for everyone and it makes our system so great. The government can never do this, only businesses have the power to do it!

But if they make a decision that hurts workers, it's because of the big bad all-powerful government that controls everything. What? I thought businesses were good at figuring out how to operate within the law.

Why do you assume they haven't done that already?

Oh wait, they did....

Staples to close 30 storeshttp://money.cnn.com/2012/09/25/news/companies/staples-store-closings/index.html

So were they "evil" when they eliminated all the jobs at each of these 30 locations in the US in order to cut costs and run more efficiently? Why is this decision any different?

They are competing in a brand new environment as a brick and mortar store. They are now competing with the Amazons and Neweggs of the world, and it's tough to do so when you've got so much overhead. Would you rather they eliminate additional stores and jobs yet again, or simply cut back on the hours of the employees they already have?

 

[matttyl]

Yeah, the last few years haven't been that good for Staples, their stock is nearly half of what it was in early 2010.....

http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/charts?Symbol=US%3aSPLS#{%22zRange%22:%2211%22,%22startDate%22:%222010-2-26%22,%22endDate%22:%222014-1-29%22,%22frequency%22:%22m%22,%22chartStyle%22:%22mountain%22,%22chartCursor%22:%221%22,%22scaleType%22:%220%22,%22yaxisAlign%22:%22right%22,%22mode%22:%22pan%22}

They found a way to reduce their overhead as a company. Lots of other companies will be doing the same.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Whether it's Staples or anyone else, there are really only a few options for a company that is faced with higher taxes (here in the form of increased premiums) such as in this situation:

• pass the cost on to customers via higher prices
• cut back hours from full time to part time status with loss of benefits and overall pay
• fire people
• hire fewer people or halt hiring

Bigger companies can hold off on this and absorb the cost while smaller companies lose business and fold; after that the big companies can consolidate their market and apply the above freely. In some industries like paper/office supply like Staples there really is no room left to maneuver.

 

[DiStefano]

I don't think people or companies go into business with the objective of employing people. They go into business because they believe they have a product or service which they can provide at a profit. In the process of achieving that primary objective, they may well employ people. But it is not the primary objective. Some of the pinkos on this board seem to forget that simple fact.

 

[danielmclark]

Whether it's Staples or anyone else, there are really only a few options for a company that is faced with higher taxes (here in the form of increased premiums) such as in this situation:

• pass the cost on to customers via higher prices
• cut back hours from full time to part time status with loss of benefits and overall pay
• fire people
• hire fewer people or halt hiring

Bigger companies can hold off on this and absorb the cost while smaller companies lose business and fold; after that the big companies can consolidate their market and apply the above freely. In some industries like paper/office supply like Staples there really is no room left to maneuver.

That you - and others - think those are the only options speaks volumes about the state of business in this country. Christ.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Whether it's Staples or anyone else, there are really only a few options for a company that is faced with higher taxes (here in the form of increased premiums) such as in this situation:

• pass the cost on to customers via higher prices
• cut back hours from full time to part time status with loss of benefits and overall pay
• fire people
• hire fewer people or halt hiring

Bigger companies can hold off on this and absorb the cost while smaller companies lose business and fold; after that the big companies can consolidate their market and apply the above freely. In some industries like paper/office supply like Staples there really is no room left to maneuver.

That you - and others - think those are the only options speaks volumes about the state of business in this country. Christ.

Hey I'm willing to be educated.

What's an example of another option?

 

[DiStefano]

Whether it's Staples or anyone else, there are really only a few options for a company that is faced with higher taxes (here in the form of increased premiums) such as in this situation:

• pass the cost on to customers via higher prices
• cut back hours from full time to part time status with loss of benefits and overall pay
• fire people
• hire fewer people or halt hiring

Bigger companies can hold off on this and absorb the cost while smaller companies lose business and fold; after that the big companies can consolidate their market and apply the above freely. In some industries like paper/office supply like Staples there really is no room left to maneuver.

That you - and others - think those are the only options speaks volumes about the state of business in this country. Christ.

Well, you'd better thank the business in this country. Those businesses are what provide the surplus which can go to taxes, education, retirement, medical care, etc. Or did you think the government plucked money from the trees?

 

[jonessed]

When a company skirts through the intent of any law and employees suffer, who do you blame? The company or the law?

Obamacare is the first time I've seen people blame the law.

I don't mean saying the law needs to be adjusted to close a loophole, I mean saying "this is Obama's fault". Never seen that before.

The law pretty clearly created a new problem.

Staples created the employee problem. Of the multitude of business decisions they could have made to deal with a new law, they chose to drop employee work hours.

Notice how the Staples person in the article is petitioning Staples and not the US Government?

Also, they are making an assumption it's completely due to Obamacare. Staples said it was for scheduling flexibility. It's probably for several reasons. Who knows other than Staples

Staples made a business decision based on a poorly written law . They don't make the rules, they simply play by them. If the government is going to incentivize businesses to move to part-time labor that's what they are going to do.

But it was completely Staples' decision. They could have closed an underperforming store, or reduced exec bonuses, or dropped some weaker products from their shelves...

Here's the thing I don't understand about the conservative argument... You'll say businesses make or break themselves. They are the creative ones who drive the economy and move our country forward. Making the right business decisions is what leads to success for everyone and it makes our system so great. The government can never do this, only businesses have the power to do it!

But if they make a decision that hurts workers, it's because of the big bad all-powerful government that controls everything. What? I thought businesses were good at figuring out how to operate within the law.

They may be doing all of those things as a regular part of operations. I don't see what that has to do with changes to healthcare costs though.If labor costs go up due to changes in the law. It makes sense to cut labor costs. Why would they creatively find ways to support the inflated labor costs? That makes no sense. The government gave them an incentive to cut hours, so they cut hours.

 

[17seconds]

When a company skirts through the intent of any law and employees suffer, who do you blame? The company or the law?

Obamacare is the first time I've seen people blame the law.

I don't mean saying the law needs to be adjusted to close a loophole, I mean saying "this is Obama's fault". Never seen that before.

The law pretty clearly created a new problem.

Staples created the employee problem. Of the multitude of business decisions they could have made to deal with a new law, they chose to drop employee work hours.

Notice how the Staples person in the article is petitioning Staples and not the US Government?

Also, they are making an assumption it's completely due to Obamacare. Staples said it was for scheduling flexibility. It's probably for several reasons. Who knows other than Staples

Staples made a business decision based on a poorly written law . They don't make the rules, they simply play by them. If the government is going to incentivize businesses to move to part-time labor that's what they are going to do.

But it was completely Staples' decision. They could have closed an underperforming store, or reduced exec bonuses, or dropped some weaker products from their shelves...

Here's the thing I don't understand about the conservative argument... You'll say businesses make or break themselves. They are the creative ones who drive the economy and move our country forward. Making the right business decisions is what leads to success for everyone and it makes our system so great. The government can never do this, only businesses have the power to do it!

But if they make a decision that hurts workers, it's because of the big bad all-powerful government that controls everything. What? I thought businesses were good at figuring out how to operate within the law.

Why do you assume they haven't done that already?

Oh wait, they did....

Staples to close 30 storeshttp://money.cnn.com/2012/09/25/news/companies/staples-store-closings/index.html

So were they "evil" when they eliminated all the jobs at each of these 30 locations in the US in order to cut costs and run more efficiently? Why is this decision any different?

They are competing in a brand new environment as a brick and mortar store. They are now competing with the Amazons and Neweggs of the world, and it's tough to do so when you've got so much overhead. Would you rather they eliminate additional stores and jobs yet again, or simply cut back on the hours of the employees they already have?

Are you asking me these questions? I have no opinion on Staples' business decisions. I could give a crap that they dropped people to part time. My only point was that it's ridiculous to blame the actions of Staples on a law. Businesses make their own decisions to operate within the law.

This is a conservative argument. The actions of an individual (or business) is the dominant force which determines outcome compared to the environment (or law).

 

[Tchula]

Serves the guy right to have his hours cut. He probably voted for Obama

 

[DiStefano]

When a company skirts through the intent of any law and employees suffer, who do you blame? The company or the law?

Obamacare is the first time I've seen people blame the law.

I don't mean saying the law needs to be adjusted to close a loophole, I mean saying "this is Obama's fault". Never seen that before.

The law pretty clearly created a new problem.

Staples created the employee problem. Of the multitude of business decisions they could have made to deal with a new law, they chose to drop employee work hours.

Notice how the Staples person in the article is petitioning Staples and not the US Government?

Also, they are making an assumption it's completely due to Obamacare. Staples said it was for scheduling flexibility. It's probably for several reasons. Who knows other than Staples

Staples made a business decision based on a poorly written law . They don't make the rules, they simply play by them. If the government is going to incentivize businesses to move to part-time labor that's what they are going to do.

But it was completely Staples' decision. They could have closed an underperforming store, or reduced exec bonuses, or dropped some weaker products from their shelves...

Here's the thing I don't understand about the conservative argument... You'll say businesses make or break themselves. They are the creative ones who drive the economy and move our country forward. Making the right business decisions is what leads to success for everyone and it makes our system so great. The government can never do this, only businesses have the power to do it!

But if they make a decision that hurts workers, it's because of the big bad all-powerful government that controls everything. What? I thought businesses were good at figuring out how to operate within the law.

Why do you assume they haven't done that already?

Oh wait, they did....

Staples to close 30 storeshttp://money.cnn.com/2012/09/25/news/companies/staples-store-closings/index.html

So were they "evil" when they eliminated all the jobs at each of these 30 locations in the US in order to cut costs and run more efficiently? Why is this decision any different?

They are competing in a brand new environment as a brick and mortar store. They are now competing with the Amazons and Neweggs of the world, and it's tough to do so when you've got so much overhead. Would you rather they eliminate additional stores and jobs yet again, or simply cut back on the hours of the employees they already have?

Are you asking me these questions? I have no opinion on Staples' business decisions. My only point was that it's ridiculous to blame the actions of Staples on a law. Businesses make their own decisions to operate within the law.

You haven't got a clue. It is staggering that anyone could be this lacking in intelligence. Why are businesses leaving California and relocating to Nevada or Texas? Because of a law. Why do companies establish subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands? Because of a law. Why are companies automating labor? Because of laws. Why did companies stop using asbestos? Because of laws. Business is constantly having to adapt or change the way they do things because of laws.

 

[17seconds]

When a company skirts through the intent of any law and employees suffer, who do you blame? The company or the law?

Obamacare is the first time I've seen people blame the law.

I don't mean saying the law needs to be adjusted to close a loophole, I mean saying "this is Obama's fault". Never seen that before.

The law pretty clearly created a new problem.

Staples created the employee problem. Of the multitude of business decisions they could have made to deal with a new law, they chose to drop employee work hours.

Notice how the Staples person in the article is petitioning Staples and not the US Government?

Also, they are making an assumption it's completely due to Obamacare. Staples said it was for scheduling flexibility. It's probably for several reasons. Who knows other than Staples

Staples made a business decision based on a poorly written law . They don't make the rules, they simply play by them. If the government is going to incentivize businesses to move to part-time labor that's what they are going to do.

But it was completely Staples' decision. They could have closed an underperforming store, or reduced exec bonuses, or dropped some weaker products from their shelves...

Here's the thing I don't understand about the conservative argument... You'll say businesses make or break themselves. They are the creative ones who drive the economy and move our country forward. Making the right business decisions is what leads to success for everyone and it makes our system so great. The government can never do this, only businesses have the power to do it!

But if they make a decision that hurts workers, it's because of the big bad all-powerful government that controls everything. What? I thought businesses were good at figuring out how to operate within the law.

Why do you assume they haven't done that already?

Oh wait, they did....

Staples to close 30 storeshttp://money.cnn.com/2012/09/25/news/companies/staples-store-closings/index.html

So were they "evil" when they eliminated all the jobs at each of these 30 locations in the US in order to cut costs and run more efficiently? Why is this decision any different?

They are competing in a brand new environment as a brick and mortar store. They are now competing with the Amazons and Neweggs of the world, and it's tough to do so when you've got so much overhead. Would you rather they eliminate additional stores and jobs yet again, or simply cut back on the hours of the employees they already have?

Are you asking me these questions? I have no opinion on Staples' business decisions. My only point was that it's ridiculous to blame the actions of Staples on a law. Businesses make their own decisions to operate within the law.

You haven't got a clue. It is staggering that anyone could be this lacking in intelligence. Why are businesses leaving California and relocating to Nevada or Texas? Because of a law. Why do companies establish subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands? Because of a law. Why are companies automating labor? Because of laws. Why did companies stop using asbestos? Because of laws. Business is constantly having to adapt or change the way they do things because of laws.

uh... that's what I said dude

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Whether it's Staples or anyone else, there are really only a few options for a company that is faced with higher taxes (here in the form of increased premiums) such as in this situation:

• pass the cost on to customers via higher prices
• cut back hours from full time to part time status with loss of benefits and overall pay
• fire people
• hire fewer people or halt hiring

Bigger companies can hold off on this and absorb the cost while smaller companies lose business and fold; after that the big companies can consolidate their market and apply the above freely. In some industries like paper/office supply like Staples there really is no room left to maneuver.

That you - and others - think those are the only options speaks volumes about the state of business in this country. Christ.

Hey I'm willing to be educated.

What's an example of another option?

Anyone else, any other options I'm missing?

 

[DiStefano]

When a company skirts through the intent of any law and employees suffer, who do you blame? The company or the law?

Obamacare is the first time I've seen people blame the law.

I don't mean saying the law needs to be adjusted to close a loophole, I mean saying "this is Obama's fault". Never seen that before.

The law pretty clearly created a new problem.

Staples created the employee problem. Of the multitude of business decisions they could have made to deal with a new law, they chose to drop employee work hours.

Notice how the Staples person in the article is petitioning Staples and not the US Government?

Also, they are making an assumption it's completely due to Obamacare. Staples said it was for scheduling flexibility. It's probably for several reasons. Who knows other than Staples

Staples made a business decision based on a poorly written law . They don't make the rules, they simply play by them. If the government is going to incentivize businesses to move to part-time labor that's what they are going to do.

But it was completely Staples' decision. They could have closed an underperforming store, or reduced exec bonuses, or dropped some weaker products from their shelves...

Here's the thing I don't understand about the conservative argument... You'll say businesses make or break themselves. They are the creative ones who drive the economy and move our country forward. Making the right business decisions is what leads to success for everyone and it makes our system so great. The government can never do this, only businesses have the power to do it!

But if they make a decision that hurts workers, it's because of the big bad all-powerful government that controls everything. What? I thought businesses were good at figuring out how to operate within the law.

Why do you assume they haven't done that already?

Oh wait, they did....

Staples to close 30 storeshttp://money.cnn.com/2012/09/25/news/companies/staples-store-closings/index.html

So were they "evil" when they eliminated all the jobs at each of these 30 locations in the US in order to cut costs and run more efficiently? Why is this decision any different?

They are competing in a brand new environment as a brick and mortar store. They are now competing with the Amazons and Neweggs of the world, and it's tough to do so when you've got so much overhead. Would you rather they eliminate additional stores and jobs yet again, or simply cut back on the hours of the employees they already have?

Are you asking me these questions? I have no opinion on Staples' business decisions. My only point was that it's ridiculous to blame the actions of Staples on a law. Businesses make their own decisions to operate within the law.

You haven't got a clue. It is staggering that anyone could be this lacking in intelligence. Why are businesses leaving California and relocating to Nevada or Texas? Because of a law. Why do companies establish subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands? Because of a law. Why are companies automating labor? Because of laws. Why did companies stop using asbestos? Because of laws. Business is constantly having to adapt or change the way they do things because of laws.

uh... that's what I said dude

No, you didn't, and what is pitiful is that you don't even recognize what you said. You in essence would say that it would be wrong to credit the law for making companies stop using asbestos. But of course the law deserves that credit. And, if you credit the law for making companies do something that you would consider to be positive; then you have to blame the law if they make companies do things which you consider not to be positive.

 

[17seconds]

When a company skirts through the intent of any law and employees suffer, who do you blame? The company or the law?

Obamacare is the first time I've seen people blame the law.

I don't mean saying the law needs to be adjusted to close a loophole, I mean saying "this is Obama's fault". Never seen that before.

The law pretty clearly created a new problem.

Staples created the employee problem. Of the multitude of business decisions they could have made to deal with a new law, they chose to drop employee work hours.

Notice how the Staples person in the article is petitioning Staples and not the US Government?

Also, they are making an assumption it's completely due to Obamacare. Staples said it was for scheduling flexibility. It's probably for several reasons. Who knows other than Staples

Staples made a business decision based on a poorly written law . They don't make the rules, they simply play by them. If the government is going to incentivize businesses to move to part-time labor that's what they are going to do.

But it was completely Staples' decision. They could have closed an underperforming store, or reduced exec bonuses, or dropped some weaker products from their shelves...

Here's the thing I don't understand about the conservative argument... You'll say businesses make or break themselves. They are the creative ones who drive the economy and move our country forward. Making the right business decisions is what leads to success for everyone and it makes our system so great. The government can never do this, only businesses have the power to do it!

But if they make a decision that hurts workers, it's because of the big bad all-powerful government that controls everything. What? I thought businesses were good at figuring out how to operate within the law.

Why do you assume they haven't done that already?

Oh wait, they did....

Staples to close 30 storeshttp://money.cnn.com/2012/09/25/news/companies/staples-store-closings/index.html

So were they "evil" when they eliminated all the jobs at each of these 30 locations in the US in order to cut costs and run more efficiently? Why is this decision any different?

They are competing in a brand new environment as a brick and mortar store. They are now competing with the Amazons and Neweggs of the world, and it's tough to do so when you've got so much overhead. Would you rather they eliminate additional stores and jobs yet again, or simply cut back on the hours of the employees they already have?

Are you asking me these questions? I have no opinion on Staples' business decisions. My only point was that it's ridiculous to blame the actions of Staples on a law. Businesses make their own decisions to operate within the law.

You haven't got a clue. It is staggering that anyone could be this lacking in intelligence. Why are businesses leaving California and relocating to Nevada or Texas? Because of a law. Why do companies establish subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands? Because of a law. Why are companies automating labor? Because of laws. Why did companies stop using asbestos? Because of laws. Business is constantly having to adapt or change the way they do things because of laws.

uh... that's what I said dude

No, you didn't, and what is pitiful is that you don't even recognize what you said. You in essence would say that it would be wrong to credit the law for making companies stop using asbestos. But of course the law deserves that credit. And, if you credit the law for making companies do something that you would consider to be positive; then you have to blame the law if they make companies do things which you consider not to be positive.

What's pathetic is you think every law affects businesses the same way. Why are you bringing up banning asbestos?

The government banning your product completely is not the same as having incremental health care costs

This thread is about Staples' reaction to health care costs.

If you get a paycut at work and can't pay your mortgage, whose fault is that? Your employer's? Who has responsibility for the decision to pay the mortgage or take the hit and move into a smaller house?

 

[DiStefano]

So Staples made the decision to move to a smaller house because they got a paycut, and it is ridiculous to blame their actions on a paycut.

To quote you: "My only point was that it's ridiculous to blame the actions of Staples on a law."

I'm arguing with a third grader.

 

[17seconds]

So Staples made the decision to move to a smaller house because they got a paycut, and it is ridiculous to blame their actions on a paycut.

To quote you: "My only point was that it's ridiculous to blame the actions of Staples on a law."

I'm arguing with a third grader.

You are arguing with someone who believes people and businesses are ultimately responsible when faced with a decision.

Just so you're clear since you don't seem to recognize the difference - that's not the case if the government doesn't give you a decision. Like assassinating you or taking away your business license.

 

[matttyl]

But it was completely Staples' decision. They could have closed an underperforming store, or reduced exec bonuses, or dropped some weaker products from their shelves...

Here's the thing I don't understand about the conservative argument... You'll say businesses make or break themselves. They are the creative ones who drive the economy and move our country forward. Making the right business decisions is what leads to success for everyone and it makes our system so great. The government can never do this, only businesses have the power to do it!

But if they make a decision that hurts workers, it's because of the big bad all-powerful government that controls everything. What? I thought businesses were good at figuring out how to operate within the law.

Why do you assume they haven't done that already?

Oh wait, they did....

Staples to close 30 storeshttp://money.cnn.com/2012/09/25/news/companies/staples-store-closings/index.html

So were they "evil" when they eliminated all the jobs at each of these 30 locations in the US in order to cut costs and run more efficiently? Why is this decision any different?

They are competing in a brand new environment as a brick and mortar store. They are now competing with the Amazons and Neweggs of the world, and it's tough to do so when you've got so much overhead. Would you rather they eliminate additional stores and jobs yet again, or simply cut back on the hours of the employees they already have?

Are you asking me these questions? I have no opinion on Staples' business decisions. I could give a crap that they dropped people to part time. My only point was that it's ridiculous to blame the actions of Staples on a law. Businesses make their own decisions to operate within the law.

This is a conservative argument. The actions of an individual (or business) is the dominant force which determines outcome compared to the environment (or law).

"The law" has (or rather will) greatly increase their costs, in the form of higher insurance premiums. They have to offset those costs in some way. They choose to do so by lowering their overhead expenses by cutting back hours, and thus (because of the law) lowering their insurance costs. So no, it is not "ridiculous" to blame these actions (reduction of hours) on the law, as it's the law that caused them.

In other words, I believe that if the ACA hadn't come online this year and increased their insurance costs, they wouldn't have reduced the hours of these employees. Don't you find it to be a huge coincidence that so many companies are doing the same, and will continue to?

 

[matttyl]

Are you asking me these questions? I have no opinion on Staples' business decisions. My only point was that it's ridiculous to blame the actions of Staples on a law. Businesses make their own decisions to operate within the law.

You haven't got a clue. It is staggering that anyone could be this lacking in intelligence. Why are businesses leaving California and relocating to Nevada or Texas? Because of a law. Why do companies establish subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands? Because of a law. Why are companies automating labor? Because of laws. Why did companies stop using asbestos? Because of laws. Business is constantly having to adapt or change the way they do things because of laws.

uh... that's what I said dude

You also said "My only point was that it's ridiculous to blame the actions of Staples on a law." Again, your "only point". The law came online, and they took action. So why is it "ridiculous" to blame that action on the law?

 

[danielmclark]

Whether it's Staples or anyone else, there are really only a few options for a company that is faced with higher taxes (here in the form of increased premiums) such as in this situation:

• pass the cost on to customers via higher prices
• cut back hours from full time to part time status with loss of benefits and overall pay
• fire people
• hire fewer people or halt hiring

Bigger companies can hold off on this and absorb the cost while smaller companies lose business and fold; after that the big companies can consolidate their market and apply the above freely. In some industries like paper/office supply like Staples there really is no room left to maneuver.

That you - and others - think those are the only options speaks volumes about the state of business in this country. Christ.

Hey I'm willing to be educated.

What's an example of another option?

Anyone else, any other options I'm missing?

If you really think that employee pay/benefits is the only overhead at this or any other business, you know nothing about how businesses work.

There are a hundred ways a business can cut costs or - and pay attention, because this is important - increase their income. Businesses that screw with their employees hours to skirt this new law aren't doing it because they have no other options. These rich, overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly Republican executives don't like Obama and don't like the law, so they're screwing with the employees. That's the bottom line here. It's not the first time, and it sure as hell won't be the last.

 

[matttyl]

Whether it's Staples or anyone else, there are really only a few options for a company that is faced with higher taxes (here in the form of increased premiums) such as in this situation:

• pass the cost on to customers via higher prices
• cut back hours from full time to part time status with loss of benefits and overall pay
• fire people
• hire fewer people or halt hiring

Bigger companies can hold off on this and absorb the cost while smaller companies lose business and fold; after that the big companies can consolidate their market and apply the above freely. In some industries like paper/office supply like Staples there really is no room left to maneuver.

That you - and others - think those are the only options speaks volumes about the state of business in this country. Christ.

Hey I'm willing to be educated.

What's an example of another option?

Anyone else, any other options I'm missing?

If you really think that employee pay/benefits is the only overhead at this or any other business, you know nothing about how businesses work.

There are a hundred ways a business can cut costs or - and pay attention, because this is important - increase their income. Businesses that screw with their employees hours to skirt this new law aren't doing it because they have no other options. These rich, overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly Republican executives don't like Obama and don't like the law, so they're screwing with the employees. That's the bottom line here. It's not the first time, and it sure as hell won't be the last.

Again you're assuming they haven't done those things alread. I think we can assume that an operation the size of Staples is running pretty efficiently already. They wouldn't still be in existence with the likes of Amazon and Newegg and the like if they weren't. We're in a time when you can walk into a Staples, pull out your smartphone and scan the barcode on any item they have on the shelf and see if you can get it for $1 cheaper just down the street, or online.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Whether it's Staples or anyone else, there are really only a few options for a company that is faced with higher taxes (here in the form of increased premiums) such as in this situation:

• pass the cost on to customers via higher prices
• cut back hours from full time to part time status with loss of benefits and overall pay
• fire people
• hire fewer people or halt hiring

Bigger companies can hold off on this and absorb the cost while smaller companies lose business and fold; after that the big companies can consolidate their market and apply the above freely. In some industries like paper/office supply like Staples there really is no room left to maneuver.

That you - and others - think those are the only options speaks volumes about the state of business in this country. Christ.

Hey I'm willing to be educated.

What's an example of another option?

Anyone else, any other options I'm missing?

If you really think that employee pay/benefits is the only overhead at this or any other business, you know nothing about how businesses work.

There are a hundred ways a business can cut costs or - and pay attention, because this is important - increase their income. Businesses that screw with their employees hours to skirt this new law aren't doing it because they have no other options. These rich, overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly Republican executives don't like Obama and don't like the law, so they're screwing with the employees. That's the bottom line here. It's not the first time, and it sure as hell won't be the last.

Wait a second, I said I was willing to be educated, but you did not give an actual example.

You're saying they should cut overhead in some other way? Fixed costs of some kind or variable costs of some kind? So, say electric bills?

Why wouldn't they just automate at this point and just avoid having to pay health insurance altogether? That's another way they could do this.

The part about increasing their income is important, presumably haven't they already done this? No matter what, something has to go.

 

[danielmclark]

Whether it's Staples or anyone else, there are really only a few options for a company that is faced with higher taxes (here in the form of increased premiums) such as in this situation:

• pass the cost on to customers via higher prices
• cut back hours from full time to part time status with loss of benefits and overall pay
• fire people
• hire fewer people or halt hiring

Bigger companies can hold off on this and absorb the cost while smaller companies lose business and fold; after that the big companies can consolidate their market and apply the above freely. In some industries like paper/office supply like Staples there really is no room left to maneuver.

That you - and others - think those are the only options speaks volumes about the state of business in this country. Christ.

Hey I'm willing to be educated.

What's an example of another option?

Anyone else, any other options I'm missing?

If you really think that employee pay/benefits is the only overhead at this or any other business, you know nothing about how businesses work.

There are a hundred ways a business can cut costs or - and pay attention, because this is important - increase their income. Businesses that screw with their employees hours to skirt this new law aren't doing it because they have no other options. These rich, overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly Republican executives don't like Obama and don't like the law, so they're screwing with the employees. That's the bottom line here. It's not the first time, and it sure as hell won't be the last.

Again you're assuming they haven't done those things alread. I think we can assume that an operation the size of Staples is running pretty efficiently already. They wouldn't still be in existence with the likes of Amazon and Newegg and the like if they weren't. We're in a time when you can walk into a Staples, pull out your smartphone and scan the barcode on any item they have on the shelf and see if you can get it for $1 cheaper just down the street, or online.

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.

They could also lease out floor space to a smaller, complimentary company that will increase foot traffic. They can run promotions that encourage visitors - you know what I never hear? An ad campaign that says "You could shop online, or you could come get what you need right now. No waiting." They can move to smaller buildings. Reduce the usage of electricity by swapping out bulbs or dimming lights. They could close an hour earlier or open an hour later, depending on which hour has fewer customers. Sure, that would affect employees' hours, but not to the extent that they'd have to go from full time to part time. They can partner with local groups like Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts to hold events. They could focus on things that Amazon can't provide, like in-store demonstrations and workshops.

If Staples is losing to Amazon it just might be that their business model can't work like it used to and they have to try new things - because I promise you, once they cut the employees hours? If they don't try those new things anyway, they'll be out of business.

But the executives won't suffer, that's guaranteed.

 

[matttyl]

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?

 

[jonessed]

Whether it's Staples or anyone else, there are really only a few options for a company that is faced with higher taxes (here in the form of increased premiums) such as in this situation:

• pass the cost on to customers via higher prices
• cut back hours from full time to part time status with loss of benefits and overall pay
• fire people
• hire fewer people or halt hiring

Bigger companies can hold off on this and absorb the cost while smaller companies lose business and fold; after that the big companies can consolidate their market and apply the above freely. In some industries like paper/office supply like Staples there really is no room left to maneuver.

That you - and others - think those are the only options speaks volumes about the state of business in this country. Christ.

Hey I'm willing to be educated.

What's an example of another option?

Anyone else, any other options I'm missing?

If you really think that employee pay/benefits is the only overhead at this or any other business, you know nothing about how businesses work.

There are a hundred ways a business can cut costs or - and pay attention, because this is important - increase their income. Businesses that screw with their employees hours to skirt this new law aren't doing it because they have no other options. These rich, overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly Republican executives don't like Obama and don't like the law, so they're screwing with the employees. That's the bottom line here. It's not the first time, and it sure as hell won't be the last.

Again you're assuming they haven't done those things alread. I think we can assume that an operation the size of Staples is running pretty efficiently already. They wouldn't still be in existence with the likes of Amazon and Newegg and the like if they weren't. We're in a time when you can walk into a Staples, pull out your smartphone and scan the barcode on any item they have on the shelf and see if you can get it for $1 cheaper just down the street, or online.

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.

They could also lease out floor space to a smaller, complimentary company that will increase foot traffic. They can run promotions that encourage visitors - you know what I never hear? An ad campaign that says "You could shop online, or you could come get what you need right now. No waiting." They can move to smaller buildings. Reduce the usage of electricity by swapping out bulbs or dimming lights. They could close an hour earlier or open an hour later, depending on which hour has fewer customers. Sure, that would affect employees' hours, but not to the extent that they'd have to go from full time to part time. They can partner with local groups like Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts to hold events. They could focus on things that Amazon can't provide, like in-store demonstrations and workshops.

If Staples is losing to Amazon it just might be that their business model can't work like it used to and they have to try new things - because I promise you, once they cut the employees hours? If they don't try those new things anyway, they'll be out of business.

But the executives won't suffer, that's guaranteed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Whether it's Staples or anyone else, there are really only a few options for a company that is faced with higher taxes (here in the form of increased premiums) such as in this situation:

• pass the cost on to customers via higher prices
• cut back hours from full time to part time status with loss of benefits and overall pay
• fire people
• hire fewer people or halt hiring

Bigger companies can hold off on this and absorb the cost while smaller companies lose business and fold; after that the big companies can consolidate their market and apply the above freely. In some industries like paper/office supply like Staples there really is no room left to maneuver.

That you - and others - think those are the only options speaks volumes about the state of business in this country. Christ.

Hey I'm willing to be educated.

What's an example of another option?

Anyone else, any other options I'm missing?

If you really think that employee pay/benefits is the only overhead at this or any other business, you know nothing about how businesses work.

There are a hundred ways a business can cut costs or - and pay attention, because this is important - increase their income. Businesses that screw with their employees hours to skirt this new law aren't doing it because they have no other options. These rich, overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly Republican executives don't like Obama and don't like the law, so they're screwing with the employees. That's the bottom line here. It's not the first time, and it sure as hell won't be the last.

Again you're assuming they haven't done those things alread. I think we can assume that an operation the size of Staples is running pretty efficiently already. They wouldn't still be in existence with the likes of Amazon and Newegg and the like if they weren't. We're in a time when you can walk into a Staples, pull out your smartphone and scan the barcode on any item they have on the shelf and see if you can get it for $1 cheaper just down the street, or online.

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.

They could also lease out floor space to a smaller, complimentary company that will increase foot traffic. They can run promotions that encourage visitors - you know what I never hear? An ad campaign that says "You could shop online, or you could come get what you need right now. No waiting." They can move to smaller buildings. Reduce the usage of electricity by swapping out bulbs or dimming lights. They could close an hour earlier or open an hour later, depending on which hour has fewer customers. Sure, that would affect employees' hours, but not to the extent that they'd have to go from full time to part time. They can partner with local groups like Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts to hold events. They could focus on things that Amazon can't provide, like in-store demonstrations and workshops.

If Staples is losing to Amazon it just might be that their business model can't work like it used to and they have to try new things - because I promise you, once they cut the employees hours? If they don't try those new things anyway, they'll be out of business.

But the executives won't suffer, that's guaranteed.

So, you would add:

• Take it out of executive pay
• Increase revenue with promotion and other sales concepts
• Reduce typical fixed cost overhead like rent and electricity
• Reduce operating hours

Ok, so I was presuming they wouldn't be doing what they're doing unless these weren't feasible or had already been tried.

You really think they haven't tried to maximize their income already using these ideas, I guess, that may or may not be true.

 

[matttyl]

Whether it's Staples or anyone else, there are really only a few options for a company that is faced with higher taxes (here in the form of increased premiums) such as in this situation:

• pass the cost on to customers via higher prices
• cut back hours from full time to part time status with loss of benefits and overall pay
• fire people
• hire fewer people or halt hiring

Bigger companies can hold off on this and absorb the cost while smaller companies lose business and fold; after that the big companies can consolidate their market and apply the above freely. In some industries like paper/office supply like Staples there really is no room left to maneuver.

That you - and others - think those are the only options speaks volumes about the state of business in this country. Christ.

Hey I'm willing to be educated.

What's an example of another option?

Anyone else, any other options I'm missing?

If you really think that employee pay/benefits is the only overhead at this or any other business, you know nothing about how businesses work.

There are a hundred ways a business can cut costs or - and pay attention, because this is important - increase their income. Businesses that screw with their employees hours to skirt this new law aren't doing it because they have no other options. These rich, overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly Republican executives don't like Obama and don't like the law, so they're screwing with the employees. That's the bottom line here. It's not the first time, and it sure as hell won't be the last.

Again you're assuming they haven't done those things alread. I think we can assume that an operation the size of Staples is running pretty efficiently already. They wouldn't still be in existence with the likes of Amazon and Newegg and the like if they weren't. We're in a time when you can walk into a Staples, pull out your smartphone and scan the barcode on any item they have on the shelf and see if you can get it for $1 cheaper just down the street, or online.

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.

They could also lease out floor space to a smaller, complimentary company that will increase foot traffic. They can run promotions that encourage visitors - you know what I never hear? An ad campaign that says "You could shop online, or you could come get what you need right now. No waiting." They can move to smaller buildings. Reduce the usage of electricity by swapping out bulbs or dimming lights. They could close an hour earlier or open an hour later, depending on which hour has fewer customers. Sure, that would affect employees' hours, but not to the extent that they'd have to go from full time to part time. They can partner with local groups like Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts to hold events. They could focus on things that Amazon can't provide, like in-store demonstrations and workshops.

If Staples is losing to Amazon it just might be that their business model can't work like it used to and they have to try new things - because I promise you, once they cut the employees hours? If they don't try those new things anyway, they'll be out of business.

But the executives won't suffer, that's guaranteed.

So instead of cutting employee hours, you want to cut store hours? Got it. Opening an hour later each weekday reduces morning employee hours by 5 hours a week, which is exactly what the story is about - an employee losing 5 hours a week.

You also don't know that Staples hasn't tried those things. My local Staples store has demonstrations all the time now that they are carrying a full line of Apple products, as well as various cell phones and tables. When I stopped in my local store earlier this week, get this, there were in fact Girl Scouts at the front door selling cookies - so they must be taking you up on your idea!

And do you really think all Staples stores are running on older incandescent light bulbs?! Lets swap 5 of them out and save $6.31 a month! That will keep up from cutting back hours!

 

[danielmclark]

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?

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.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hey Dan Clark, I have another question if you don't mind:

When Pres. Obama and the Democrats were formulating the ACA and they drew the line at 30 or more hours for the ACA to have effect, don't you think they considered the possibility that companies (with 50+ employees) would cut full time employees' hours down to part time?

They must have known that, right? Why would they incentivize such actions?

 

[matttyl]

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.

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.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

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.

Wow, that's a lot.

 

[matttyl]

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?

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.

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).

 

[matttyl]

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.

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.

Wow, that's a lot.

Exactly. The arguments that continue to be brought to the table - maybe they should close shops....they did that already - maybe the executives should take a pay-cut.....they did that already. They just throw out ideas of things that have already happened, meaning they obviously haven't looked into the issue at all before they type.

 

[danielmclark]

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.

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.

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.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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?

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.

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).

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.