Whole Foods Will Cut Health-Care Benefits for Nearly 2k Employees(grubstreet.com)
grubstreet.com
Whole Foods Will Cut Health-Care Benefits for Nearly 2k Employees
http://www.grubstreet.com/2019/09/whole-foods-cuts-health-care-part-time-employees.html
178 comments
'As for the affected employees, they will be provided “with resources to find alternative healthcare coverage options, or to explore full-time, healthcare-eligible positions starting at 30 hours per week,” the representative added'
If those resources are not money, then the employee is really out of luck as they likely will not be able to afford whatever those alternatives are. In addition, there is no way you can take a bunch of people that work 20 hours per week and let them work 30, no need for that many scheduled hours, just fancy corporate communications.
Amazon has the right to do whatever they want to increase Shareholder value; however, shareholder value is the root of the modern trend of devaluing people and treating them as line items in an expense report. Many of these people likely have this job primarily for the health insurance it provides.
I think it is time for the US to switch to a universal healthcare system. Removing the responsibility of corporations to manage health care would free up a large amount of resources they could invest in expansions, wage increases (likely c-suite bonuses). In addition it would allow individuals, especially working parents to more freely make employment decisions and find careers that are both financially but also emotionally rewarding. I think it would have a major impact on the working structure of this country. Not to mention it would allow people to actually go to the doctor when they need to.
If those resources are not money, then the employee is really out of luck as they likely will not be able to afford whatever those alternatives are. In addition, there is no way you can take a bunch of people that work 20 hours per week and let them work 30, no need for that many scheduled hours, just fancy corporate communications.
Amazon has the right to do whatever they want to increase Shareholder value; however, shareholder value is the root of the modern trend of devaluing people and treating them as line items in an expense report. Many of these people likely have this job primarily for the health insurance it provides.
I think it is time for the US to switch to a universal healthcare system. Removing the responsibility of corporations to manage health care would free up a large amount of resources they could invest in expansions, wage increases (likely c-suite bonuses). In addition it would allow individuals, especially working parents to more freely make employment decisions and find careers that are both financially but also emotionally rewarding. I think it would have a major impact on the working structure of this country. Not to mention it would allow people to actually go to the doctor when they need to.
If you have a family, my rough experience is that a good, medium deductible, decent percentage coverage healthcare plan is about $400-500/month if it's employer subsidized. But anywhere from $1300 to $2k+/month if it isn't.
It's a pretty terrible market out there if you don't have an employer subsidizing it and using their size for negotiation leverage.
It's a pretty terrible market out there if you don't have an employer subsidizing it and using their size for negotiation leverage.
I agree. My wife's company offers better insurance than mine so I had always been on hers and declined the insurance offered by my company. Her company just implemented a policy stating that if the spouse is eligible for insurance through their own employer there would be a $200 per month surcharge for them electing to use her companies. I understand where her company is coming from but I think we as a nation (US) can do better.
>but I think we as a nation (US) can do better.
No, we can't. If we could, we would. Things are like this because we want them to be like this: it's reflected in how we vote. We've had candidates pushing for "Medicare for all", universal healthcare, etc., and who gets elected? The candidates promising to go the other direction. Clearly, American society and its voters do not want this.
No, we can't. If we could, we would. Things are like this because we want them to be like this: it's reflected in how we vote. We've had candidates pushing for "Medicare for all", universal healthcare, etc., and who gets elected? The candidates promising to go the other direction. Clearly, American society and its voters do not want this.
People evolve. So do their opinions and beliefs.
Just because Universal Healthcare didn't catch on the first time doesn't mean it's dead forever.
It'll happen eventually. Maybe in 4 years, maybe in 40.
Just because Universal Healthcare didn't catch on the first time doesn't mean it's dead forever.
It'll happen eventually. Maybe in 4 years, maybe in 40.
Maybe you're willing to wait 40 years for people to evolve, but I'm not. There's better places to live.
briandear(8)
This is one of the main pain points of health insurance policies in the US that makes it nearly impossible to see if you're getting true value. A monthly premium, a copay per visit, a deductible, co-insurance/cost share and out of pocket maximums. Then factor in potential fees from an employer.
All of that aside, it's impossible to know how much you're actually going to visit the doctor aside from chronic ailments.
All of that aside, it's impossible to know how much you're actually going to visit the doctor aside from chronic ailments.
"declined the insurance offered by my company."
don't know how it is in the US, so this may look uninformed, but are you getting extra $$$ added to your salary, equivalent to what the employer was paying for the insurance?
don't know how it is in the US, so this may look uninformed, but are you getting extra $$$ added to your salary, equivalent to what the employer was paying for the insurance?
Not typically, but it's possible that someone might be able to negotiate this with their bosses.
Typically people opt out of company insurance because of one of the following reasons: It's cheaper for them to find services through the marketplace (extremely uncommon, but possible), They have superior insurance through a spouse or family member, they feel that the insurance they're provided with isn't sufficient and they would prefer to purchase better insurance themselves.
Typically people opt out of company insurance because of one of the following reasons: It's cheaper for them to find services through the marketplace (extremely uncommon, but possible), They have superior insurance through a spouse or family member, they feel that the insurance they're provided with isn't sufficient and they would prefer to purchase better insurance themselves.
No, I don't get the difference. The company keeps what it would pay towards my insurance but I don't have anything deducted from my check for what would be my share of the insurance either.
Edit: My wife though pays more for her company insurance as they would need to insure me as well.
Edit: My wife though pays more for her company insurance as they would need to insure me as well.
It's not the norm, but I was once offered a job where if I declined health insurance they'd pay me the difference - it was a 4 person company.
The USA spends more than double the OECD average(1) in 2014, but is 28th in the world in OECD life expectancy(2) in 2016.
Personal commentary:
As someone from New Zealand, who moved to Canada, I still don't understand why people would want the responsibility of their employer and themselves to choose what health coverage they want in life, especially when employment tenure can be upended so easily.
Yes I know, USA has funky research and new drugs and whatever, but as a whole, it doesn't seem like a particularly efficient system. So if it's not efficient, what's its objective? For me it sounds like prioritising medical providers to extract the maximum amount of revenue from captive customers, in a scheme where all the prices are similar so it's not a monopoly, but none of them are cheap, so it's nearly like a cartel.
Citations: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...
Personal commentary:
As someone from New Zealand, who moved to Canada, I still don't understand why people would want the responsibility of their employer and themselves to choose what health coverage they want in life, especially when employment tenure can be upended so easily.
Yes I know, USA has funky research and new drugs and whatever, but as a whole, it doesn't seem like a particularly efficient system. So if it's not efficient, what's its objective? For me it sounds like prioritising medical providers to extract the maximum amount of revenue from captive customers, in a scheme where all the prices are similar so it's not a monopoly, but none of them are cheap, so it's nearly like a cartel.
Citations: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...
If you don't buy into the price rationing argument (I don't) then there is no objective other than enriching the incumbents, it's simply a legacy system. Incremental changes around the margins excepted nothing's going to change until something drastic upsets the apple cart.
It isn’t the employers size as much as it is the group plan risk pool. Employees are better risks than people who have to resort to individual pans. Also, employers don’t pay taxes on what they spend on health insurance, individuals do.
But also that's _if_ you can find coverage. The markets are so screwed up in some states that it's a nightmare of trying to find something you can actually get.
Yes, here in Seattle the cheapest plan on the Obamacare market is $14K/year with a $15K deductible for a family. However low income families can qualify for subsidies.
Sounds like a good reason to not have a family. Seriously: people should stop doing that until our leaders can make our society so that having kids isn't such a burden. If this means society dies out, then we're getting what we deserve, since we choose these leaders.
Absolutely agree. The idea that competition will drive up wages rests on the assumption of a labor market with enough liquidity for employees to jump freely between roles. I do not understand the purpose of pinning health care to employers beyond giving them greater leverage over employees.
It is a huge shock for those that haven't been on both sides of employer paying half (or more). But I still agree with you - but we shouldn't be paying THAT much for health care. Right now (under an employee plan) I'm paying about $200 per month (me + wife). When I was on my own I was paying something like $400 for the two of us. That was 5 years ago, looking at the same plans available now, it's no less than $550.
Health insurance is one of the strangest insurances - a single month costs more than a year or often at least 6 months of car insurance.
Honestly I wish someone would just be a whistleblower and reveal the profits and operating costs (claims) of an "expensive year" at a health insurance company. The government would likely have a price collusion case.
Health insurance is one of the strangest insurances - a single month costs more than a year or often at least 6 months of car insurance.
Honestly I wish someone would just be a whistleblower and reveal the profits and operating costs (claims) of an "expensive year" at a health insurance company. The government would likely have a price collusion case.
I love how “employer paying half” of a so-called benefit has become the norm. I’m old enough to remember when health insurance was an actual full benefit that you didn’t have to pay for at all. It never even showed up on your paystub. No payroll deduction, no or low deductible, sometimes even no copay. You go to the doctor and walk out.
Now we’re paying from our paychecks, then paying again at the doctor, then getting billed, then waiting for the EOB from insurance, then taking hours a month to manually match up the EOBs with the bills to verify who to pay and how much. And then, MAYBE by the end of the year you reach your deductible and insurance starts actually paying.
They call this a benefit??
Now we’re paying from our paychecks, then paying again at the doctor, then getting billed, then waiting for the EOB from insurance, then taking hours a month to manually match up the EOBs with the bills to verify who to pay and how much. And then, MAYBE by the end of the year you reach your deductible and insurance starts actually paying.
They call this a benefit??
"Amazon has the right to do whatever they want to increase Shareholder value"
No they don't, they still have to follow relevant laws.
You have a point about universal healthcare, there's a few other things that could help in this situation though. In the EU I believe this would fall foul of anti discrimination laws (this affects only part time workers, part time works are more likely to be women). There are also protections against an employer unilaterally lowering peoples compensation.
No they don't, they still have to follow relevant laws.
You have a point about universal healthcare, there's a few other things that could help in this situation though. In the EU I believe this would fall foul of anti discrimination laws (this affects only part time workers, part time works are more likely to be women). There are also protections against an employer unilaterally lowering peoples compensation.
This is the vision of the ACA coming to fruition.
These employees are now put into the ACA exchanges. They can shop for insurance there, and their premiums are capped at a certain percentage of their income. The feds cover the difference. Now these employees don't have to rely on their employer for health insurance.
This was the dream of the ACA. Employers would get out of the insurance game and send their employees into the exchanges. It didn't work it out that way in reality, but this is what that looks like.
These employees are now put into the ACA exchanges. They can shop for insurance there, and their premiums are capped at a certain percentage of their income. The feds cover the difference. Now these employees don't have to rely on their employer for health insurance.
This was the dream of the ACA. Employers would get out of the insurance game and send their employees into the exchanges. It didn't work it out that way in reality, but this is what that looks like.
> shareholder value is the root of the modern trend of devaluing people and treating them as line items in an expense report.
Private companies also use accounting and sometimes do not look out for their employees.
This isn't to nitpick, I just think there are other parts of the problem, not just shareholder value.
Although, yes, there might be additional pressure from shareholders when a company's finances are public, I don't see how it could be the root of the problem when the same thing happens in private businesses.
Private companies also use accounting and sometimes do not look out for their employees.
This isn't to nitpick, I just think there are other parts of the problem, not just shareholder value.
Although, yes, there might be additional pressure from shareholders when a company's finances are public, I don't see how it could be the root of the problem when the same thing happens in private businesses.
> Removing the responsibility of corporations to manage health care would free up a large amount of resources they could invest in expansions, wage increases..
Why are wages in Europe lower than the US, even after adjusted for health insurance expenses? Americans have far more disposable cash than Europe even when health insurance is considered. Why is that?
Why are wages in Europe lower than the US, even after adjusted for health insurance expenses? Americans have far more disposable cash than Europe even when health insurance is considered. Why is that?
There's also the retirement that are funded through taxes on salaries and all the social safety nets and the public transportation networks
Would it be fair to say, "Amazon Will Cut Health-Care Benefits for Nearly 2k Employees Of Whole Foods Division"?
Absolutely. The headline does Amazon a favor by distancing corporate greed from their actual brand. E.g. this brutality would make me think twice about working as a SWE there.
It would be if you think this message is geared towards only the current set of part-timers who work between 20 and 30 hours a week. In fact, this is a very, very clear message to store leadership to stop scheduling ANY part timers for more than 30 hours a week.
[deleted]
givinguflac(2)
My brother in law works at Taco Bell and faces a similar problem. He works between 15-25 hours a week at a franchise, and apparently he needs at least 30 hours consistently to be eligible for insurance. He has asked multiple times to have his hours increased, but they have repeatedly denied him. He can't afford to pay for a plan (which start at around $400/month in NYC), and since he got his green card only two years ago, he can't apply for any kind of government assistance on this.
The really frustrating part of this also comes with the fact that he's trying to get his GED to hopefully get a higher-paying job with benefits, but the GED exam apparently requires that you have coverage.
The really frustrating part of this also comes with the fact that he's trying to get his GED to hopefully get a higher-paying job with benefits, but the GED exam apparently requires that you have coverage.
The GED requires that you have health insurance to take it? I looked around for more information about this, but I can't seem to find anything. Do you have more information?
I took my GED back in 2009 and I don't remember having to supply any information about whether I was insured.
I took my GED back in 2009 and I don't remember having to supply any information about whether I was insured.
I think it might vary between states. In this case, it's NY.
I can ask him tonight for clarification.
I can ask him tonight for clarification.
Health insurance really needs to be disconnected from employment. The fact alone that this article was written is already ridiculous.
Started back in WW2 when the government restricted the ability for employers to offer higher salaries, so employers offered additional compensation to employees outside of salary. That coupled with today's tax incentives have made it stick.
I know that history. But it’s time to change something that made sense a long time ago but now is distorting the whole employment market, costs a lot of money and causes a lot of suffering.
curiousgal(4)
This is covered very well in the book "America's Bitter Pill"
This is the core problem in the United States. The second is increased housing costs in many locations leading to renting vs ownership in many cases (this is easier fought currently by moving).
The two attributes together tie most people into some degree of modern indentured servitude for the very wealthy--there just happen to be many layers in between people and the extremely wealthy trying to obscure that fact.
Yes, there is a degree of freedom of choice but employment policies converge to benefit employers across industry so the choice is between an red and yellow apple.
The two attributes together tie most people into some degree of modern indentured servitude for the very wealthy--there just happen to be many layers in between people and the extremely wealthy trying to obscure that fact.
Yes, there is a degree of freedom of choice but employment policies converge to benefit employers across industry so the choice is between an red and yellow apple.
As an outsider I think other core problems of the US are corporate capture of the legislative process and gerrymandering pushing candidates to extreme positions.
Extreme positions are just the reality of 2019 culture. I was reading a Twitter war about whether or not a professional Hearthstone player was paying enough attention to the game during one of his matches. It was a sea of hate-filled vitriol from both sides. Reading it, I was honestly a little sick to my stomach seeing what social media has become.
If we're going to get that upset over a children's card game, it follows that we're going to get upset over things that actually matter.
If we're going to get that upset over a children's card game, it follows that we're going to get upset over things that actually matter.
I think how systems are setup does matter though.
For example if you are running for a congressional seat which is 50% republican voters and 50% democrats I would imagine that being a moderate centrist is probably a relatively good strategy.
If the seat is 80% one side then probably you want to be much more extreme in that direction because what the other 20% thinks doesn't matter so much.
However I agree, the internet was meant to make us all open minded and tolerant and yet has had the opposite impact.
For example if you are running for a congressional seat which is 50% republican voters and 50% democrats I would imagine that being a moderate centrist is probably a relatively good strategy.
If the seat is 80% one side then probably you want to be much more extreme in that direction because what the other 20% thinks doesn't matter so much.
However I agree, the internet was meant to make us all open minded and tolerant and yet has had the opposite impact.
Are you talking about NYC?
That seems like a very narrow view point. We have so much freedom in the US, but many people put blinders on then insist their somehow slaves.
You can buy a house in Tennessee for less than one years rent of a studio apartment in NYC. But you don't want to live there? That makes you a slave to your own desires.
That seems like a very narrow view point. We have so much freedom in the US, but many people put blinders on then insist their somehow slaves.
You can buy a house in Tennessee for less than one years rent of a studio apartment in NYC. But you don't want to live there? That makes you a slave to your own desires.
plenty of countries have more "freedom"
https://freedomhouse.org/report/countries-world-freedom-2019...
[deleted]
Agree 100%, if just to stop that element of job anxiety alone. Lose your job, lose your coverage (unless you want to get plowed on COBRA) is a high-risk way to operate.
In the UK we have the NHS and it is so great. There's waiting lists but basically you never worry about healthcare, it's always there when you need it and it's all (pretty much) free at the point of use. It's almost certainly the best thing we've got.
Sound like the NHS has some work to do on cancer treatment though: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/13/britains-dire-ca...
I imagine if the story is credible, the issues wouldn't just be with cancer treatment.
I imagine if the story is credible, the issues wouldn't just be with cancer treatment.
It's almost certainly the best thing we've got.
It’s sort of the national religion that the NHS is “the envy of the world” but it’s really only the envy of the US. Ask any French or German or Egyptian if they are envious of it...
It’s sort of the national religion that the NHS is “the envy of the world” but it’s really only the envy of the US. Ask any French or German or Egyptian if they are envious of it...
> It’s sort of the national religion that the NHS is “the envy of the world” but it’s really only the envy of the US
I am from Mexico and I envy the NHS. I have had the necessity of using the Health system in NHS, IMSS (Mexico) and Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung (Germany), and from the 3 of them, I will choose the NHS with my eyes closed.
I am from Mexico and I envy the NHS. I have had the necessity of using the Health system in NHS, IMSS (Mexico) and Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung (Germany), and from the 3 of them, I will choose the NHS with my eyes closed.
We should probably have something like the an optional "free" government run facility for nose bleeds, sprained ankles, and Viagra prescriptions in the US, but I'll keep my privately funded health care for real problems, thanks.
I don't even see the UK on these lists.
CT Scanners: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266539/distribution-of-e...
MRI Machines: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282401/density-of-magnet...
Perhaps the UK should be on the list, but somewhere near the bottom:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2672902/Deadly-shor...
I don't even see the UK on these lists.
CT Scanners: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266539/distribution-of-e...
MRI Machines: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282401/density-of-magnet...
Perhaps the UK should be on the list, but somewhere near the bottom:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2672902/Deadly-shor...
Did you not notice the bit where the top two countries on the CT scanner list have "free" government run facilities?
I wouldn't recommend quoting the dailymail for anything of any use beyond a laugh. They have a deadly shortage of journalism.
Haha, seriously, that's your argument?
Granted it's from 2014, but are you disputing the following facts as reported then?
"The report shows the UK has only 5.9 MRI units per million people, less than half the OECD average of 13.3."
"On CT scanners we are 30th out of 32 countries, in front of only Hungary and Mexico. The numbers concern only NHS scanners."
The source is irrelevant.
Granted it's from 2014, but are you disputing the following facts as reported then?
"The report shows the UK has only 5.9 MRI units per million people, less than half the OECD average of 13.3."
"On CT scanners we are 30th out of 32 countries, in front of only Hungary and Mexico. The numbers concern only NHS scanners."
The source is irrelevant.
Yes, because machine number doesn't correlate to machine availability. US wait times are often worse than UK wait times for healthcare[0]. Also, would I actually trust facts reported by the dailymail, known for being inaccurate and misleading, especially in matters of science or health?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/25/gp-appointme...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/25/gp-appointme...
The question is how many scanners do you really need? The US has a lot of them for profit reasons not necessarily for health reasons.
"The US has a lot of them for profit reasons not necessarily for health reasons."
You seem to suggest that having the availability of life saving equipment is BAD if a profit is being made, but a lack of life saving equipment is GOOD if no profit is being made.
You seem to suggest that having the availability of life saving equipment is BAD if a profit is being made, but a lack of life saving equipment is GOOD if no profit is being made.
Iatrogenics is a thing
I am not suggesting that.
It should be disconnected from _employer_. Whether it’s disconnected from _employment_ is a different question. Some countries cover everyone regardless of employment status, others depend on employment status but isn’t tied to a particular employer. Obviously one is preferred over the other but both are better than health tied to a particular employer.
Really just an excuse to not have any insurance. "Oh, but what about the stress on employers" copout. We all pay for someone if they have a medical emergency, it's a matter of being a citizen, and you know, alive.
As a Canadian, this aspect of the United States health care "system" (if you can call it that) has always baffled me: for a country that blasts its love of capitalism to the whole world, and emphasizes its past revolutionary actions against the old world of aristocrats and monarchs -- this is a glaringly _feudal_ model of health care delivery.
Having employees depend on their lord^H^H^H^Hemployer for their very physical existence... how medieval.
Having employees depend on their lord^H^H^H^Hemployer for their very physical existence... how medieval.
I agree with you, but how do you address the counterargument that financing health care requires pooling funds at some level, and a company is a logical place to do that seeing as how they have an interest in having everyone come to work on time?
> and a company is a logical place to do that
This has several unintended consequences:
1) People stay in jobs they hate just for the insurance. This harms both the company and the individual.
2) It reduces entrepreneurship. In Canada if I want to start my own company, I don't have to worry about losing health insurance.
3) Children don't work (yet I guess) and old people don't work, so you need other systems to cover them, or just not cover them at all.
This has several unintended consequences:
1) People stay in jobs they hate just for the insurance. This harms both the company and the individual.
2) It reduces entrepreneurship. In Canada if I want to start my own company, I don't have to worry about losing health insurance.
3) Children don't work (yet I guess) and old people don't work, so you need other systems to cover them, or just not cover them at all.
> 2) It reduces entrepreneurship. In Canada if I want to start my own company, I don't have to worry about losing health insurance.
Are there any groups that offer health insurance (at a cost) with membership? Ex: IEEE, entrepreneurial groups, etc.
Are there any groups that offer health insurance (at a cost) with membership? Ex: IEEE, entrepreneurial groups, etc.
Sure, i guess, but you have to still pay for it.
I don't have to pay anything for my health coverage.
And before you say, I do through taxes, my tax rate can be pretty low if I have minimal income, which is often the case when starting a new business.
I don't have to pay anything for my health coverage.
And before you say, I do through taxes, my tax rate can be pretty low if I have minimal income, which is often the case when starting a new business.
I was honestly just curious if there were. I totally agree that health coverage is a major issue for entrepreneurs.
It certainly does exist. It even exists in Canada for extended coverage like dental and vision.
Now why dental is not part of medical coverage is beyond me, but that's another topic.
Now why dental is not part of medical coverage is beyond me, but that's another topic.
By replying with "workers are human beings and there is no moral reason to allow paperclip-maximizers to have that literally-death grip on the means of their production," generally.
Tying health care to employment is a formative cause of wage slavery. It should not stand--and that's before you even get to the economic inefficiency of the health care market itself.
Tying health care to employment is a formative cause of wage slavery. It should not stand--and that's before you even get to the economic inefficiency of the health care market itself.
How about “a country is a logical place to do that seeing as how they have an interest in having everyone access to health care and a dignified life”
If you had to design a system from scratch now there is no way you would come up with employer based health insurance. It’s a stupid system. Bad for citizens and bad for employers.
If you had to design a system from scratch now there is no way you would come up with employer based health insurance. It’s a stupid system. Bad for citizens and bad for employers.
The government is a more logical way to pool. The enrollment pool coincides perfectly with administrative boundaries so the system becomes simpler to administer. There is a single payer per nation or state (depending on the level of government used as pool).
[deleted]
I totally agree, but unfortunately, the very origins of that issue lies squarely in the very cause for why these types of things cannot be solved, because the authoritarian paternalistic types who think they helping just keep making the Gordian Knot bigger and more convoluted instead.
You are looking at it wrong (to be direct). You can get all the health insurance disconnected from employment you want just like any other self-employed and independently affluent people get. It's there, freely available to you. No one is stopping you. Ironically, you can even get that insurance when you are employed, even though you will literally pay a massive penalty for being employed by doing so in the form of the unrealized and hidden cost of the un-utilized employer contribution to the health care cost, which you would then have to pay out of pocket on top of that. (tip, if you want to decouple health insurance from employers, go for the tax advantages of providing health insurance plans ... which touches on the origins of this damn mess caused by the do-gooders fools that demanded employers provide health care in the past).
The real problem is a perception issue that people do not understand the true nature and cost of health insurance/care which also leads them to not understand that their employer puts up many times more in health insurance costs than the premiums the employee pays every month. The problem is a perception problem, and a health care cost problem at its core, and the employment dependency issue is really just a secondary issue that is utterly meaningless.
What does it matter whether you could sever and ban employers from even offering health insurance under a glorious socialist authoritarian regime while racing towards communist demise? Does it matter whether you pay $200 and your employer pays another $700 every month in premiums, or instead your employer simply just adds another $700 to your paycheck per month and you pay the full $900 for health insurance every month out of pocket? All other things being equal, I argue it's the same thing, because math.
Reality is that it's a cost issue that directly is derived from a corruption issue. For example, before the government committed fraud, aka, stole, and handed the health sector (insurance and care) trillions of dollars in profits through the ACA, aka Obamacare, (do not believe me, confirm it yourself if it makes you uncomfortable that I am questioning your messiah Obama, just look at the health sector stock market pre and post ACA [1]), which is one of the sources of corruption that has driven the cost of health care up from (single person example) ~$100/$500 employee/employer split cost for health insurance before ACA to ~$200/$700 post ACA.
The other corruption that has been driving up health care costs and therefore defrauding people is (which his true, regardless of whether one is able to accept it or not) due to the millions of "immigrants" both "legal" and illegal, that have been transported into the USA to defraud the American citizens that are part of the 99%, which put massive amounts of load on the health system with ailments, diseases, and conditions; many of which were essentially unknown and/or eradicated in the whole of the western world before just a few years ago.[2 (which is not quite the full extent but a thread that can be pulled on if one wants] When citizens who are being financially enslaved to pay for the health care of millions of "immigrants" from the third world with degenerative diseases and conditions, it is going to cost and that cost will always be and it is going to cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions per individual. And no, that is not an exaggeration. The information can be relatively easily uncovered even though I do not have the ability to pull it up right now for citation.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/07/28/overwh...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/how-am...
You are looking at it wrong (to be direct). You can get all the health insurance disconnected from employment you want just like any other self-employed and independently affluent people get. It's there, freely available to you. No one is stopping you. Ironically, you can even get that insurance when you are employed, even though you will literally pay a massive penalty for being employed by doing so in the form of the unrealized and hidden cost of the un-utilized employer contribution to the health care cost, which you would then have to pay out of pocket on top of that. (tip, if you want to decouple health insurance from employers, go for the tax advantages of providing health insurance plans ... which touches on the origins of this damn mess caused by the do-gooders fools that demanded employers provide health care in the past).
The real problem is a perception issue that people do not understand the true nature and cost of health insurance/care which also leads them to not understand that their employer puts up many times more in health insurance costs than the premiums the employee pays every month. The problem is a perception problem, and a health care cost problem at its core, and the employment dependency issue is really just a secondary issue that is utterly meaningless.
What does it matter whether you could sever and ban employers from even offering health insurance under a glorious socialist authoritarian regime while racing towards communist demise? Does it matter whether you pay $200 and your employer pays another $700 every month in premiums, or instead your employer simply just adds another $700 to your paycheck per month and you pay the full $900 for health insurance every month out of pocket? All other things being equal, I argue it's the same thing, because math.
Reality is that it's a cost issue that directly is derived from a corruption issue. For example, before the government committed fraud, aka, stole, and handed the health sector (insurance and care) trillions of dollars in profits through the ACA, aka Obamacare, (do not believe me, confirm it yourself if it makes you uncomfortable that I am questioning your messiah Obama, just look at the health sector stock market pre and post ACA [1]), which is one of the sources of corruption that has driven the cost of health care up from (single person example) ~$100/$500 employee/employer split cost for health insurance before ACA to ~$200/$700 post ACA.
The other corruption that has been driving up health care costs and therefore defrauding people is (which his true, regardless of whether one is able to accept it or not) due to the millions of "immigrants" both "legal" and illegal, that have been transported into the USA to defraud the American citizens that are part of the 99%, which put massive amounts of load on the health system with ailments, diseases, and conditions; many of which were essentially unknown and/or eradicated in the whole of the western world before just a few years ago.[2 (which is not quite the full extent but a thread that can be pulled on if one wants] When citizens who are being financially enslaved to pay for the health care of millions of "immigrants" from the third world with degenerative diseases and conditions, it is going to cost and that cost will always be and it is going to cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions per individual. And no, that is not an exaggeration. The information can be relatively easily uncovered even though I do not have the ability to pull it up right now for citation.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/07/28/overwh...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/how-am...
What are you trying to say?
For those who might not read the article, the key here is that they're increasing the minimum hours/week required for the benefit to 30 (from 20). The article suggests they will help those impacted to transition to the longer work week, although that's certainly not an option for everyone.
While technically correct, this assertion has quite the positive Amazon spin on it. They are required by federal law to provide health insurance to employees who work 30 hours or more.
It's also unlikely that many will be offered the 30 hours. It's not like AMZN wants to pay for 20,000 additional hours per week.
Not only do they not have an incentive to extend the 20-hour folks to 30-hours schedules, they now have a very strong incentive to decrease their current 30+ hour part-timers to 29 hour schedules per week.
When my wife worked retail, this was the standard. Nobody worked more than 29 hours a week. They had people begging for more hours but when the company needed more hours worked, they hired someone new rather than assign any one person more than 29. AFAIK nearly all of retail does this now. If the limit for requiring insurance was 20, they’d cut everyone’s hours to 19 and hire more.
Put another way, they’re giving their part time workers a massive pay cut.
The best description of the specifics here I've seen came from reddit:
> Leadership has been told that all PT TMs will not be able to work more than 19hrs a week and that even those originally grandfathered from this restriction are now included in this new policy. Additionally, “difficult discussions” would have to take place with these TMs. PBS even sent out a list of all PT TMs in the store that fall into this category. It sounds like a lot of misinformation is circulating throughout the stores and company. Hopefully it will all be sorted out and PT TMs will be able to work up to 29hr weeks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/wholefoods/comments/d3r04k/amazons_...
> Leadership has been told that all PT TMs will not be able to work more than 19hrs a week and that even those originally grandfathered from this restriction are now included in this new policy. Additionally, “difficult discussions” would have to take place with these TMs. PBS even sent out a list of all PT TMs in the store that fall into this category. It sounds like a lot of misinformation is circulating throughout the stores and company. Hopefully it will all be sorted out and PT TMs will be able to work up to 29hr weeks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/wholefoods/comments/d3r04k/amazons_...
Let's recognize that the headline should read:
Amazon Will Cut Health-Care Benefits for Nearly 2k Whole Foods Employees
I am guessing that due to the food perspective of the blog they focused on the Whole Foods aspect of the story, but this is clearly a dystopian corporation story, not a grocer story.
Amazon Will Cut Health-Care Benefits for Nearly 2k Whole Foods Employees
I am guessing that due to the food perspective of the blog they focused on the Whole Foods aspect of the story, but this is clearly a dystopian corporation story, not a grocer story.
I'm middle of the road. Hard working and highly paid. Healthcare in the USA is broken beyond belief. I pay over 300 bi-weekly for family coverage and high deductibles beyond that. It goes higher each year. My employer pays over nearly 800 per week. I'm not using what I pay and honestly feel we're getting to a point where even a highly paid associate is going to drop out of this garbage plan and just go to the hospital or urgent care and pay out of pocket. Something needs to be done about healthcare! I'm boycotting Amazon for this.
Healthcare is about 18% of GDP or about a $3470 billion a year. It should be shrunk down to about 12%, but that would require terminating millions of employees who work in healthcare and are the major cost component. The industry also needs to get rid of lots of real estate. Shrinking healthcare would cause a bigger bloodbath in commercial real estate than the one currently going on in retail stores.
Healthcare needs to be decoupled from employment and guaranteed to everyone. It’s time for Medicare for All.
just playing a amz-devil advocate, what is the point of hiring part-time employees who earn 30-40K a year and pay them just as much in health benefits? america's health care costs are out of this world and that is a much tougher problem to tackle as opposed to who is paying for it
I bet financial press is now discussing how this will lower the price of bananas at Whole Foods.
They'll be bleating about how this is will be good for shareholder value
Whole Foods has 91,000 employees, this effects 1900 of them - a little over 2% of the total or right around 4 people per store.
While it's unfortunate for those effected, it seems mostly a way to get more availability out of their employees rather than purely a cost savings measure.
While it's unfortunate for those effected, it seems mostly a way to get more availability out of their employees rather than purely a cost savings measure.
I'm sure that's very comforting to the people effected by this.