Target to drop Part Timers Insurance (premium, dollar, program, claim)

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by burdell

How so? Cutting benefits and blaming it on Obamacare doesn't increase the bottom line?

If Target was looking at it that way, then they never would have voluntarily offered the insurance to their employees in the first place.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by OICU812

If Target was looking at it that way, then they never would have voluntarily offered the insurance to their employees in the first place.

BULL! They most certainly would have if needed to compete for quality employees.

The OP includes Trader Joe's in the group dropping insurance for part-timers but conveniently fails to mention Trader Joe's is making a payment to those employees that should pay most if not all of their self-paid insurance cost.

What's Target doing for their employees other than blaming Obamacare and pocketing the $$$?

[Dale Cooper]

Originally Posted by Votre_Chef

The argument isn't whether it was smart or not smart. The argument was who bears the responsibility for the decisions made by the Target board. I say it's Target's corporate leadership.

You lost your argument posts and posts ago.

But carry on. It's highly amusing.

Originally Posted by Votre_Chef

Every Sunday, Target sends me an ad with my newspaper. In it are incentives to go to Target and buy stuff.

I may choose to go, I may not. Who's responsible for my decision as to whether to go to Target or not?

That would be me.

If I go to Target and spend all my money on toilet paper because they were having a sale that was just too good to pass up, I can't blame Target for making me do it. It was my decision.

You don't seem to have the vaguest notion that 0bama care is NOT voluntary. 0bama care is NOT Target's decision.

Sigh.............................................. ...

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by tinman01

Are you really going to argue that Obamacare hasn't increased costs of benefits?
Your second point is spot on. 4.5 more years and I won't have to worry about either.

My dinner out cost me $6.34 while your dinner out cost you $41.78. I had a Big Mac meal while you had a Kobe burger and a nice wine. It's not possible to compare costs unless the quality of the meal is comparable.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by burdell

BULL! They most certainly would have if needed to compete for quality employees.

The OP includes Trader Joe's in the group dropping insurance for part-timers but conveniently fails to mention Trader Joe's is making a payment to those employees that should pay most if not all of their self-paid insurance cost.

What's Target doing for their employees?

According to the link, Target is making a $500 payment towards the cost of part time employee insurance. I think this amount is similar to the Trader Joe thing.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by burdell

They would if they had to in order to attract the workers they wanted.

So now they no longer need to offer benefits to atract workers they want?

Originally Posted by burdell

How so? Cutting benefits and blaming it on Obamacare doesn't increase the bottom line?

If they no longer need to offer benefits to attract workers, then one must ask WHY? What has changed?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by citizenkane2

Work fewer hour but get paid more money??

Tell me what business plan can succeed like that.........

they wont make more, they'd be fired..

Democratic success, right before our eyes..

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by pghquest

So now they no longer need to offer benefits to atract workers they want?

If they no longer need to offer benefits to attract workers, then one must ask WHY? What has changed?

I, like most here, don't know what kind of insurance plan was offered to part time employees nor how much of the cost was subsidized

Despite that most of their retail employees are part time, only 10% were insured under a Target plan. 90% opted out.

Target discontinued an unpopular benefit to part timers and instead agreed to pay $500 towards an individual ACA compliant policy.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

I, like most here, don't know what kind of insurance plan was offered to part time employees nor how much of the cost was subsidized

Despite that most of their retail employees are part time, only 10% were insured under a Target plan. 90% opted out.

Target discontinued an unpopular benefit to part timers and instead agreed to pay $500 towards an individual ACA compliant policy.

Thereby pushing more employees onto the backs of the taxpayers..

I thought we didnt like subsidizing corporations? Isnt that what you guys say happens when the taxpayers pickup the tab for walmart employees?

Now all of a sudden, its ok.. When did that happen?

[Rakin]

Originally Posted by MaseMan

You neo-cons realize moves like this are only going to further advance the cause for a single payer system in this country, right?

I don't know.

You think Obama might tell us all more LIES to convince us that's not his true intentions ?