Skip to main content

View Diary: Papa John's CEO Likes Giving Away Pizzas but Not Healthcare (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As a business person, Schnatter (16+ / 0-)

    needs to make the best decision for his company. Papa Johns already relies on mostly part-time employees in its restaurants, but their most important employees are the full-timers. He needs to decide on whether keeping the full-timers happy by providing them with insurance is worth the additional cost of that insurance. If the typical full time Papa Johns employee makes $35,000, a reasonable insurance plan may cost the company the equivalent of a 10% raise for these people. So he can give them a 10% raise and have the ability to have a core group of committed employees, or cut their hours and have a professional workforce that is unhappy and transient (and that must have second jobs in order to make ends meet).

    As a businessman, I don't think those companies that choose to cut hours to avoid the ACA are going to stick with that decision for long. Putting ethical considerations aside, it just isn't the right business decision.

    •  I'm pretty sure that's already corporate (7+ / 0-)

      America's business model: a part time, transient work force. It's built into the accounting.

      "A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer

      by CFAmick on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 07:32:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The only way for a typical Papa John full (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      progressivist, DrTerwilliker, BYw, zorp

      time employee could make $35,000 is to work 3500 hours per year.

    •  One more thing (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doc2, satrap, Lujane, rapala
      or cut their hours, hire more of them, and have a professional workforce that is unhappy and transient
      He's going to have to make up for the lost hours somehow, either by hiring more people or making fewer pizzas.
    •  This is exactly right, and should have been (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doc2, nextstep, Lujane, VClib

      an expected reaction to the ACA.  For those businesses that did not provide health insurance to employees, or that provided health insurance that was not as comprehensive as that required by the ACA, the ACA means that, in some instances, the cost per employee goes up.  Each business business has to assess for itself (1) what that additional cost will be and (2) how to deal with that additional cost in the way that will make the business the most profitable going forward.  

      For some businesses, that solution may be to pass the additional costs to customers (if they think that will not hurt their market); for some that may mean reducing employees to under 50 (I know a small business owner who owns three restaurants and was looking to incorporate each as a separate business, and lay off a couple of people at each restaurant, so that each business would be under the 50 employee threshold); for some, that may mean reducing those employees who are not key employees to part time; for some that means paying the fine and dropping health insurance for employees; for some that means providing health insurance despite the additional costs because they think that they cannot get, and keep, the type of employee they want without it.  

      However, I quibble a bit with this:

      Putting ethical considerations aside
      I just don't see how there are "ethical" questions here (unless business owners try to violate the law).  There's nothing "unethical" about looking at the law and making decisions based on that law and how you can best make your business profitable under that law.  Of course when Congress passed the ACA, and the President signed it, they were aware of how that law would affect businesses of all sizes, and what economic incentives were in that law.  There's nothing either ethical or unethical about a business  acting pursuant to the financial incentives in a law.  Just as there is nothing unethical about customers choosing to patronize a business for whatever reasons they want (whether related to the product, the business' policies, or whatever the customers consider important) -- and businesses must factor that in as well.  
    •  I think that these announcements from (7+ / 0-)

      sore-loser CEOs, is just talk. They want to make Obamacare look like the scary job killer of Republican mythology. They aren't going to screw up their business over political ideology.

      Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

      by OIL GUY on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 08:57:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  ? 35,000 ? for a fast food worker (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zorp

      You need to check your assumptions about where things start. Around me a fast food 40 hours a week job will get you almost up to $20,000.

      •  Full-time workers... (0+ / 0-)

        include managers, which usually make double the $20k figure you're stating. There's not many full time workers past the 2-3 managers a given location may employ.

        •  5 of 30-40 people at best (0+ / 0-)

          Salary managers might get up to $30,000. No one else will. That would be less than 15% of the employees at any store. Shift managers that work hourly aren't getting too much over everyone else. They get a good bump when they become managers then go on the same 5 cent raises yearly like everyone else. They won't top out at as low a number as the peons but that's about it.
          And the absence of full time workers is a business choice. 35-40 hours week is not uncommon where I'm at now, but that will get messed around with again whenever the owner feels like it.
          One more thing. When anyone talks about minimum wage workers, you bringing in an argument about manager wages is a change of subject. They get screwed in other ways by the owners, but by definition they are different.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site