Skip to main content

View Diary: Now It's Staples: Treating Their Workers Like Dirt. Plus Bonus Union Busting Protest Pics! (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So they should rely on the hope that the President (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    changes things again?  

    Sorry, it's stupid for any business to do that.

    And you didn't answer the question -- would people have been not angry if they waited until April 30 or June 30?  

    Because no employer as large as Staples is going to give themselves less than several months to make a big transition like that.

    •  I think they'd be angry either way. (0+ / 0-)

      Suppose the government offered zero corporate income taxes for next year, and offered it right now, but the corporations had to file the paperwork before the 1st of the year. Are you saying they would all decline it, because they hadn't factored not paying corporate income tax into next year's budget?

      Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

      by RhodeIslandAspie on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 12:49:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's just silly. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RhodeIslandAspie, VClib

        The fact that they CAN in an emergency situation adjust to something if they have to does NOT mean that is what they prefer to do.

        Any sane business prefers an orderly transition.

        I'll give you an example we lived. It was really (looking back on it) amazing what we were able to accomplish when our Downtown New Orleans office closed for three months in 2005.  We were able to do it and by makeshift and pulling things together, keep operating until we could return.  Do I WANT to do things that way?  Of course not.  No sane person would.  

        •  My point exactly. Business can adapt to all sorts (0+ / 0-)

          of changes when needed. My employer was impacted by the Boston Marathon attack.  Nobody ever wants to have to be in a situation to adapt to something so tragic, but if it happens, they do what they have to do.

          Dealing with a planned and then delayed employer mandate is not a category 5 hurricane or a deadly terrorist attack. It's coping with a change in government regulations, something businesses do all the time. Businesses can adapt to horrendous disasters when needed, but can't adapt to a change of regulations that they demanded in the first place? This is the one percent wanting to pee on the workers, and then blaming the President.

          Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

          by RhodeIslandAspie on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 01:11:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Seriously? You are making no sense. (0+ / 0-)

            Are you really arguing that a business SHOULD wait until the last possible moment to plan for a huge change in the law that directly affects them???? What business management school did you go to?  What business have you ever managed?  I'm not an expert in running a business, but I know that we, as a small business, would NEVER wait until the last minute to plan for, and transition into, a big change.  I can't imagine a huge business like Staples waiting until the last minute.  

            In fact, they SHOULD do just the opposite.  They should plan out how many months it will take to make sure they have transitioned to a different staffing structure, and then add a couple of months in case something unforeseen happens.  Suppose they cut hours and a lot of experienced people quit?  They need time to adjust -- to reach the correct (for them) balance between full time and part time people.  Suppose employees become less reliable when you are only giving them 25 hours a week, and the absentee rate is much higher?  Suppose you find yourself understaffed at certain stores or at certain times?  Are you seriously arguing that they should wait until the last minute -- when they don't have time to adjust -- to find out all those kinds of things?  And to change their staffing model, and try that, to see if it works?  If, by January 1, 2014, you want to have found the right staffing model, the right blend of part time/full time employees, when do YOU suggest they start those experiments?  

            If you have the time to plan, and to gradually transition, and you DON'T do that, that's almost per se mismanagement.  Even if things go well, that's mismanagement.  If things do NOT go well, it will be management's fault.  

            •  OK, what would you suggest, then? (0+ / 0-)

              Backing off on the mandate wasn't enough. Maybe we could lower the minimum wage, or even get rid of it? Cut taxes for the rich. Let's get rid of the ACA while we are at it.

              And I suppose the ACA is the reason why Staples is raiding  post office jobs. This mandate that has been delayed and will probably never be enforced has shaken the stability of Staples so badly, that they need to find an additional revenue stream.

              There is a class war, and only one side is fighting it. Which side are you on, coffeetalk?

              Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

              by RhodeIslandAspie on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 01:39:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Who is advocating any of those things? (0+ / 0-)

                Certainly not me.

                All I am saying is that when you pass a law, you are responsible for all of the consequences -- both intended AND unintended.  Sure the administration did not INTEND for business to keep part time employees under 30 hours -- but anyone who has ever operated a business could see that, for a lot of businesses, that would be the result.  It's a matter of pure economics.  Just like anyone can see that if you are a small business with, say, 48 or 49 employees, who doesn't presently offer health insurance, there's no way on earth you will hire that 50th employee -- because by doing so, you make the other 49 each more expensive.

                All I am saying is that the Administration obviously (unless they were idiots, which I don't think they are) realized this was going to be a consequence.  So sure, even though they didn't intend it, they get the blame.  They hoped, I am sure, that the benefits to some of the ACA would outweigh the clear downside that others (like Staples part-timers) would suffer as a result of the ACA.  

                If you take credit for the good things that result because of the ACA, you have to take the blame for the bad things.  Your goal is to make sure that, as a whole,  the good (the "winners") greatly outweighs the bad (the "losers") under the ACA.  

                Of course, that's little comfort to the "losers."  

                •  And we both agree (0+ / 0-)

                  that the employer mandate was a bad idea. We can blame the Wal-Mart is Satan people for the this mandate. I don't like Wal-Mart, but using the ACA to get back at Wal-Mart was a bad idea.

                  But, the President has backed down, not an easy thing for any President to do, backing down on a provision of his signature accomplishment. So, I say let the corporations back off a bit on their threats, now that they've got what they want.

                  But that's the problem. The plutocrats are never satisfied. Remember the video of Staple's father, Romney speaking to the his fellow plutocrats. Remember the mocking tone of voice about those people who think they have a right to decent health care.

                  I used to be a Paul Tsongas type pro-corporate Democrat, but I've learned the more you feed the monster, the hungrier it gets.

                  Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

                  by RhodeIslandAspie on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 02:04:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, he didn't "back down." He only delayed (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    the employer mandate.  He did not in any way, shape or form tell businesses that there would be no employer mandate.  He only said they had more time to get ready for it.

                    And likewise, employers simply delayed cutting back hours of part time workers.  If he had not delayed the employer mandate, you would have seen a lot of this kind of thing in the summer of 2013.  But as the link says, the WH realized that a lot of companies had their backs against the wall and, by July 2013, weren't going to be ready by January 1, 2014.  That' was the whole point of the delay.

                    Now, you'll see a lot of employers doing that "put off" restructuring during 2014 so that they will be ready on January 1, 2015.  

                    Staples is just a few months ahead of the curve.

                    •  Does anybody believe this mandate will (0+ / 0-)

                      ever be implemented, unless there is changes in the actual mandate by Congress? Nobody wants to see this mandate enforced. We both agree that it was ill conceived. That's pretty close to a guarantee as you can get that it is dead.

                      Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

                      by RhodeIslandAspie on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 03:04:44 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  RIA - Congress won't do anything (0+ / 0-)

                        and I don't think the President believes he has the authority to simply delay parts of the law indefinitely. Many don't think he has the authority to implement the delays he has already.

                        "let's talk about that"

                        by VClib on Mon Dec 23, 2013 at 12:03:24 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site