Discussion
  • Read More
    destor23Lacey Donohue
    9/12/13 9:51pm

    What we think about this is going to come down to how good Obamacare really is. If these employees are able to get comparable or better healthcare via the exchanges for less, then there's no point in defending having Trader Joes collect their premiums and choose their insurance provider for them.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      JohninLAdestor23
      9/12/13 9:54pm

      Good point.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      DontBeSuchaBoobPunchTinaJohninLA
      9/12/13 10:00pm

      Yeah. I mean, my first reaction is "Well, that sucks," but then I realized, you know, maybe they're not just trying to make it sound better than it is. Maybe it really IS better than one might be inclined to think.

      One big difference from when I worked two part-time jobs (so, same income as one full-time, but no health insurance coverage), years ago, is that, starting in 2014, health insurance providers can't turn you down for a pre-existing condition. I couldn't get health insurance then. If I were in the same situation a few months from now, I could.

      As for the costs... I just have no idea. We'll have to see how it goes for people.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    woorijipLacey Donohue
    9/12/13 9:54pm

    We need that elusive universal health care, not Obamacare.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Russianistwoorijip
      9/12/13 10:12pm

      Most large American corporations should have been demanding just that. The efficiencies and reductions in benefits management overhead that they would have realised would have saved them 10s of billions a year in total, let alone PR headaches like this one.

      But instead they lined up in ideological solidarity with the private insurers, big pharma, and for-profit hospitals and we got this half-baked solution (with its hidden backdoor to what might become universal single payer).

      I'm hoping Obamacare will work despite its hobbling from the start, but Republicans at the state and federal levels seem hellbent on undermining even this compromise programme.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      woorijipRussianist
      9/12/13 10:55pm

      It's the best solution for cost savings, the general population, and businesses, especially small ones. The news this week was full of reports of big businesses off-loading retirees from healthcare. That means more expense for the retirees. It might come down to a showdown between the hospital corporations and insurance companies versus other sectors. It's insane that we don't have national/universal healthcare.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    VladimirIllychUllynovLacey Donohue
    9/12/13 9:47pm

    i have an awesome idea: why not just demand trader joe's accounting books, and force them to pay all profits to its employees. we could have some government panel that would determine how much the owners get to make every year. that'd be awesome. we'd turn it into an organization that distributes to each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Tar BenderVladimirIllychUllynov
      9/12/13 9:56pm

      Hmmm. Can't tell.... you are either A. a good Marxist and I like the cut of your jib, or B. you are mocking Marxists like me...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      yandatVladimirIllychUllynov
      9/12/13 10:01pm

      Agreed unironically. Except a government panel shouldn't determine pay, but the workers themselves. The government is a tool of the bourgeoisie.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    JohnMcClanesSmirkLacey Donohue
    9/12/13 9:46pm

    Two Buck Fucked.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ratchedJohnMcClanesSmirk
      9/12/13 9:59pm

      Combo of no insurance AND no cirrhosis treatment.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      DarkmanexrebornJohnMcClanesSmirk
      9/12/13 10:06pm

      Best advice my parent gave me: never trust a cop, a lawyer, a politician, and certainly never trust a corporation.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    TheOmbudsmanLacey Donohue
    9/12/13 10:06pm

    Ok this makes no sense to me.

    Let's take the whole Papa John's thing from a while back - they weren't providing any health insurance for many of their workers, and were catching shit for contemplating cutting people's hours to get them under that "part-time" line so they wouldn't have to.

    But Trader Joe's has been providing health coverage for their part-timers? So why would they suddenly feel the need to drop it? It's not like they're facing having to start covering folks they're not already. It doesn't make sense.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Keilwerth-----------------------------------NYTheOmbudsman
      9/12/13 10:15pm

      I suppose it's possible that their insurance carrier raised rates in anticipation of the changes.

      I'm confused by the timing — compliance for this aspect was pushed back until 2015, so what's the rush?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      TheOmbudsmanKeilwerth-----------------------------------NY
      9/12/13 10:32pm

      That could be a factor. And I have to wonder if having the part-timers get coverage through exchanges - possibly with subsidies due to their income - would be cheaper than Trader Joe's keeping them on their company insurance plan. By "cheaper" I mean less expensive as far as comparing one cost to the other - obviously the financial burden is shifting to the employee.

      That said, I doubt that $500 will go terribly far on that front. Will Trader Joe's be doing more for the part-timers with the money they'll save by getting these folks off their own plan? If they were covering part-timers all this time, it seems uncharacteristic for them to make such a radical change.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    corey3rdLacey Donohue
    9/12/13 9:59pm

    What about Aldi?

    Will they also be altering the insurance of their only cashier?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      midwesternmomcorey3rd
      9/12/13 10:04pm

      This is so true, but that lone cashier is always cheerful. Their medical plan must provide great drugs.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      cheerful_exgirlfriendcorey3rd
      9/12/13 10:04pm

      Instead of a $500 check Aldi employees will be given an dented pack of off-brand bandaids and a bottle of almost-expired aspirin.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    TedChuffingtonTooLacey Donohue
    9/12/13 9:51pm

    Blame Obama. No, really. I voted for him three times like a fucking idiot because I believed him. But this is his fault.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Rod Strickland PropaneTedChuffingtonToo
      9/12/13 9:59pm

      I totally agree, I wish I could look those 30 million who are now insured in the eye and say "you don't deserve health care."

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Tar BenderTedChuffingtonToo
      9/12/13 9:59pm

      Obama was forced out of pure necessity to finally do something about a very sucky and badly broken health care "system." He should have socialized it but that's a pipe dream, for now, and he'd been lynched for it, like the Clinton's, if he'd tried. He did what he could as lame as it was, but it's maybe a foot in the door for future inroads.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    seroevoLacey Donohue
    9/12/13 10:23pm

    Maybe someone familiar with both American and Canadian systems could make it a little clearer for me.

    As a Canadian in Ontario, most stuff I've needed is not covered by our OHIP. Things like dental, optometry, prescriptions, etc I would have covered by my health benefits via my employer (and never completely) and only with full-time positions and after 3-12 months of employment, and I've never gotten health benefits with part-time or contract work.

    So on the surface, this story seems like just a good run being brought down to earth, but again I'm willing to accept I'm not entirely understanding the situation.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      AndreaTiersonseroevo
      9/12/13 10:35pm

      They're not talking about dental, pharma and optometry. They're talking about basic healthcare, as in, 'I need to see a GP'- or 'I need surgery for a broken ankle'-healthcare. I assume your provincial plan covers your doctor's visits and you don't need to be employed full time for that, yes?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BingleyJoeAndreaTierson
      9/13/13 11:27am

      basic healthcare, as in, 'I need to see a GP'- or 'I need surgery for a broken ankle'-healthcare. I assume your provincial plan covers your doctor's visits and you don't need to be employed full time for that, yes?

      Correct. You don't need to be employed at all, as a matter of fact.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    NothingVenturedLacey Donohue
    9/12/13 10:12pm

    First of all Trader Joes is just a candy and booze store for adults masquerading as a health food store.

    Second , the truth is I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I have ready the literature and have no idea what is going on.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MarkEbnerNothingVentured
      9/13/13 4:14am

      There's nothing more annoying than trying to fill a BBQ order at Trader Joe's. No Coke?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    easypeasygreasyLacey Donohue
    9/12/13 9:49pm

    This still isn't really a bad deal. A $500 a month is beyond what is required and beyond what you'll find at most part time jobs. Unfortunately, this is a completely unsurprising consequence of ACA. Generally "good" employers are being forced to deal with the costs of compliance with the ACA, which is ultimately going to hurt many of those employees that hover in the 30-35 hour a week range.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      TheOmbudsmaneasypeasygreasy
      9/12/13 10:01pm

      It doesn't say "a month". Just $500. Looks like a one-time thing.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      wasting_company_timeeasypeasygreasy
      9/12/13 10:15pm

      They are definitely not giving 500 per month to part time employees. It's a one time thing.

      Reply
      <