5 ms·

'As for the affected employees, they will be provided “with resources to find alternative healthcare coverage options, or to explore full-time, healthcare-eligi

'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.

tyingq 7y ago
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.
- wonderwonder 7y ago
  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.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >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.
    - cj 7y ago
      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.
      - magduf 7y ago
        Maybe you're willing to wait 40 years for people to evolve, but I'm not. There's better places to live.
    - briandear 7y ago
      As an American voter, I definitely don’t want this. Health services, like any economic good, are scarce. I’d rather have rationing through the market then rationing via government (and yes, there has to be rationing; it’s not an unlimited good.) Maybe some poor don’t get the best care quickly, but under a government system, everyone is equally limited in their access to care (i.e. waiting lists.) Someone who provides significant value to society waits in line behind a person who doesn’t provide much value — that isn’t good for society. It’s unsaid because it’s incendiary, but all people in society aren’t equally important to that society: an electrical engineer is more useful than an unemployed cashier. With price-based rationing, those that generate more value have easier access to scarce care resources than those who generate less value. It’s logical, but politically tough because those that generate little value outnumber those that produce high value — and those low value people vote.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
- magduf 7y ago
  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.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  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.
- michaelbuckbee 7y ago
  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.
- DVassallo 7y ago
  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.
- WaylonKenning 7y ago
  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_health_expenditure_per_capita#/media/File:OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_OECD_(2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...
  - howard941 7y ago
    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.
isoskeles 7y ago
> 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.
Allower 7y ago
Yeah while we are making our Christmas lists.. I want 100k a year salary for doing nothing. Its easy to say "I want X" its hard to say "This is how we can provide X to everyone in an economically feasible way. Here is how we hold people accountable, here is how we address the risk of corruption and abuse". The problem with america is we let our education system devolve to the point where no one knows how to solve big problems, only how to point them out. Consider me a case in point as well..
briandear 7y ago
> 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?
- baud147258 7y ago
  There's also the retirement that are funded through taxes on salaries and all the social safety nets and the public transportation networks
jtr1 7y ago
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.
- rhacker 7y ago
  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.
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    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??
benj111 7y ago
"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.
noelsusman 7y ago
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.

tyingq 7y ago

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.

wonderwonder 7y ago
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.
- magduf 7y ago
  >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.
  - cj 7y ago
    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.
    - magduf 7y ago
      Maybe you're willing to wait 40 years for people to evolve, but I'm not. There's better places to live.
  - briandear 7y ago
    As an American voter, I definitely don’t want this. Health services, like any economic good, are scarce. I’d rather have rationing through the market then rationing via government (and yes, there has to be rationing; it’s not an unlimited good.) Maybe some poor don’t get the best care quickly, but under a government system, everyone is equally limited in their access to care (i.e. waiting lists.) Someone who provides significant value to society waits in line behind a person who doesn’t provide much value — that isn’t good for society. It’s unsaid because it’s incendiary, but all people in society aren’t equally important to that society: an electrical engineer is more useful than an unemployed cashier. With price-based rationing, those that generate more value have easier access to scarce care resources than those who generate less value. It’s logical, but politically tough because those that generate little value outnumber those that produce high value — and those low value people vote.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
magduf 7y ago
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.
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
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.
michaelbuckbee 7y ago
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.
DVassallo 7y ago
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.
WaylonKenning 7y ago
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_health_expenditure_per_capita#/media/File:OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_OECD_(2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...
- howard941 7y ago
  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.

isoskeles 7y ago

> 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.

Allower 7y ago

Yeah while we are making our Christmas lists.. I want 100k a year salary for doing nothing. Its easy to say "I want X" its hard to say "This is how we can provide X to everyone in an economically feasible way. Here is how we hold people accountable, here is how we address the risk of corruption and abuse". The problem with america is we let our education system devolve to the point where no one knows how to solve big problems, only how to point them out. Consider me a case in point as well..

briandear 7y ago

> 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?

baud147258 7y ago
There's also the retirement that are funded through taxes on salaries and all the social safety nets and the public transportation networks

jtr1 7y ago

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.

rhacker 7y ago
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.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  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??

benj111 7y ago

"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.

noelsusman 7y ago

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.