7 ms·
Walmart is hiring only temps at many stores
- Shivetya 13y agoWhich conveniently hides the fact that many state and local governments are cutting hours to do the same business is doing. Wal Mart gets called out because of past activities amongst major unions to denigrate them because of their anti-union stance. The idea being, get the biggest retailer and the rest fall into line. However they merely reflect what many other type of employers do, they just are more noticeable because of their size.
- quux 13y agoThey were doing this long before Obama even ran for president. I remember first hearing about this in the early 2000's
- smackfu 13y agoYeah, Walmart is infamous for restricting people to part-time hours so they don't have to provide benefits. But of course this is a Forbes blog, and who knows what the political slant of the blogger is.
- nawitus 13y agoA working solution is to make the government provide the benefits, which is what Scandinavian countries tend to do.
- Wickk 13y agoThis. I work in retail and have for a while. My mother has for most of her life, and this practice is not new for the retail level of the job market.
- kcorbitt 13y agoUndoubtedly, but Obamacare could still accelerate the process. As state-mandated benefits go up, the marginal utility that an employee has to provide to be company asset go up proportionally.
- sinnerswing 13y ago"Will Obamacare Hurt Jobs? It's Already Happening, Poll Finds" "Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare. And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."" http://www.cnbc.com/id/100825782 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100825782
- lucisferre 13y agoPretty sure Walmart is doing that.
- masklinn 13y agoAnd was doing it long before obamacare.
- jcomis 13y agoWalmart is turning walmart workers into temps, not Obamacare. What an awful title from Forbes.
- masklinn 13y agoTechnically not Forbes though, a forbes.com blogger. I don't get why they keep running the thing though, it's systematically garbage, are the hits so much more important than the forbes brand?
- cantankerous 13y agoI think it's some kind of give and take. More hits for Forbes and you can piggyback off their name. I'm kinda vexed by the entire thing. I hear people say they've been mentioned "by Forbes" or that "they're in Forbes", but really they're on this blog site. It seems dishonest somehow, but I'm not sure how or if that's the right label. I think Forbes is really risking their online brand with this stuff. It's not always super clear what's a blog and what's a Forbes writer.
- buddylw 13y agoYet another example where perverse incentives lead to unintended effects. The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't address the primary problem: health insurance is tied to employment. Until we get past that we are going to have a broken system where the customer is not the customer. The insurance company and then your employers are the customer.
- cobrausn 13y agoLinking your ability to see a doctor for a reasonable fee to your ability to find a decent employer strikes me as a monumentally short-sighted decision (if one was ever really made) on our part.
- samolang 13y agoThe problem is that quality healthcare didn't become an entitlement over night. For many, many years most (all?) people didn't have access to quality healthcare. Over time more and more people got access to quality healthcare until the number of people reached a critical point where people decided they were entitled to it. Before it was viewed as an entitlement it made sense for businesses to offer it as a perk.
- don_draper 13y agoI think you got it wrong. The exchanges may be a first step in separating healthcare from employers. If I can buy into an exchange there is less risk for me. The risk is spread throughout the exchange. As a want-a-be entrepreneur I think the current system stinks
- cantankerous 13y agoI agree. The current model stifles entrepeneurship and ties people with chronic illnesses to their jobs (or their spouses/parents/etc with jobs).
- jpadkins 13y agoIt might be a step, but the obvious first step is remove the laws that make employer based insurance so much more attractive. Specifically the huge tax advantage, and group insurance laws. The whole ACA is a really complicated partial fix to the employer - healthcare problem.
- grecy 13y agoWhy on earth would anyone think tying healthcare to your employer is a good idea? Surely care should be available to all - if you are the CEO of a fortune 500, a temp at Walmart or even unemployed.
- sp332 13y agoWho pays for it?
- grecy 13y agoThe same people that pay for other essential basic services like roads, firetrucks, police, elementary schools, judges, etc. etc. etc. - i.e. everyone through taxes.
- sp332 13y agoIf I pull a fire alarm when there's no fire, I get fined. If I speed on the highway or run a tollbooth without paying, I get fined. If I decide not to go to elementary school, I get fined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truancy#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truancy#United_States Who decides what health care I have access to, and what health care I'm required to take (vaccines, vitamins, exercise, etc)?
- grecy 13y agoReading down the thread, you seem interested in my reply. > Who decides what health care I have access to Society decides, in the same way it decides how to spend any tax dollars, such as when and where to build new public roads, when to open a new elementary school to better serve the changing population, etc. etc. Keep in mind, any "heath care you have access to" is just the minimum provided to everyone. If you want to buy more/better care, you are absolutely free to do so with your own money. Go nuts. I've been living under this system in Canada and Australia for the majority of my life and have never felt the need to buy more converge, but that's just me personally. My aging parents buy extra. > and what health care I'm required to take (vaccines, vitamins, exercise, etc)? This is a great question. It's very topical right in Australia [1] as one state (NSW) now requires mandatory vaccinations before children can attend child care centers. This is analogous to you being required to buy car insurance before you can drive on public roads - if you don't, it's too risky for everyone else and society has deemed that unacceptable. You also can't nail together a few pieces of timber and call it a house, as it doesn't meet building codes, etc. Of course, you are free not to participate in these rules - you just don't drive a car or build a house. NSW is now saying if you don't want to get vaccinations, then you don't get to participate in child care centers as it makes the cost to high for everyone else. It remains to be seen if the people of NSW agree with this or not. If not, the rules will change. Keep in mind that all of these rules are set by the society we live in. Plenty of people chose not to live within these rules. They break the rules and often face consequences as you mentioned (fines) or, if you chose, you can just move into the middle of nowhere in Alaska and do whatever the hell you want, and actually not be a part of any society. (I live right near Alaska, I know tons of people doing this) -- Based on your other comments further down, I have to say that it doesn't look like you're against universal health-care per se, but you in fact have absolutely no confidence that your society can determine what that would actually look like. You've lost all faith that your system of government is actually representing the interests of the people, so you would rather it doesn't represent any interests at all, and "butt out" of your life This is a sad shame, and it's actually the root of the issue here. If you don't trust your system of representation to represent you, then of course you don't trust it with something like your health, or anything else for that matter. [1] http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3769940.htm http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3769940.htm
- run4yourlives 13y agoLinking basic* health care to employment as a default is ridiculously stupid. There is no real relation between a person's health and their job. You can either view basic health care as a benefit to society as a whole, like a highway or a fire truck, and socialize it, or you can view it as a product for sale. Viewing it as a benefit of a particular employment is not logical. This is like trying to mandate that your employer pay for your car insurance... there is no connection of mutual benefit. Basic health care needs to be connected to the individual, while "extended health care" (or additional options, etc) can certainly be offered as a benefit. The employer does have an interest in you getting back to work faster, being in better health than the average, reducing the stress of your medical issue, etc, etc. Interestingly enough, a socialized (single payer/universal, etc.) system of basic health care with privatized add on's and extras is basically the way every civilized society on the planet operates except the USA. *You can define "basic" differently, but for my argument I mean a level of care that ensures a respectable level of heath is maintained... usually it is simply seeing health care as a human "right" and therefore not subject to withholding by the state or other actors.
- grecy 13y agoI've lived and worked in Australia and Canada for many years. In Australia, everyone gets sufficient basic care from taxes, and if you want, you can buy extended care. It has nothing to do with your employer. In Canada, everyone gets very basic care from taxes, and if you want, you can buy extended care, or your employer might do that for you (implied: If you're lucky). After living and working under both systems, I find giving my employer power over my healthcare to be a nasty draconian measure that I don't like at all, and I see no benefits.
- run4yourlives 13y agoDisclaimer: I work in the health insurance industry in Canada, for a Third Party Provider. Canada and Australia are basically the same, but in Canada there is a default understanding that most employers will help to sponsor an extended health/insurance plan. I see no real issue with this, as it certainly does NOT mean they in any way control your options. As healthcare becomes increasingly expensive, the ability for employers to offer this benefit is degraded. None of that prevents you from doing what you want in terms of extra coverage though. Most full time jobs that are also considered "careers" will offer some form of insurance benefits, and that usually includes health care. Aside from cost, the benefits of Group Insurance is that there are no pre-existing condition exceptions. You have guaranteed acceptance as a nature of your employment. This is a huge upside for people that aren't prefect medical specimens, and as a result employer offered extended coverage is significantly cheaper for the individual. As I said you are starting to see changes mainly due to demographics and cost increases. The switch to Flex benefits, health spending accounts and such will see more "individualization" of health care costs in the future. Personally, I think HSA's are the best possible way to offer extended health benefits to employees, and I expect they will grow in popularity; analogous to what RRSP's have done to pension plans. I find giving my employer power over my healthcare You simply don't do this in Canada, although many people do have that impression. Example: Me. I have my government health care, my employer health care that I pay a portion of, and some extra private care that I elect to pay for.
- vannevar 13y agoThe title is completely unsupported by the content of the article, which presents no evidence that Obamacare is prompting the practice of hiring part-time workers. In fact, it clearly states that Walmart supported Obamacare because it fit with their part-time worker strategy, which was already in place. The article also states "The recovering economy could also help force Walmart, and other like-minded employers, to back off this policy and hire full-time workers with benefits."
- GamingGollum 13y agoActually, there are a lot of companies being forced into this, not just Wal-Mart. Most full-time jon vacancies are being simply deleted or relegated to two part-time employees because of the mandate in this legislation. There's nothing political about the truth. To not recognize (or admit) the connection between the two is serious head-in-the-sand syndrome.
- ttrreeww 13y agoHealth care is a basic human right.