3 ms·

_American_ society puts those obligations on businesses, and those obligations have created an economy that rewards those who are either already wealthy, or the

by jkoudys 12y ago

_American_ society puts those obligations on businesses, and those obligations have created an economy that rewards those who are either already wealthy, or the backing of those who are. This is very directly giving more power to the rich. I don't see how criticising the very necessity of health benefits, one of the biggest costs of hiring employees, is at all a separate argument. There are many other countries which don't have such strict requirements around employee classification, yet are still serious about important obligations such as workplace safety and protections against harassment. I don't want to spend my morning dumping on the US, but I'm amazed at just how often your poor and very poor are convinced to support causes that only help the very rich.

rhino369 12y ago
In many European countries those looser requirements on employee classification are just used to get around their even tighter regulations on employee treatment. It is almost impossible to fire employees in many European countries. Solution: only hire people as temp workers. I think it is odd that you are calling out America for putting employment obligations on business when most decry the lack of protection America gives to employees. Only than a few Asian countries, American employer obligations are among the lightest compared to other first world nations.
tptacek 12y ago
Don't the very richest companies in the US tend to lobby against employer health care mandates? Wouldn't Walmart, for instance, be much better off in a single-payer system?
- jkoudys 12y ago
  Walmart was very in-favour of the PPACA, at least in favour of it applying to other companies. In practice, they have teams of lawyers and accountants making sure they pay as little as possible. It's the SMBs, on the other hand, who now pay twice: once to meet their obligation to their own employees, and again to pay for government assistance for all the Walmart employees we expected would be receiving company benefits. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/09/walmart-bails-on-obamacare-sticks-taxpayers-with-employee-healthcare-costs/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/09/walmart-bai...

by jkoudys 12y ago

rhino369 12y ago

In many European countries those looser requirements on employee classification are just used to get around their even tighter regulations on employee treatment. It is almost impossible to fire employees in many European countries. Solution: only hire people as temp workers. I think it is odd that you are calling out America for putting employment obligations on business when most decry the lack of protection America gives to employees. Only than a few Asian countries, American employer obligations are among the lightest compared to other first world nations.

tptacek 12y ago

Don't the very richest companies in the US tend to lobby against employer health care mandates? Wouldn't Walmart, for instance, be much better off in a single-payer system?

jkoudys 12y ago
Walmart was very in-favour of the PPACA, at least in favour of it applying to other companies. In practice, they have teams of lawyers and accountants making sure they pay as little as possible. It's the SMBs, on the other hand, who now pay twice: once to meet their obligation to their own employees, and again to pay for government assistance for all the Walmart employees we expected would be receiving company benefits. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/09/walmart-bails-on-obamacare-sticks-taxpayers-with-employee-healthcare-costs/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/09/walmart-bai...