Comments on: Where to eat, not eat

By: Mr Evilwrench

Mr Evilwrench — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:31:16 +0000

I hope the first to be laid off, and the first to be permanently fired, are those that voted for this communist enemy that claims but does not deserve the title of president. The restaurants, and other corporations (you do realize this is endemic to the economy, right?) are not being greedy, they have a bottom line, shareholders, bills to pay, and are trying to survive. The CEO may have a nice house, but he deserves it for taking the risk he did. The corporations do not exist to provide jobs, never mind healthcare coverage, to some group of schmucks with degrees in womens studies or medieval French literature. They’re trying to make some money by providing a product or service to the dumbfounded d!p$h!t$ that want it. They have expenses, and you want to add another one. Let me guess, you’d bitch if they raised prices, but they either have to raise prices or control expenses. Can’t have it both ways, child. So here are your choices: the price goes up (good on that Denny’s franchise for announcing it) the service goes down (good on Papa John for being upfront) or the company goes out of business (Ever hear of Hostess?).

This is NOT some kind of tantrum (although that would probably be appropriate) this is merely businesses facing reality (which you obviously can’t) and making hard decisions trying to keep operating under adverse conditions. Conditions that are being caused arbitrarily and needlessly by people trying to enforce stupid rules that will not work.

By: alanstorm

alanstorm — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:46:16 +0000

Imagine – businesses objecting to coercion, and acting in their own interests. What a concept.

Lots of massively ignorant comments here, starting with the original post. Lots of envy, and the desire to bring others (those EVIL rich people) down, rather than bring others up. Lots of belief in an undefined “fairness”, and an astoundingly naive faith that government can provide it – somehow, despite thousands of years’ evidence to the contrary.

What do you all plan to do after high school?

By: jorod

jorod — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 04:56:56 +0000

Let Markets set wage rates. Go Michigan…..

By: Tracy

Tracy — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:57:55 +0000

As someone who has worked in the restaurant industry at all levels in my career, I have a hard time swallowing this for a couple of reasons.
1) The folks that are paid hourly often can’t afford to opt in to the employer-offered insurance even when they are eligible, as the amount deducted eats most of their take-home, leaving them nothing to live on. I know and work with a good share of these folks. They are stuck in a catch-22.
2) It is a universal given that restaurants are in a constant state of hiring. I have NEVER worked in a restaurant that was overstaffed for longer than a period of a few weeks, because people who work in the restaurant business are generally entry level workers, students, etc. who are trying to build work experience to be able to be hired somewhere else for better opportunity. With few exceptions, they don’t stick around long term.
3) I am more inclined to believe the part about them cutting people back to part-time to avoid allowing them to be eligible for health care than I would the part about them laying people off. They can’t afford to lay people off because they already have a hard time staffing their establishments. I have many many times seen people work full-time hours being coded as part time so that the company doesn’t have to pay benefits. That’s not new, though. That has been going on long before Obamacare, and to blame that activity on this new policy is just asinine.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:47:18 +0000

“Obamacare” is considered an acceptable term for the AHA. I’ve always liked the term my self, and recently the President said he liked it too.

By: Caterine

Caterine — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:05:00 +0000

Chances are highly likely that these companies would rather keep profits for themselves rather than share the wealth w/the employees for whom they pay minimum wage in order to get those profits. It is incredibly unfortunate that there are so many greedy people, companies, corporations in this country. F.Y.I. I would like to clarify that it is called “The Affordable Healthcare Act” not Obamacare as many folks state. It would seem important to get the facts, before spewing heresay, before making comments and sharing opinions.

By: marvin nubwaxer

marvin nubwaxer — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:56:09 +0000

the laid off employees should vote democrat, contrary to their republican corporate bosses. papa john’s just throws me into a rage when he blames his employees for a potential $.14/pizza price hike to cover healthcare. ever see papa john’s pizza “hut” that he lives in? it’s a huge sprawling estate with its own golf course and a total monument to greed and vanity.
otherwise i only very rarely buy a burger from in-n-out burger.

By: Frank Knight

Frank Knight — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:48:23 +0000

If we boycotted these establishments it would lower the demand for their goods and so a lowered demand for labour. This means they will employ even less people and/or lower work hours.

If we want to help our the workers in these firms out we should actually be buying more from these firms. This would increase the demand for their workers labour and lead to both an increase in the wages of labourers and an increase number of people being employed and/or for longer hours.

By: AG

AG — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:33:32 +0000

I have always felt that in a situation like this, it would be much more effective to boycott one company instead of ten, and because the boycott would be focused, it would be possible to continue it until the CEO agrees to suffer real personal damage. Which one to boycott? Select it by lottery, and maximize exposure by advertising date of lottery.

By: Jenn the Greenmom

Jenn the Greenmom — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:30:15 +0000

The franchise question is a good one, though; for each of these companies, who actually makes the decisions about whom to hire, how many workers, for how many hours? With Chick Fil-A, it was a matter of one individual’s philosophy, which he stated and which franchisers maybe knew about and maybe not–but they still were part of a company whose head held this publicly abhorrent (IMO) philosophy, and they sure as hell know now.

This is different, though. Not that any of these are particularly awesome places to eat, and being aware of universal-type menus and prices for certain (or all) selections, which obviously closes the window on raising food prices in order to pay a fairer wage to employees, do the corporate weenies really have a say in what Joe Franchiser Guy does with his employees’ work schedule? If the Pizza Hut down the street is shafting its people, cutting their hours to avoid paying healthcare, while the Pizza Hut a mile further away has made the choice to treat its employees fairly, I’d rather reward the latter than simply blow off Pizza Hut completely. (Okay, bad example; they make pretty non-fabulous pizza. But you take my meaning, right?)
Jenn