The Cubs grounds crew was short staffed because the Cubs were trying to avoid Obamacare

[NrM]

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/22/the-cubs-grounds-crew-was-short-staffed-because-the-cubs-were-trying-to-avoid-obamacare/

 

 

Change!

[Tank]

maybe the owners have been reading fansince79's posts.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Tank

[Vegas Halo Fan]

An MLB team doing this is inexcusable.

[mtangelsfan]

An MLB team doing this is inexcusable.

 

Why?  It is inexcusable for a business to save money?

[floplag]

Anyone doing this is inexcusable, but also 100% predictable to anyone not in the Obama administration apparently

[mtangelsfan]

Anyone doing this is inexcusable, but also 100% predictable to anyone not in the Obama administration apparently

 

Why is it inexcusable?  Seriously.

[Spirit]

It's not.

[HeavenlyHalos]

Why is it inexcusable?  Seriously.

 

I'll bite. This would be an example of the theory that businesses should take stakeholders into account over shareholders.  I wouldn't use the word inexcusable, however it is rather cheap of them and likely wouldn't affect their bottom line that much.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Why?  It is inexcusable for a business to save money?

 

You have a business who pays millions to some employees, has hundreds of millions in income, yet begrudges others having health care benefits.

 

You're better than that, MT.

[mtangelsfan]

Please, lets not make this personal.  

 

law does not discriminate based upon size.  If a small company can do so, any company should be able to do so.  Companies need to examine all areas of cost.  The wise folks who instituted the ACA certainly understood that this was going to occur.  It is simply good business.

[InsideThePark]

I agree with you mt but that was hardly personal. Come on mt, you're better than that.

[Stradling]

Ok, so those of you up in arms about this, are you ok with every company raising their prices in order to cover the cost of each company paying for the health care? Are you also willing to pay more and get worse customer service? That is the reality and it was predictable.

[arch stanton]

Maybe it's good business, maybe not. This group directly affects the onfield product. They chose to be short-sighted and petty in the name of politics. The only fan bases in which this would be applauded are the Angels, Cubs, and maybe the Giants.

[mtangelsfan]

Maybe it's good business, maybe not. This group directly affects the onfield product. They chose to be short-sighted and petty in the name of politics. The only fan bases in which this would be applauded are the Angels, Cubs, and maybe the Giants.

 

That is your interpretation of their actions.  Mine is they chose to save money.  Now, did they do so to the detriment of their "product"?  Perhaps and that is a management issue.  My argument is with those who automatically condemn the action of cutting hours.

[floplag]

So for some of you its perfectly acceptable that a business can go out of its way to ensure not paying benefits, and you have no problem with this and consider it just business.
Fair enough, opinions vary, but for me its a lousy thing to do from a company that's making money off those people its going out of its way to hinder.

Obamacare has done more harm than can ever be measured in this regard.. so many people working less hours, or having to work multiple jobs to get the same hours, but i guess it makes the employment numbers look good, lol

[halobob]

You have a business who pays millions to some employees, has hundreds of millions in income, yet begrudges others having health care benefits.

 

You're better than that, MT.

They don't begrudge others having health care benefits, they just don't want to pay for them.

[Blarg]

Not sure how Obamacare has anything to do with this. The standard grounds crews are a small group that maintain the field. The guys that roll out the tarp are like peanut vendors, they are paid for part time work 82 games a year.

[Spirit]

They don't begrudge others having health care benefits, they just don't want to pay for them.

 

 

They don't have to pay for them.  Obamacare will.

[Spirit]

Oh, almost forgot ...

 

 

Come on, MT!  You're better than that! 

[Adam]

So for some of you its perfectly acceptable that a business can go out of its way to ensure not paying benefits, and you have no problem with this and consider it just business.

 

 

Yup. 

[Stradling]

So for some of you its perfectly acceptable that a business can go out of its way to ensure not paying benefits, and you have no problem with this and consider it just business.

Fair enough, opinions vary, but for me its a lousy thing to do from a company that's making money off those people its going out of its way to hinder.

Obamacare has done more harm than can ever be measured in this regard.. so many people working less hours, or having to work multiple jobs to get the same hours, but i guess it makes the employment numbers look good, lol

While I agree with you on Obamacare being bad for a lot of people, because they are having to work multiple jobs. But why should a business increase their costs if they can afford it? Perhaps they don't think they can survive a price increase that they pass on to their customers. To me it is a no brainer, most companies will have the same amount of employees get benefits as they did before. Also some other companies will just cut their full timers all together because there are so many people looking for second jobs.

[floplag]

While I agree with you on Obamacare being bad for a lot of people, because they are having to work multiple jobs. But why should a business increase their costs if they can afford it? Perhaps they don't think they can survive a price increase that they pass on to their customers. To me it is a no brainer, most companies will have the same amount of employees get benefits as they did before. Also some other companies will just cut their full timers all together because there are so many people looking for second jobs.

you re incorrect on the matter of the number of employees getting benefits. 

By definition under obamacare it is very easy to cut that, as we have seen from so many companies forcing their employees to go to obamacare since they no longer qualified at work.  Which by the way is also how obamacare managed to meets its quotas but thats another discussion.

I know many people that this has directly affected and come to pass and those companies are paying far less now in benefits than they were before ogamacare.

You are right on the issue of doing away with full timers though, and yes it is a no brainier perhaps from the company standpoint but certainly to no benefit of any kind to those affected by it.

This entire law was crafted to benefit the companies, or those who couldnt afford insurance any other way, the rest of us in the middle have been shafted in the name of profits

obama may be the worst corporate lackey in history for with this one law alone he has benefited large corporations far more than any bush/reagan tax cuts ever did.

[mtangelsfan]

One of the goals of the ACA is to eventually phase out company provided insurance and force everyone into the government plan.  If the ACA was so concerned about the cost of medical care it would have actually addressed that, but of course it didn't.

[Stradling]

you re incorrect on the matter of the number of employees getting benefits.

By definition under obamacare it is very easy to cut that, as we have seen from so many companies forcing their employees to go to obamacare since they no longer qualified at work. Which by the way is also how obamacare managed to meets its quotas but thats another discussion.

I know many people that this has directly affected and come to pass and those companies are paying far less now in benefits than they were before ogamacare.

You are right on the issue of doing away with full timers though, and yes it is a no brainier perhaps from the company standpoint but certainly to no benefit of any kind to those affected by it.

This entire law was crafted to benefit the companies, or those who couldnt afford insurance any other way, the rest of us in the middle have been shafted in the name of profits

obama may be the worst corporate lackey in history for with this one law alone he has benefited large corporations far more than any bush/reagan tax cuts ever did.

I can tell you that my company hasn't lowered the amount of full timers because of this. Oh and I don't really agree with the notion that companies are benefiting from this. The business has to pay for health care for anyone averaging over 30 hours a week. So business have to make a decision, what is more cost effective, hiring a ton of people and training them, deal with all of the turnover that creates or give them health care. The more cost beneficial, especially short term, is giving them health care. What it creates in business is the haves (full timers) and the have nots (part timers). Full timers with benefits will be working more hours and getting over time and part timers who may have been working over 30 hours in the past will no longer get a whiff of 30 hours. It is in a lot of cases more cost beneficial for companies to pay time and a half then pay for the extra benefits.

[floplag]

I can tell you that my company hasn't lowered the amount of full timers because of this. Oh and I don't really agree with the notion that companies are benefiting from this. The business has to pay for health care for anyone averaging over 30 hours a week. So business have to make a decision, what is more cost effective, hiring a ton of people and training them, deal with all of the turnover that creates or give them health care. The more cost beneficial, especially short term, is giving them health care. What it creates in business is the haves (full timers) and the have nots (part timers). Full timers with benefits will be working more hours and getting over time and part timers who may have been working over 30 hours in the past will no longer get a whiff of 30 hours. It is in a lot of cases more cost beneficial for companies to pay time and a half then pay for the extra benefits.

Thats nice, im betting most of your employees are salaried or somehow not tied to the issue then if thats the case.  or you happen to be lucky enough to work for someone who isnt taking advantage of the issue

How is a company that is doing these things not benefiting?  they are no longer incurring those costs, no longer have to staff insurance departments, no longer have to deal with it in payroll.. there are numerous ways these companies are benefiting.

The one thing you miss is that the real decision the business has to make is whether it cares more about profits, then the people making them for them.  It isd thier prerogative to chose the profits, but if they make that choice the people working for them can also choose to not be as loyal, work as hard, or go the extra mile since the company isnt willing to do the same. 

A lot of companies today seem to forget who it is that put them where they are.  You cant choose profit margin and stock prices over the people and expect those people to give a damn about the company.  You are correct though, it is the companies right to do so, but if you go down that road you need to be realistic about it and not expect those people to give you what they did before you screwed them over.