Go Skins Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1352669928' post='1179992'] [img]http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/scumbag-papa-johns-meme.jpg[/img] [/quote] How ironic, I had their pizza Saturday night for dinner as I had a free pizza coupon that expired later this month, although I am not a fan of it. Pizza Hut is 10 times better in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 As for Papa John's in particular, most (if not all?) of their stores are franchises. Boycotting a chain store hurts the franchisee, not John Schnatter. Similarly, the decision to cut jobs/hours also rests at a regional and local management level. Considering that Papa John's business model (like basically all franchise restaurants) is based on hourly workers under salaried management, it's a no brainer that the ACA is going to result in a cut to hourly workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted November 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 I don't understand where people are talking about an increase of 0.14 a pizza. He did say that a few months ago. It seems to me that cutting hours/jobs would be in ADDITION to that change. And Orange n Black... Don't bring logic to this conversation. It is not welcome..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted November 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 And to those boycotting the pizza, more power to you. That is your right as a consumer. I'm sure you can place the blame solely on [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]John Schnatter when more workers are let go. [/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]As for me, never been a fan of Papa Johns. But I don't buy their pizza for that reason. I try to leave my politics out of my decision making and usually rely on my personal satisfaction. Google is extremely liberal but I use just about everything they throw out because they are the best at what they do. But seriously, if you think that boycotting these branches is the best way to go based on politics, more power to you.[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorclaws Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 I'm not going to pretend to know much about Papa Johns operating model, but it's too easy for people to say he should just raise the cost of pizza. The consumer as a whole doesn't give a shit about how the employees are treated and if they are getting healthcare. They want the cheapest pizza (with some preference for taste but price is a major factor). If Papa Johns goes up in price to offer it's employees healthcare, they'd lose a lot of customers to the pizza shop down the street which avoids those extra costs and sells a cheaper pizza. Until the consumer shows they're willing to pay more for a company that does the right thing, companies are going to cut every corner possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 [quote name='gatorclaws' timestamp='1352733294' post='1180199'] I'm not going to pretend to know much about Papa Johns operating model, but it's too easy for people to say he should just raise the cost of pizza. The consumer as a whole doesn't give a shit about how the employees are treated and if they are getting healthcare. They want the cheapest pizza (with some preference for taste but price is a major factor). If Papa Johns goes up in price to offer it's employees healthcare, they'd lose a lot of customers to the pizza shop down the street which avoids those extra costs and sells a cheaper pizza. Until the consumer shows they're willing to pay more for a company that does the right thing, companies are going to cut every corner possible. [/quote] True - and the other side of that is the investors / shareholders also don't give a shit about how the employees are treated or if they are getting healthcare. They want the maximum dividend. Plenty of blame to go around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 Papa John gets a percentage of franchise money for getting to use their name, so yes boycotting will effect their bottom line. If it means the common man loses work and has to find a job at a pizza chain that does give healthcare or he might change his mind the I'm ok with that. But I am beyond tired of folks who treat the people that make them successful like crap and folks who think that's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted November 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1352735680' post='1180213'] Papa John gets a percentage of franchise money for getting to use their name, so yes boycotting will effect their bottom line. If it means the common man loses work and has to find a job at a pizza chain that does give healthcare or he might change his mind the I'm ok with that. But I am beyond tired of folks who treat the people that make them successful like crap and folks who think that's ok. [/quote] Funny b/c I'm tired of people who act like ObamaCare is worth the potential loss of a massive amount of jobs and won't even defend what is so great about the bill other than the stuff we can all agree with... Why is it so important for the government to put their nose into forcing businesses to do what they don't think they can?3 BTW, Papa Johns does offer health insurance, even for part time workers: http://www.papajohns.com/careers/benefits_01.shtm I guess they are just not up to your guys standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Skins Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 Speaking of pizza, do you think the delivery fee really doesn't end up in the driver's pocket in some way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 [quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1352737094' post='1180223'] Funny b/c I'm tired of people who act like ObamaCare is worth the potential loss of a massive amount of jobs and won't even defend what is so great about the bill other than the stuff we can all agree with... Why is it so important for the government to put their nose into forcing businesses to do what they don't think they can?3 [b]BTW, Papa Johns does offer health insurance, even for part time workers: [url="http://www.papajohns.com/careers/benefits_01.shtm"]http://www.papajohns...enefits_01.shtm[/url] I guess they are just not up to your guys standards?[/b] [/quote] What is he complaining about then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1352737716' post='1180230'] What is he complaining about then? [/quote] I'd like to know that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted November 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 I am confused.. I see what I posted above and took it as everyone is eligible to be covered. However this article says only 1/3 is actually covered... Maybe offering insurance isn't good enough? I honestly don't know. http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/money/papa-johns-ceo-john-schnatter-obamacare-likely-to-raise-costs-employees-hours-to-be-cut [i][color=#000000][font='Times New Roman'][size=4]About a third of Papa John's employees are covered by the company's health insurance plan, although Schnatter said he has always wanted 100 percent of them on the plan. The rising costs of health insurance, he said, have been a deterrent.[/size][/font][/color][/i] [color=#000000][font='Times New Roman'][size=4] [i]Under the Affordable Care Act, full-time employees -- those working 30 hours or more per week -- would have to be provided with insurance at companies with more than 50 workers. Schnatter said it was likely that some franchise owners would reduce employees' hours in order to avoid having to cover them.[/i][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font='Times New Roman'][size=4] [i]"That's probably what's going to happen," he said. "It's common sense. That's what I call lose-lose."[/i][/size][/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 Yeah I'm kinda confused. Is providing a group insurance option enough to avoid fine or does PJ have to actually pay for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 I don't know the specifics of the Papa John's health plan, but I do know that under the ACA, a business that does not provide a health insurance option for an eligible worker faces a pretty hefty fine, something like ~$2k/yr per worker. It would be logical to assume that the cost to the business of health insurance is in that neighborhood if not higher. Offering health benefits to part-time workers might be optional for the franchisee. More likely is that the benefits are still prohibitively expensive for people working at hourly rates, and so they elect not to take the benefit. The rates are not Papa John's fault, they are set by the insurance provider. It's great for a company to offer benefits for its employees, but Papa John's is in no way obligated to subsidize the insurance rates to make them affordable for all its employees - which is essentially what the ACA forces the company to do. The ACA does little to control the skyrocketing price of health insurance; without a public option to demarcate what the government considers "affordable" to Americans, insurance conglomerates control the cost of health care even more than they did before, since everyone is legally required to buy their product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1352747771' post='1180278'] I don't know the specifics of the Papa John's health plan, but I do know that under the ACA, [b]a business that does not provide a health insurance option[/b] for an eligible worker faces a pretty hefty fine, something like ~$2k/yr per worker. It would be logical to assume that the cost to the business of health insurance is in that neighborhood if not higher. Offering health benefits to part-time workers might be optional for the franchisee. More likely is that the benefits are still prohibitively expensive for people working at hourly rates, and so they elect not to take the benefit. The rates are not Papa John's fault, they are set by the insurance provider. It's great for a company to offer benefits for its employees, but Papa John's is in no way obligated to subsidize the insurance rates to make them affordable for all its employees - which is essentially what the ACA forces the company to do. The ACA does little to control the skyrocketing price of health insurance; without a public option to demarcate what the government considers "affordable" to Americans, insurance conglomerates control the cost of health care even more than they did before, since everyone is legally required to buy their product. [/quote] What exactly does this mean? Company has to offer or pay for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1352749234' post='1180284'] What exactly does this mean? Company has to offer or pay for? [/quote] As I understand it, they must offer a health insurance plan that meets the minimum standards established by the federal government. I don't know if the employee is obligated to take what the employer offers, but since they are legally required to carry health insurance, the employer plan is almost certainly better than what they could find elsewhere. It does not mean that people no longer have to pay insurance premiums; the cost is just shared by the employer, just like group plans that most salaried folks have today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 Alright, I decided to answer my own question. [size=5][b]Sois Read's Obomba Care[/b][/size] I read the law (It's hella long and gay) and found in §1513 subsection (a) paragraph (1): [i](1) any applicable large employer fails to offer to its full- [/i] [i]time employees (and their dependents) [b]the opportunity to enroll [/b][/i] [i]in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer- [/i] [i]sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2))[/i] So essentially, PJ's should already be covered. They don't have to pay for insurance, just go out and get a suitable group insurance offering, which they probably already have. He seems like he's just bitching to bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 Just at a quick glance, I don't see how it raises costs for his company. 1. He already has a group policy. I would guess it meets the "minimum essential coverage" clause. 2. Group insurance rates, IMO, should go down. I know this is heavily debatable on both sides. I just think that more competition + more people/companies paying in = lower/flat rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 There are a lot of variables to this when you consider a franchise-based company like Papa John's. It's very likely that the company allows each franchisee to choose its own health insurer as long as the same basic benefits are offered. Depending on the way each individual franchise chooses and structures its health plan, the costs can vary wildly. Tripling the number of workers on the health plan is going to raise the cost of doing business exponentially no matter which way you slice it. The company pays a per-head share of premiums, which is considered part of compensation. The Cost-Of-Orange on my company's books is quite a bit higher than my base salary, due to my benefits. If you are effectively raising each employee's compensation in the absence of growth of the business, that change has to be balanced - by increasing price or reducing workforce so that the books remain even. It may be that some franchises will raise prices, but for an item as elastic in demand as pizza (demand is tied strongly to price - there is little quality difference between PJ, Pizza Hut, Dominos, Donatos, etc. etc.) the net effect is likely to be even more harmful to the business. The initial comments by Schnatter don't really come off to me as bitching - he's pointing out that some franchises are not going to be able to afford these changes to health coverage. It's not as simple as sending out a mandate to up pizzas by 14 cents, since I doubt there is profit sharing going on between franchises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 Do franchises count under the 50 employee umbrella? If I open a PJ's, will I be lumped in as a non-small business owner even though my 'chise only employs 10 dudes? I don't think they do for regular tax purposes. They simply pay a franchise fee to use the collateral shit the parent company owns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 Not sure, but a lot of franchisees own multiple stores. I.E., Peyton Manning, who now owns 21 stores in Colorado. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 It seems like PJ's already has negotiated a group insurance policy. The franchisees, as part of their inclusion benefits, would have access to those policy offerings as of right now. Therefore, all of the Manning full timers are probably already given the option to buy in to the PJ's insurance. Why would they all instantly cost more? They are already meeting the requirement. Another thing... wouldn't each of the 21 locations run as its own distinct entity? It just seems that if I own two McD's, they each get their own set of books. I can't write off shit I buy at one location on the other location's books. I'll ask my accountant buddies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1352747771' post='1180278'] I don't know the specifics of the Papa John's health plan, but I do know that under the ACA, a business that does not provide a health insurance option for an eligible worker faces a pretty hefty fine, something like ~$2k/yr per worker. It would be logical to assume that the cost to the business of health insurance is in that neighborhood if not higher. Offering health benefits to part-time workers might be optional for the franchisee. More likely is that the benefits are still prohibitively expensive for people working at hourly rates, and so they elect not to take the benefit. The rates are not Papa John's fault, they are set by the insurance provider. It's great for a company to offer benefits for its employees, but Papa John's is in no way obligated to subsidize the insurance rates to make them affordable for all its employees - which is essentially what the ACA forces the company to do. [color=#ff0000]The ACA does little to control the skyrocketing price of health insurance; without a public option to demarcate what the government considers "affordable" to Americans, insurance conglomerates control the cost of health care even more than they did before, since everyone is legally required to buy their product.[/color] [/quote] This I agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1352760155' post='1180332'] This I agree with. [/quote] Nailed it. And there are some other glaring holes in this legislation of which most on this board are not aware, but they will be soon enough. Just wait until you see how employers and insurance companies are going to be screwing you and your family... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 It does seem there are possibly better ideas than ObamaCare. However, I just want to know if ObamaCare is truly going to fuck up Papa John's life or if he is just being h-moe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.