ONTD Political

Papa John's CEO John Schnatter Says Company Will Reduce Workers' Hours In Response To Obamacare

10:14 pm - 11/09/2012

Papa Johns Obamacare

In the wake of President Obama's reelection, one CEO is doubling down on his criticisms of Obamacare.

Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter said he plans on passing the costs of health care reform to his business onto his workers. Schnatter said he will likely reduce workers’ hours, as a result of President Obama's reelection, the Naples News reports. Schnatter made headlines over the summer when he told shareholders that the cost of a Papa John’s pizza will increase by between 11 and 14 cents due to Obamacare.

"I got in a bunch of trouble for this," he said, referring to the comments he made in August, according to Naples News. "That's what you do, is you pass on costs. Unfortunately, I don't think people know what they're going to pay for this."

Schnatter went on to say he's neither in support of, nor against the Affordable Care Act, even admitting that "the good news is 100 percent of the population is going to have health insurance.” But he’s not the only one in the chain restaurant industry to admit that workers hours may be reduced, since Obamacare mandates that only employees that work more than 30 hours per week are covered under their employers health insurance plan. For example, Darden restaurants, the parent company of Olive Garden and Red Lobster, has already experimented with reducing workers hours in anticipation of the legislation.

Others have responded to the added costs of Obamacare more harshly, includingApplebee's which has said it won’t hire new workers because of the law. Just this week, a Georgia business owner also claimed he cut employees due to Obamacareand in fact had specifically laid off those who he thought had voted for President Obama.


Source

Welp, yet another reason to patronize my local pizza place (that and their pizza isn't total shit...Go Amante is Seattle!) Also, yeah--I realy believe that this douchcanoe is totally neutral on Obamacare. Riiiiight.
astridmyrna 10th-Nov-2012 04:01 pm (UTC)
There needs to be part-timers rights or something, because I'm sick of employers cheaping out on health insurance by cutting hours so that they a) don't have to pay for it and b) their employees won't be able to afford it unless they can maybe wrangle another part time job.
layweed 10th-Nov-2012 04:10 pm (UTC)
Idk, I think they'll still try to wriggle out of part-timers rights or whatever legislation gets passed by pulling more bullshit. What I'd really like to see is them held liable for this shit in court. Sue their fucking pants off so hard that anyone else from a small business to a major corporation doesn't even fucking dare think about doing something like this again.
effervescent 10th-Nov-2012 05:20 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure suing would do any good. It might stop companies from saying that they're doing it in public, but they'll still find reasons to change people to part-time or lay off people, I think. Or raise prices.

Really big companies like this make me sick, because they could afford to do it, but the all mighty profit comes before making sure people are healthy.
tadashee 10th-Nov-2012 04:10 pm (UTC)
I feel like there is no winning wirth Obamacare. I think it was passed with the belief that people would take the extra cost. Ugh disgusted by businesses.
layweed 10th-Nov-2012 04:12 pm (UTC)
Isn't that always how it is though? Any extra costs get passed right along to the consumer instead of shared or absorbed by the business. =\
one_hoopy_frood 10th-Nov-2012 04:59 pm (UTC)
There are going to be a lot of subsidies to help offset the costs.
maynardsong 10th-Nov-2012 04:42 pm (UTC)
And that is why I wish we had universal health care that's decoupled from employment. Then none of this would be an issue. Does that make me a Communist? Then the powers that be can come at me.
fenris_lorsrai 10th-Nov-2012 04:58 pm (UTC)
I totally agree that it should be decoupled from employment since the time when you MOST need it is when you're unemployed!

from a PUBLIC HEALTH standpoint it also makes the most sense. Better people come in when sick and get it treated than have an epidemic!
mysid 10th-Nov-2012 05:06 pm (UTC)
Agreed.

I once worked at a school district that fired me two days before I would have qualified for benefits, and then rehired me a few days later. I now have a job at which I'm "part time", so it doesn't give me benefits. I also have a child with significant health problems. We'd never have been able to afford to take care of her without my husband's health benefits. We could so easily be bankrupt and homeless right now for lack of universal health care.
layweed 10th-Nov-2012 05:48 pm (UTC)
Yep! And not only that, but it would make all these Constitutionality challenges moot because you wouldn't have the mandate to worry about! (or at least, that's how I understand it)
skellington1 10th-Nov-2012 09:27 pm (UTC)
Absolutely!

It also allows you a more mobile workforce, where employees feel comfortable to find jobs that fit them better or start their own businesses. And it would mean that no one gets stuck in that awful "just enough of a medical problem that if left untreated they can't work, but can't afford to get treatment without work" cycle. UGH.

It's so damn obvious.
mirhanda 10th-Nov-2012 10:25 pm (UTC)
+1

It's ridiculous that it's tied to employment anyway.
darth_eldritch 11th-Nov-2012 12:06 am (UTC)
Strange but true: My dad, who is mostly a Goldwater conservative, has said ever since I can remember that we need a true universal healthcare.
tilmon 10th-Nov-2012 06:11 pm (UTC)
This! We need to begin right now to pressure Congress to elimate the loopholes that leave us vulnerable to being permanent part-time workers.

Edited at 2012-11-10 06:11 pm (UTC)
kyra_neko_rei 11th-Nov-2012 01:10 am (UTC)
This. Pro-rate that shit. And institute punitive tax rates for every company that pays any of its employees less than a living wage with benefits such that 40 hours pays enough to live on, because when employees can't afford health insurance, the state pays to put them on Medicaid, and when employees don't make enough to live on, the state pays in food stamps, welfare, etc. to pick up the rest of the tab, and it's like getting the state to pay half the salary for them.
romp 11th-Nov-2012 08:30 am (UTC)
It's why health care needs to no longer be tied to employment. Okay, I'm ranting to the choir.

Edited at 2012-11-11 08:38 am (UTC)
This page was loaded Sep 19th 2014, 3:53 pm GMT.