And I bet all your employees were oh so happy to be working under your whip...
Posted on 11/27/2013 2:29:36 AM PST by Grumpybutt
I filled out an online application for a clerk/cashier position at a national retail pharmacy yesterday morning. I've been bugged about a question on that application/assessment ever since.
"If hired, will you participate in the employers health care plan?"
I answered "no" but have to wonder why that question was even asked. Has obmacare now forced employers to "weed out" prospective employees by whether or not they are going to need health insurance?
And I bet all your employees were oh so happy to be working under your whip...
It is an Obama(don’t)care question that is why it is tucked in the tax credit area. They get state and federal tax breaks for hiring certain people.
“And I bet all your employees were oh so happy to be working under your whip...”
Yes, all business owners oppress the working class. If only the workers could control the means of production and all of those oppressive businesses would be shown a thing or two and the fruits of the workers labor could be distributed more evenly amongst the masses.
That’s what we need, a workers revolution!
Ignore the guy that can’t read English so doesn’t understand the difference between “question” and “complaint”.
The insurance question could be something to rule you out as a candidate but may not be. If it is, it’d obviously be cost.
It could simply be an indication to them as to whether or not they need to have insurance info w/them at an interview, or to synch up HR schedules if another person provides that info.
Nevertheless, I wouldn’t sweat it. If you’re really curious, ask a manager at a branch one day - anonymously.
Welcome to a Brave New World, where to question the motivations or actions of an employer (or potential employer)for any reason, in any way, is “Marxism”.
Shocking, isn’t it, to discover that you have been a “Marxist” all these years, when you actually though you were a typical, patriotic American?
But don’t feel to badly: I’ve been a “job-creator” for 40 years, and lately I’ve realized I must be a “Marxist” too, by the standards of “Be properly grateful for whatever you betters offer”.
Likely though, you do have a problem: lots of the places where you apply for work *are* looking for people so desperately grateful for work, on any terms and under and conditions, that they will *never* question what they are asked to do, or why - and the fact that you are even daring to ask the question automatically “disqualifies” you for the job.
Does not have to be that way, here’s how a *real* Capitalist (and a hyper-successful) thinks about hiring people who “question authority”:
“I want us to listen to these dissenters because they may intend to tell you why we can’t do something, but if you listen hard, what they’re really telling you is what you must do to get something done.”
- Bob Pittman, chairman and chief executive of Clear Channel
Communications
Finding the job that lets you use you talents and insights may not be easy - in fact, it may be very hard - and you may have to compromise your principles in the meantime.
But those employers do exist, and refusing to accept that you should be “grateful” for the opportunity to work for some other kind does not make someone a “Marxist” - quite the opposite, it means that they are not one of the compliant, drifting mass of the “faux-employed”- the people resigned to working “private-sector” jobs that would not exist were it not for massive taxpayer subsidies such as Medicaid, SNAP, and the like.
You are a jerk. Just saying...
There are some jobs where noticing odd things and questioning is pretty much required.
But in this case it is just a tax credit for the company question. If you have health insurance of your own then they can claim full coverage without having to subsidize your insurance.
But no they are not using it to screen people out. If they did that, especially since it is an electronic application, it would quickly become statistically apparent and they would find themselves in hot water with fedgov.
“You are a jerk. Just saying...”
Many of the proletariat on this thread share your opinion.
Then again, I work for a large corporation that is growing. Maybe the mindset would be different in a small business.
When we owned our business, we asked the same question. Not because of discrimination of any type, but we would offer $4 an hour more if you did NOT take part in our health care program. Some couples would choose that path, especially if their spouses program was better.
For us, it was not on the application, but rather after being hired. The choice was theirs. It mattered not much to us. The savings was more towards the employee, but we only had a part time office manager (my wife), and the headache to deal with insurance was worth it to her.
So perhaps it’s not so much the question itself but rather the blunt and awkward way it was framed that is raising so many hackles?
I reckon that is true
We also offered $1.00 more per hour if you did not partake in our 401k contribution. It made no sense why our employees would not, but most did not. They would rather have the $1.00 per hour. We contributed up to $1,200 per year (because you cannot contribute to overtime), but the math says you are a fool not to take the contribution (which is tax free). 7 of 10 of our guys too the 1$ per hour.
We allowed that because we believed people would rather make their OWN choices.
Silly us.
So they could receive up to $1,200 tax free (actually tax delayed) or receive $2,080 at normal taxes?
Assuming they receive the full $1,200, unless they are in the top federal tax bracket, they are money ahead to take the $1/hr. Much of any state/local income tax and they would be money ahead with the buck even in the top tax bracket.
Actually, they would not be taxed on their contribution.
Plus, when you cash out, depending on the state you are in, you do not pay the CGT.
A 100% interest rate (by that I mean an employer contribution that doubles your investment) beats the hell out of the DJ industrial average or a bank.
Only a fool would pass that up.
But, hey, if you want to take your $1,200 and try to beat a double profit, by all means.
That is what many of our employees did.
No sweat off my back.
Instead, I would welcome that.
Are you in TX? (I see that mentioned on the questionnaire.) Much of Texas is on a hiring frenzy.
They keep trying to take my land.
I’d say it’s mostly taken at this point.
But have you thought of opening a casino?
You said the company would pay up to $1,200 in the 401k, or pay $1 extra per hour.
So are we not comparing $1,200 tax "free" versus $2,080 taxed?
Unless your total tax rate exceeds 42%, the employee receives more money with the $1/hr.
A 100% interest rate (by that I mean an employer contribution that doubles your investment) beats the hell out of the DJ industrial average or a bank.
You seem to be ignoring the $1/hr in the comparison. I don't think most companies offer that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.