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

Papa John's Pizza is poison. It's absolutely disgusting.

these CEOs that are coming out trying to punish the country for electing Obama (that's exactly what their aim is) are going to be in for a rude awakening. Conservatives do not seem to realize that they lost the election. Their ideology got effing TROUNCED. Obama wasn't taught a lesson last Tuesday, conservatives were. It's not our fault if they stay in their anti-reality cocoons and refuse to learn the lesson that was taught. If they want to try the same old crap for another election cycle, be my guest...

 

They aren't trying to punish anyone. They are making a business decision.

 

yeah. nothing political here at all...

 

That and avoiding actual wars are one of the two things that actually mitigate the need for a large domestic force. And don't forget we're the only continental hegemon that hasn't had a full revolt or committed seven-figure genocide in the last hundred years; so we're on watch and the nature of our forces, if not necessarily the nominal cost and size, probably won't change anytime soon.

 

my ex loves pappa john's and i was always a pizza hut guy. you can't beat the ten dollar any pizza deal. pappa john's puts way too much cheese on their pizza (and this is before i was intolerant) which leads to way too much grease

 

not to mention the "sauce" that Papa John's puts on there. what the hell is that, anyway?!

 

do temp work? hire temp workers? voted for Obama?

Own it.

--
It's been hashed out in the comments on this blog before -- contract attorneys in Washington are, by and large, liberals. Usually, very liberal. By this of course, we mean the old-school, early 1900s Progressives, not the classic, Thomas Jefferson liberals. We're talking about the far leftists who changed their label from Progressive to Liberal when Progressive became a pejorative, then back to Progressive when Liberal became a pejorative and people had forgotten that Progressive used to be a pejorative.

Philosophy aside, it is important to realize that elections have consequences. One of the consequences of this election is that Obamacare is here to stay, at least for a while. It is too inherently unworkable to stay for long, but it isn't going away in the next few years. Live with it.

Liberal contract attorneys might want to consider what "live with it" means. Under Obamacare, companies with 50 or more full-time employees either have to provide them with government-approved health insurance policies, or pay a per-employee fine. Further, the fine kicks in at the 31st employee, not the 51st, and it starts at $2,000 per year per employee. It goes up later. Companies, therefore, are discouraged from having full-time employees, or at least 50 or more of them. Hello, part-time employment. Think I'm ****ing with you? Think again.

While you're thinking again, start thinking about the industry in which you work. Obamacare, unlike other government regulations, defines a full-time employee as one working 30 hours a week. Every temp agency in town worth a **** has 50 people working "full-time" in any given year under that definition. If you think that temp agencies will give you employer-funded health insurance that meets Obamacare standards (hint: lots of mandates make insurance less affordable), you are delusional. They already didn't offer comprehensive insurance, which was cheaper before Obamacare started affecting rates, so they won't start now. They also are not going to pay the penalty. Margins are too thin. What will the agencies do?

There are only two choices. First, nobody works 30 hours a week for an agency ever again. That probably is an unworkable solution, but it is not unthinkable, given the trend in the industry toward a 40-hour cap on projects. A 30-hour cap would mean more bodies, staggered, but would not be a dramatic departure from the no-OT policy that already governs so many projects. Given the staggering costs of forced health coverage (or penalties), agencies won't consider this option unworkable. They'll think about it, and you'll have to start finding two projects at a time to make a living wage. Assuming, of course, that agencies and the firms that hire them stop enforcing their concurrent employment policies that ban working two projects at a time.

The second choice is, your taxes just got harder. Agencies could deem contract attorneys to be independent contractors and start issuing 1099s instead of W-2s. That means you'll have to make quarterly estimated tax payments for withholding, Social Security and Medicare taxes. Oh, and by the way, it also means you'll be responsible for the employer's half of those Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, as you will now be self employed. Of course agencies will raise your rates to make up for the fact that your share of the payroll taxes doubled while their share disappeared. Don't doubt it for a second. Yeah, you're ****ed.

One way or another, you're ****ed. Temporary employment as we know it is unlikely to survive Obamacare, at least as it is currently structured. That's not my opinion, that's what temp agency heads said to Congress. I suggest you read the entire transcript. These guys have a pretty good idea of how Obamacare will **** their industry and, by extension, you.

But don't worry about them. Maybe they're full of ****. Maybe you'll be fine. Or maybe you're ****ed. but hey, that's what you voted for.

http://effyouitsmyblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/time-to-realize-what-you-voted-for.html

 

and like a good liberal you've turned this into class warfare. You just don't get it. There's a fundamental lack of understanding of business on your part, and on many liberals' parts. You just want something for free from somebody you perceive has more than you. Be a man and learn to do things for yourself, and be proud of your success.

...and riddle me this -- can you please provide a breakdown of who pays income taxes in this country? Broken down by income level? e.g., the top 20% of wage earners pay what % of total taxes? Thanks in advance.

 

"instead i got ketchup and egg noodles"

henry hill

 

That's right. Tell that those on Wall Street that sit on their ass, create no discernable value, and wreck the economy. Fraud left and right. Ponzi schemes, up and down. $50 million for Lloyd Blankfein to do what again?

 

Lol at GOP donor tantrums. If they don't produce, somebody else will fill the market need.

 

Since most of these employees are 'high school, college part timers' as some have said, why is this a big deal? ACA says kids can be on their parent's medical insurance til their 26. If you're over 26 & full time at papa john's, you've got bigger problems that I don't think the govt should be expected to solve.

This really seems like a very minor issue getting people riled up. But of course, that's the media's job

 

That's the problem. You think benefits are charity. Healthcare insurance isn't charity, it's a necessity. These businesses have been profitting for years without giving proper benefits, welching off the government to take care of their employees. It's disgusting.

 

The employees made the owner incredibly rich. There work has taken care of his family for generations. He feels he can't give back and take care of them little more.

That's his decision. It shows he has some flaws as a human(like everyone does), but it certainly isn't the end of the world for any employee to not be able to work as many hours at a Papa John's.

 

As someone who used to be a closing driver at papa johns it is very possible if you can get 4-5 closing shifts to be able to make a pretty good living. No, you can't support anything over a wife and a kid(provided she works some too) but for a single guy who lost his job due to the economy there are far worse ways to make it.

The trouble you will find and something that Schnatter (and other franchise owners) who don't look past the immediate cost of insuring those working over 28-32 hrs or whatever is the hidden costs that aren't as easy to see:

Training new employees more often
Maintaining more employees than before
Losing the core of your staff who used to work 30+ hrs per week and helped reach your sales and service goals
The anger/resentment of the managers/supervisors who have to deal with losing good people.

Positive of the decision is not paying insurance cost for maybe 4-5 people per store

Negative of the decision is all that stuff I said before... IMO you are better off paying the costs for the employees because you will likely lose that much and more in new training and less profit margins....

 

Corporations are people my friend. They get butt-hurt as well.

 

Your employer owes you nothing more than a paycheck for work performed. That's it, nothing more.

 

Um, no, in this country that idea has been soundly defeated for decades now. Perhaps you're still living in fantasy land.

 

Sick, sad, blah blah we get it, people who disagree with you are deplorable and evil. Spare us the sanctimony.

The employer already has his income taxed just like everyone else.

We should remove any and all taxes/requirements that increase business cost. Any additional cost means less money to expand and hire.

He's saying at that additional cost there is no need to have as many workers, they are no longer value added.

Raising the cost of labor means less labor will be demanded.

I'm sure the remaining folks that are employed will have wonderful, expensive, government mandated health insurance. At the expense of laid off workers.

 

And a happy employee is a more productive employee.

I get that large corporations have a responsibility to shareholders, and that small companies might have razor thin profit margins. But if these businesses are at all profitable, then surely they have smart people at the helm that can find ways to insure their employees without significantly raising costs, reducing profits or laying off employees. Seems like an easy out that reeks of petty vindictiveness; similar to the United reaction to Southwest's expansion plans.

America is supposed to be a leader, a shining star, a model of hope and prosperity to the rest of the world...yet we can't provide basic healthcare to all?