The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
One full-timer is more expensive than one part-timer.Scuffer said:
Should Wal-Mart provide insurance for part-timers?
- Thread starter thestonesfan
- Start date
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Well, that's not exactly the full story ...Mise said:
Mise
isle of lucy
I thought it was. What did I miss?The Last Conformist said:
Laughing Gull
charts, graphs, databases
happy workers can lead to better long term success for the company.
IMO, if employees like their jobs and the benefits, and that keeps them in their jobs for a longer time, it allows for better customer relations to develop and stronger bonding with the local community. thus increasing customer loyalty and an overall better image.
I doubt this matters to the folks at Wal-Mart, master outlet for our disposable society, though.
IMO, if employees like their jobs and the benefits, and that keeps them in their jobs for a longer time, it allows for better customer relations to develop and stronger bonding with the local community. thus increasing customer loyalty and an overall better image.
I doubt this matters to the folks at Wal-Mart, master outlet for our disposable society, though.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I don't know about Britain, but in Sweden and Germany, you have to pay for part of the costs of many treatments and tests.Mise said:
Mise
isle of lucy
We have to pay for prescriptions, dental exams, glasses, stuff like that, but not for seeing a doctor or having an operation.The Last Conformist said:
Clearly, there are some people in this world who can't afford/be bothered to pay for medical insurance. At least those people can go to a doctor and get the treatment they want. It makes you wonder though, because the USA apparently to pay far less tax, but the standard of living of the "average American" is far less than what you'd expect if you look at the GDP per capita... oh well...rmsharpe said:
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Sometimes I wonder if you're just a cleverly programmed spambot. I was addressing the claim we only pay for it via taxes.rmsharpe said:
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Where I'm from, having a dental exam involves seeing a doctor.Mise said:
Last time I needed any serious medical attention - I had broken an arm - I (well, my parents) ended up paying, IIRC, some 50 in total. Also, there's a mostly symbolic fee for seeing a doctor for a health check.
No, it's not spam, it's the truth. It's often disguised as "free," when it's not. You pay for it either way, and in the private system, there's a lot less overhead.
As for the subject of Wal-Mart, they shouldn't. If the people want insurance, they should work at least eight hours a day. If I get four jobs and all of them have insurance plans, I'd be rich.
As for the subject of Wal-Mart, they shouldn't. If the people want insurance, they should work at least eight hours a day. If I get four jobs and all of them have insurance plans, I'd be rich.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
It's spam when you repeats something another poster has said when making it sound as you're refuting him.rmsharpe said:
You might want to try working in a country where all jobs come with insurance.
Norlamand
Procrastinator Rex
Only if it serves their purpose, by which I mean increasing profits, productivity or worker retention/satisfaction.
Little Raven
On Walkabout
Only in rmsharpe's world.rmsharpe said:
Out here, where the rest of us live, the US pays vastly more in medical overhead costs than any other nation in the world.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Walmart bashing.
Mise
isle of lucy
Little Raven said:
someone should show that to Michael Howard (or Tony Blair for that matter).
Elgalad
Bully!
If large corporations/big businesses should be required to pay the premiums for health insurance coverage on all their employees, full and part time.. Then what about small business owners (100 employees or less)? What about volunteer and non-profit organizations? Lemonade stands? 
Where do we draw the line here folks?
I'm going on record with this post with the statement that I do not want Any federally mandated policy forcing corporations or businesses in the United States to provide medical insurance coverage for their employees. Whether it works or not in Canada and Europe is moot. It has been tried here in two states and it has failed miserably. You're going to end up with only one of two choices in the end: 1) Guaranteed coverage for all citizens that is of the lowest quality. or 2) Market driven coverage for all citizens who choose to do what it takes to obtain it, that is of the highest quality.
Pick one.
-Elgalad
Where do we draw the line here folks?I'm going on record with this post with the statement that I do not want Any federally mandated policy forcing corporations or businesses in the United States to provide medical insurance coverage for their employees. Whether it works or not in Canada and Europe is moot. It has been tried here in two states and it has failed miserably. You're going to end up with only one of two choices in the end: 1) Guaranteed coverage for all citizens that is of the lowest quality. or 2) Market driven coverage for all citizens who choose to do what it takes to obtain it, that is of the highest quality.
Pick one.
-Elgalad
Little Raven
On Walkabout
I think you're going to find that which one people pick depends on how difficult you make number 2 to obtain. Based on the fact that 1.5 million people have lost health insurance over the last two years, I'm going to guess that number 2 is getting more difficult. If that trend continues, expect people to start choosing number 1.Elgalad said:
betazed
Seeking...
- Joined
- May 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,224
Elgalad said:You're going to end up with only one of two choices in the end: 1) Guaranteed coverage for all citizens that is of the lowest quality. or 2) Market driven coverage for all citizens who choose to do what it takes to obtain it, that is of the highest quality.
Pick one.
-Elgalad
My head hurts. I must be missing a lot because so many people everywhere can see so many things in black & white and I cannot.
When I think of a completely market driven system of healthcare, I see the following (which btw is not very far from what the US has right now)
- Hordes of actuarists deciding on premium rates and profitability
- Hordes of lawyers trying to figure out how to get out of insurance
- Hordes of clerks pushing paper
- Hordes of advertisers trying to peddle a drug
- More hordes of acutarists figuring out insurance to charge doctors for malpractice
- More hordes of lawyers figuring out ways to sue doctors
- And finally some doctors to look after patients.
No wonder I leave the US when I have to do a proper medical exam.
I don't see how you can have a free market system that you apply to a commodity that you're willing to give to anyone for free on demand. Well not exactly on demand but emergency rooms cannot deny medical care to those in urgent need of treatment and they will never collect the payments from the treated uninsured. We already thus have a form of nationalized health-care, we have just devised it to provide the care in the most expensive and inefficient manner possible. 
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Wal-Mart does offer health insurance to partimers, but.....as a part-timer you need to be working there for 2 years before you can get it (3 months if you're fulltime). Also, the health insurance is so expensive, that the part-timers wouldn't afford it anyways unless they worked another job.
I read somewhere that 67% of Wal-Mart employees can't afford the health insurance. Probably because 67% of the employees are part-timers.
One full-time worker is more expensive because he has the benefits that the part-timers don't, and full time has a higher pay, because generally they have more experience.
So it can be cheaper (for the company) to have part-timers. However, part-timers usually don't stick around very long so you will have higher costs for training and hiring new workers (high turnover rate) and less experienced workers. Really depends on the type of business you are in and how high of a turnover rate and training costs/worker the company has.
But, if part-timers got benefits (and same per/hour pay rate as full time), then it would be beneficial to have as few workers as possible and even have them work overtime. Paying overtime is cheaper than paying the benifits of more workers.
I read somewhere that 67% of Wal-Mart employees can't afford the health insurance. Probably because 67% of the employees are part-timers.
One full-time worker is more expensive because he has the benefits that the part-timers don't, and full time has a higher pay, because generally they have more experience.
So it can be cheaper (for the company) to have part-timers. However, part-timers usually don't stick around very long so you will have higher costs for training and hiring new workers (high turnover rate) and less experienced workers. Really depends on the type of business you are in and how high of a turnover rate and training costs/worker the company has.
But, if part-timers got benefits (and same per/hour pay rate as full time), then it would be beneficial to have as few workers as possible and even have them work overtime. Paying overtime is cheaper than paying the benifits of more workers.
UPS manages to give all employees excellent insurance (medical, dental, vision), plus good pay, for a job that's basically unskilled labor (starts at $8.50 or $9.50/hr depending on shift, $.50/hr raise after 90 days if you aren't late or don't miss a day). Not only is the company surviving, but they're pulling in record profits- and business is going up. We (the center I work in) are expecting peak volume this Christmas to be 15-40% higher than it's ever been- we're not even sure we can handle it.
Similar threads
