Get PJ Media on your Apple

by
Tom Blumer

Bio

January 14, 2014 - 12:01 am

staples_easy_button_lies_big_1-13-14-1

An email from “‘Sue’ via Change.org” hit my inbox on Saturday, asking me to sign her petition.

Change.org itself is a fundamentally shady, personally invasive for-profit operation posing as a charitable petition-generating platform to “empower people everywhere.” For this column, let’s stick with what “Sue Whistleblower,” who says she won’t use her real name because she claims to be “afraid I’ll lose my job for what I’m about to tell you,” wrote.

“Sue” — we’ll assume that she’s a real person, but one can’t rule out the opposite — is “heartbroken” that big-box retailer Staples, her employer, decided in early December that effective with the week ending January 4, 2014, “part-time associates should not be scheduled to work more than 25 hours per week.” Staples has also informed managers that because of this move, they “may need to hire additional associates to ensure optimal staffing levels.”

“Sue” asserts that the company “decided to cut part-time employees’ hours just so they won’t have to provide health care benefits under Obamacare.” Although the company’s internal instructions to store managers are silent on the topic, it’s reasonable to believe that Obamacare’s long-known and widely known “employer mandate” was a major factor in the policy change. Under that mandate, employers with more than 50 workers must provide health insurance to anyone who puts in an average of 30 or more hours per week — a new and unprecedented definition of “full-time employee” — or pay a fine of $2,000 per uncovered employee (after an exemption for the first 30).

Thus, Staples has joined the 389 entities whose announced decisions to cut part-timers’ hours compiled at Investor’s Business Daily can arguably be tied to the employer mandate.

The Obama administration continues to insist that there is no discernible Obamacare-driven movement towards part-timers, and that the Everest-like mountain of accumulated evidence is merely “anecdotal.” That’s interesting, and two-faced. Knee-jerk leftist and lead administration apologist Paul Krugman, reacting to one person’s allegedly successful encounter with HealthCare.gov in October, repeated a statement he has been making for years: “[T]the plural of anecdote is data.” The fact is that few firms have publicly admitted Obamacare’s influence to avoid the leftist mob’s intimidation campaigns. One which has taken a public stance, but is not on IBD’s just-cited list, is Whole Foods. Over time, it will move 4,000 employees, or 5 percent of its workforce, from full-time to part-time specifically as a result of Obamacare.

That’s a lot of anecdotal “data,” Paul. Overall, part-timers have increased in number by over 2.6 million during the past 73 months. Meanwhile, full-time employment, still almost 4.6 million shy of it pre-recession peak, has been stuck at barely 47 percent of the adult population for four years — down from 52 percent when the recession began.

Over the weekend, I visited a Staples store where I once worked and asked an associate I know about the situation. That person confirmed that “corporate” had indeed issued the edict, and that certain employees at that store had not handled it well. That person also noted some of them had signed the Change.org petition “Sue” wants employees and members of the public to sign and had informed store management of their move (so much for “Sue’s” alleged fear factor).

“Sue’s” email contains four key deceptions.

1. “Staples doesn’t want to provide health care to its employees.”

Rubbish. Before Obamacare came along, employees needed “to work just 20 hours per week to gain access to most benefits,” including “medical, dental, life, vision and disability insurance.”

The company, whose benefits are also available to “same-sex spouses and domestic partners,” recently received its fourth consecutive perfect score of 100 percent in “a national benchmarking survey and report on corporate policies and practices related to LGBT workplace equality.” The company’s intent to be a leader in perceived employee-friendly policies while providing competitive returns to shareholders appears to be beyond dispute.

2. “Other chain employers such as Darden Restaurants (owners of Olive Garden and Red Lobster) reversed similar cuts after intense public pressure.”

Darden’s alleged reversal was over a year ago, and the company only said that “it would not change full-time employees to part-time positions because of the law.” (By the way, Darden announced in mid-December that it “will spin off or sell Red Lobster [and] stop expanding Olive Garden.” Perhaps the company should have stayed the course.)

As far as I can tell, involuntary bust-downs from full-time to part-time are not the issue at Staples. Its move only affects hours worked by current part-timers who until now had typically put in 26 or more hours per week (only about six at the store I visited), and its future hiring mix.

3. “Sue’s” email dishonestly claims that Staples is “taking advantage of a loophole” in Obamacare, and implies that it is breaking the law when it asks signers to demand that Staples “comply with Obamacare.”

No one can reasonably accuse Staples of not complying with the Affordable Care Act. The company’s quandary is in how it should react to the law while remaining in full legal compliance. Progressives who backed Obamacare’s passage naively assumed that employers would just absorb the costs and burdens associated with the law while making no changes to their personnel practices. They’re angry that companies are doing what they feel they must to stay in business and provide adequate returns to their owners.

If Staples had done nothing, it would have incurred what management must believe are unacceptable additional costs that would seriously cut into the company’s already razor-thin 2.0 percent after-tax profit margin. On the other hand, it could have decided — as many employers surely will in the coming years — that terminating its employer-sponsored health plan, avoiding the higher costs Obamacare has forced into it, and paying the $2,000 per employee fine would be easier and less expensive. Unfortunately for “Sue,” who in nine years at the company remained a part-timer in her store’s Easy Tech Department, the company has chosen, from all appearances reluctantly, to adapt to Obamacare by protecting the benefits of its truly full-time staff. Staples is far from alone in doing this.

4. “Sue,” who says she “recently got married and … (has) a baby on the way,” acts as if she’s been blindsided.

Contradicting this pose, her email betrays a detailed preexisting and ongoing knowledge of the 30-hour issue. The online petition itself has revised its second-last paragraph to note that “our Government has also delayed the requirement until 2015,” but “somehow” forgets that full-time determinations will be based on hours worked during 2014.

The online petition, whose content differs significantly from the email and pretends that “Sue’s” knowledge came about because of “a little digging,” also mentions H-E-B, a company which almost no one outside of Texas has heard of, as another firm which has apparently tried to appease the mob.

The point is that “Sue” appears to be engaged enough to have anticipated this likely move by her employer, but didn’t plan for it. Whose fault is that?

I believe that Change.org’s petition targets would generally be wise to shrug off the web site’s artificially orchestrated efforts as meaningless noise. That would include “Sue’s” scurrilous screed against Staples.

(Artwork created using multiple Shutterstock.com images.)

Update: Brianna Cayo Cotter, Change.org’s managing director of communications responds:

I just saw your column, “Phony Change.org Petition Protests Cuts to Part-Timers’ Hours at Staples” and wanted to reach out and request a correction based on some inaccuracies in the piece.

Your headline labels Sue’s petition on Change.org as “phony,” and the article suggests that “Sue” is not a real person (“we’ll assume that she’s a real person, but one can’t rule out the opposite”) and that Sue did not start the petition herself (“the web site’s artificially orchestrated efforts”).

It is inaccurate to describe Sue’s petition as “phony” or as Change.org’s “artificially orchestrated efforts.”

Sue launched her petition on Change.org on December 21, 2013. Change.org does not start petitions and does not take editorial positions on any of the campaigns started on our site, including Sue’s petition. Change.org is an open platform, meaning, anyone anywhere can come to the site to start a petition.

It is also incorrect to suggest that Sue isn’t a real person. Our team has had communication with Sue and her identity has been verified by independent journalists who have reported on Staples decision to cut employee hours (see recent BuzzFeed coverage of Sue’s petition here).

I ask that you to update the headline to correct the assertion that Sue’s petition is “phony” and correct the article to indicate that Sue is a real person who started her own petition on Change.org.

I’m available at (415) ***-**** if you would like to discuss any of this in greater depth.

Thanks,

Brianna

 

Mr. Blumer responds that he’s entitled to his opinions and stands by his article. — The PJM Editors

The PJM Editors

Along with having a decades-long career in accounting, finance, training and development, Tom Blumer has written for several national online publications primarily on business, economics, politics and media bias. He has had his own blog, BizzyBlog.com, since 2005, and has been a PJM contributor since 2008.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Votes have consequences.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Correct me if I'm wrong but, I thought that the managers of a publicly traded company had a fiduciary duty under the law to operate the company to the benefit of the stockholders. That is to make prudent decisions given available information to maximize the profit within acceptable risk.

If they did the business case analysis which showed that reducing hours was the most prudent way to run the company, they would be hard pressed to defend not doing it.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
I want. I want! I want!! I WANT I WANT I WANT I WANT I WANT!!!!!!!

EYEEEE....... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I WANT!!!!

Gimme.

signed, "progressive" voters.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (20)
All Comments   (20)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Sue, unless you use your real name, how are we to believe you?
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
The problem here is a disconnect, and ignorance. "Sue" if she exists, and other Staples employees regardless, probably has no idea who owns the company, what its profit margin is, who runs it, etc. Instead, she goes to work when her shift starts, does as little as she can to get through until she's off, and then goes home. Every pay period she gets a check in the mail. She vaguely understands that the more hours she works, the more money she works, but she has no clue why they would employ her. You probably could convince her that the government forced Staples to hire her, if you were persuasive enough.

When there's a really tiny small business, say a store which has an owner or 2 working at it, and 5-10 employees, the attitude can change somewhat, but I've worked in places that size where the employees figured that the owners were wealthy enough that they could pay more, anyway. Gratitude at having a job provided for you? Don't be ridiculous! Granted, at the last place like this that I worked, the owners were self-proclaimed "socialists" (no lie) who worked much harder than the average small business owner to cut costs among employees and work them like borrowed mules, but still...

Problem is "Sue" probably thinks that her wages could double or triple, she could receive benefits, and the owners of Staples could "afford" all of this without seriously hurting themselves financially. They don't do these things because they're greedy...
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
I begin to wonder what sort of 5-finger discounts employees in these big stores might be instituting. Sears has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for years, and if companies like Staples start punitatively cutting back employee hours, wouldn't that encourage said part-timers to start hauling whatever they can out of the place under their parka's?
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nan, neither Sears, nor Staples, is "punitively" cutting back work hours for employees. These businesses are doing it to stay competitive, and in some cases, alive.

If anyone is punishing workers in America, it is Obama, with his socialist schemes, over-regulation, and excessive taxes.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sue is yammering at the wrong people. "She" should be working toward repeal of Oh Bummer Tax. THAT is at the root of this travesty.

Her failure to address the root is a strong indicator she is a shill.. or incredibly stupid. Both?
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
I got an e-mail promoting the same petition. Fortunately, my e-mail program has a handy feature which I frequently use to dispose of requests to sign petitions which I believe are either worthless or off-the-mark.

It's called a "delete button", and functions really well in getting rid of this kind of garbage.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Come on people, we know the Administration's response to this. Staples isn't a strong company anyways. Drop your "junk" company and use the better one.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
STAPLES is one of the companies funded by Bain Capital when Romney was involved. Liberals feel the only successful company is one that had to go out of business because of full funding all their employees. Of course they would just claim it was mismanagement, not Obamacare that led to the companies demise.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Votes have consequences.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Even those that developed petition sites like Change.org, etc. admit that the site isn't for petitions - that's just the hook to draw the mark in. The real reason for online petitions is to collect email addresses, names, etc. for fundraising.

Never "sign" an online petitions unless you don't mind having your email address, info, etc. collected, traded/sold and want to get a fundraising spam every day.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Correct me if I'm wrong but, I thought that the managers of a publicly traded company had a fiduciary duty under the law to operate the company to the benefit of the stockholders. That is to make prudent decisions given available information to maximize the profit within acceptable risk.

If they did the business case analysis which showed that reducing hours was the most prudent way to run the company, they would be hard pressed to defend not doing it.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
That used to be true. However, under Obama, business are now in the business of providing jobs and healthcare (and fully funded abortions). I was watching some goober on Tavis Smiley (I was flipping channels, I swear). This guy was actually saying that in the past companies were to make profits but now they have a responsibility to .... You can image the lefty, hippy dippy crap this goober was spreading, all the while that idiot Smiley was nodding his head.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Liberals look upon stockholders as evil. They and the bondholders got the shaft with the auto bailout as proof.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All

5 Trackbacks to “Phony Change.org Petition Protests Cuts to Part-Timers’ Hours at Staples”