HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Take a note here, I am not saying that I know what their costs are, nor do I claim to understand exactly where these costs come from. But, I do know that turnover has costs, and thus high turnover has higher overhead. I am not saying that it is certain that mcdonalds is telling the truth, only that their argument makes logical sense from a basic knowledge of their company. You, however, are saying that you don't know where these costs might be, therefore it must be a lie. As someone else said, you are arguing from incredulity. Unless you know a lot more about their costs, and are not telling us, you really are not presenting a good argument to refute the claim that they cannot meet 80% just because you don't understand it.
I am stating that these are managers with these plans. These are not high turn over employees. That is a bullshit claim in the first place.
I am also stating that even if the employee's are high turn over, technology is available to today to make that all moot as it should not cost them any more to keep track of an employee they are tracking for payroll purposes in the first place.
I am stating that in all likely hood the insurer is a subsidiary or sister company to McDonalds, and as such it would be even easier to track turn over.
I am stating that it shouldn't be costing them more than $7 million dollars per year on average for "administrative" costs which include tracking turn over.
Yes there is some supposition I have going on, but it's within the realms of a good educated guess and not something being pulled out of my ass. Using the facts I do know, and following a logic process I've already outlined, it is pretty easy to draw the same conclusion I have drawn. That McD's is totally whining about not being able to take candy from babes anymore.
