So hiring only part timers isn't looking like such a deal now

[mizzou]

Kind of funny how these companies (usually service oriented) have hired part-time only workers to avoid providing benefits.

So maybe they have 2 or even 3 times the workers employed on payroll that they really need.

Have fun providing health care for those workers now lulz

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/27/news/companies/starbucks-obamacare-schultz/index.html?hpt=po_c2


=======================
given the discrepancy between the OP commentary and the link; the thread is locked.

OP is not online to defend himself.

OP is welcome to create a new thread with the proper links

EK
Admin

 

[michal1980]

Your whole post is a lie. There is nothing in your link that supports any conclusion you make.

For those that don't want to follow the link.

Starbucks says it will continue providing heath insurance to all its workers... even if it means closing stores and laying some of them off.

 

[Doppel]

Kind of funny how these companies (usually service oriented) have hired part-time only workers to avoid providing benefits.

So maybe they have 2 or even 3 times the workers employed on payroll that they really need.

Have fun providing health care for those workers now lulz

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/27/news/companies/starbucks-obamacare-schultz/index.html?hpt=po_c2

Your article has nothing I can tell to do with your commentary. Did you post the wrong article?

 

[lothar]

Kind of funny how these companies (usually service oriented) have hired part-time only workers to avoid providing benefits.

So maybe they have 2 or even 3 times the workers employed on payroll that they really need.

Have fun providing health care for those workers now lulz

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/27/news/companies/starbucks-obamacare-schultz/index.html?hpt=po_c2

1.) Do you know how to read?
2.) And if so, did you read the article that you cited in your post?