Papa John Is Mad About Obama Care

So I ask: who is the real mooch?

A) The former Papa John employees who have no job and no health insurance

B) Papa John's current employees who have no health insurance

C) Papa John's, John Schnatter who knowingly breaks the tradition of US employer provided health insurance

D) other

 

mooch:
Ask for or obtain (something) without paying for it.
A beggar or scrounger.

The only one you can say is not, with any degree of certainty, is 'C', John Schnatter. Without looking into each individual case of 'A', 'B', or 'D' there is no way of telling.

 

it is just funny to me how john is being singled out here, i worked for dominos as a kid and they didnt have any health insurance there. i worked at a grocery store and 75% of the employees didnt have any either. my first job was in an arcade and even though most of us were under 18 the people that were over 18 didnt have any. my mom worked in bars and diners her whole life and in the dozens of places she worked she never had any. wal-mart is the biggest retailer in the country and i dont know about other states or about management but none of the regular employees have any.
i have no problem with adding papa johns into the mix but singling him out seems like this was posted by the ceo of pizza hut.

 

actually, papa john's does have health insurance for full time employees. i've worked, i don't know, about 5 or 6 jobs, and only one has offered insurance for part timers. and i found out later that that particular company was just stealing your $30 a month they charged for insurance, and not paying the insurance company anyway.

 

The costs of doing business mandated by government actions, Federal, State and local, regarding rules, regulations, taxes, etc., along with labor union demands related to wages, and other costly paid benefits and pensions, ALL have to be taken into account not only for the short, but also the long term costs of remaining in business. The costs of Obamacare is a new and additional cost which will likely rise greatly and rapidly, and being a redistributive program not directly related to the employers workforce, but to the entire U.S. population collectively, makes it difficult for businesses to compensate for long term with any certainty, reducing the incentive to hire new employees, or grow their business, and instead promoting a protectionist attitude of raising prices and reducing their workforce size instead, which allows them to adapt and deal with Obamacare as its costs and consequences become more revealed.

It's not just Papa John who is reacting and taking action, but ALL businesses, large and small, if they plan to remain in business.

 

Look at the photo in post 255 and then tell me he can't afford this.

 

If that is true, then you would have grounds to sue if you were denied coverage by the insurance company for not being covered when you could prove that you had been paying for it. The company would most likely be held liable, unless it could be proven that the insurance company also had some involvement in the fraud.

That's why we have contracts and courts.

 

well, i probably wouldn't have grounds to sue because i wasn't buying their insurance anyway. i just found out about it because of a coworker who went to the doctor and was informed that the insurance policy he had been paying for every month had expired two years ago.

plus, the company went out of business shortly afterward, so i don't know that there's really anyone left to sue.

 

Timing can be very important when actions are necessary.

 

No one is arguing about his affordability, it's a matter of responsibility. His responsibility, like that of any and every employer is to pay you a wage you both agree to for the services you are asked to provide. If your employer pays you the wages you both agreed to, he/she has fulfilled his/her responsibility to you in full. Where does this belief that government has a duty or responsibility of being the arbiter of distribution between/within the societies that make up the U.S.A.?

When I looked at the photo you referred to, my thoughts were of how many people must have been gainfully employed in producing it, and how many people are probably continuing to be gainfully employed in maintaining it. Not to mention the exorbitant amount of annual property taxes he must have to pay.

 

Did I say anything about the US government being an "arbiter of distribution" or anything like that? No, I didn't, but you did... Faux News much?

I just said he can full well afford to pay a proper wage and benefits and he wouldn't miss one penny of it. Seriously, nobody needs a 40,000 SQ foot home, and a 6000 SQ foot carriage house plus all the other crap he owns that he probably never sees in a year... Nobody, I don't care who they are.

 

well, according to google he had about 16,500 employees. assuming that's accurate, and assuming his employees average about 15 hours a week (pretty sure it's actually much higher than that), if he were to pay even an extra $5 an hour (that would bring the average to probably somewhere around $12, although from what i've read on this site $20 is barely livable), he would be spending an extra $64,350,000 each year just on wages.

sure he could afford to pay more, no doubt about it. but there's no way he could pay union wages and not notice the difference.

 

While you may not have said such outright, you obviously are implying such. I simply presented an observation, based upon what not only you, but a number of others here appear to base their posts on relative to government responsibilities.

Actually, all your post said was "Look at the photo in post 255 and then tell me he can't afford this."

He, like any employer has a right to pay the wages and benefits that prospective employees will agree to work for. If the wages and benefits he offers are below what people are willing to work for, they can simply look for employment elsewhere as he has no power to force them to work for him.

What he needs or wants is his business, as are yours, mine, and everyone elses needs and wants their own business.

You appear to have an incessant need to display acrimonious feelings, and animosity towards others based upon what they have or do with their money.

 

Actually, Papa Johns consists of only 612 company owned and 3,034 franchised restaurants, and Schnatter only owns about 30% of the stock. The franchises pay a royalty fee of 5% of net sales, and up to 7% of net sales for Corporate advertising.

Quit complaining and buy some shares of Papa Johns stock, PZZA, currently trading around $51. Or you could short sell it and then drive it out of business and make money if that's your desire.

 

of course it depends on where you live, i moved from nj because i couldnt afford to live there anymore.
but i make well under $20 an hour and have a brand new car, am going to buy the house i am living in. just came back from a vacation to see a couple of world series games. plus i pay for my moms phone and tv. and i saved up enough already to go on another vacation this summer. actually i was making $21. when i lived in NJ before i lost my job there. and i was living the same quality of life that i am now.
i think the barely livable part must come in if their company dosnt provide health insurance and they have to go buy their own.

 

How so? You're saying that offering health care to his employees could be an equally beneficial loss-leader as his pizza give-away. He obviously disagrees, and frankly so do I. For instance, most people who work in the entry-level pizza industry are young, healthy, and don't require health care benefits. If I was running a pizza place, I probably wouldn't offer health care benefits either.. because it'd mean I could potentially offer a higher wage than my competitors and attract more skilled workers.

His employees work there voluntarily, and know the benefits, or lack there of, before going in... If they're in need of healthcare, they are free to take their wage and pay for it on their own, or find work somewhere else that provides it... how is that greedy or manipulative?

Why does it make him a "greedy and manipulative fuck" because he believes offering healthcare to his employees will impose additional costs, while believing giving away 2 million pizzas will bring in more revenue? I'm afraid that's a non sequitur...

 

Why do people feel it valid to attack success? John Schnatter can afford that house because he benefited society. He was able make a product that is more valuable to consumers than the costs of the raw materials used to make it... That should be applauded, not attacked. People work for John Schnatter on a voluntary basis, they do so because they find the compensation he pays worth the labor they put in. People buy his pizza's on a voluntary basis, they do so because they find the pizza they receive worth the money they pay for it...

John Schnatter is a beast... he started off delivering pizza's for his fathers single pizza parlor, saved up his money, bought into it, and turned it into an enormous, nation wide business bringing good tasting, cheap pizzas to people all across the United States. One things for sure... He doesn't deserve to be called things like "rube", or "greedy manipulative fuck" because of the voluntary interactions he has with consumers / employees...

 

He benefited society how?
-Making society fat?
-Underpaying
-being a dickhead


If he really wants to help benefit society he should shut the fuck up about the healthcare, stop charging the extra and just pay so your country can have healthier society.

I said it before the initial outlay of the system won't be easy nobody has said that, but the outcomes will be far greater!

I think he is a greedy fuck like a lot of them out there they should take a leaf outta this guys book

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

"too generous to employees". hahahahahahaha. Why that SONUVABITCH!!

 

-Society chooses to buy his pizzas... Papa John's didn't make society fat.. society made society fat... John Schnatter didn't force his pizza down anyone's throat. Are you suggesting we outlaw all fatty and unhealthy foods...? Are human's too reckless and stupid to decide for themselves what to eat and not to eat?

-Again, the people working for him obviously don't feel under payed, because they continue to work for him... it's not forced labor. It's VOLUNTARY. Papa John's started off as a single pizza parlor, employing less than 10 people. He now offers jobs to over 10,000. All because of his greedy, underpaying ways. You might not find the compensation sufficient, and you don't have to work there if you don't want to. Obviously 10,000 people DO find it sufficient.

-Being a dickhead.. there's a poignant argument. He's probably donated more money to charity than you'll make in your entire lifetime. I don't know him personally, he quite possibly is a dickhead... but if he is, it certainly isn't because he offers no healthcare benefits to his employees.