Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

idahoreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#61

Post by aphextron »

jolmg wrote: post #14
twblalock wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we look back on this in a few years I think we will see the virus shutdowns accelerated some trends that were already slowly happening: - The demise of many traditional retail businesses - The concentration of surviving retail businesses into big box stores and higher-end retailers (like the stores at Westfield malls) - Increased usage of online shopping and gig delivery services - Even more growth for Amazon, W…

> - Even more growth for Amazon, Walmart, and Target Why Walmart and Target? Aren't they also traditional retail?

>Why Walmart and Target? Aren't they also traditional retail?

Walmart is the #2 e-commerce retailer after Amazon.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#62

Post by dankoss »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #19

At least they can stay on their health insurance. It’s always mind boggling that in the US you will not just lose your job when you get laid off but also your health insurance. For a lot of people this is life threatening.

This is not strictly true. Health insurance has always been available for purchase by individuals, and the ACA expanded access to this by providing income-based subsidies. When you lose your job, you lose access to your employer's subsidy and risk pool.

That doesn't change the fact that heath insurance and healthcare is expensive, it's just pointing out that the only way most people can afford to have it is because their employer is paying for most of it. If that cost was more transparent to salaried people, it might spur a more useful conversation about how to bring down the cost of healthcare.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#63

Post by omegaworks »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #54
xster wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#yang2020

Did Yang run on health care reform? Last time I read about him he was babbling about “choice” and “market” but seemed to have no real plan other than the magic of the free market. If the health care situation doesn’t change then all of UBI will be eaten up by health care soon.

> Did Yang run on health care reform?

Marginally. His plan was basically the same as Buttigieg's: Medicare for all who want it.

Of course, they never talked about how that would actually reduce your choices as employers opted to stop covering health insurance and you were stuck with the smaller Medicare provider pool.

One of the big structural advantages of the real Medicare for All plan is that it would eliminate "networks" all providers would be required to accept the M4A single-payer.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#65

Post by gruez »

acwan93 wrote: post #57
synaesthesisx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, it sure would be great if we could decouple health insurance from employment like other reasonable countries. It would be a shame to literally have your existence threatened by absurd factors well outside of your control (like your employer unable to meet payroll due to a global pandemic).

With gigwork and independent contracting becoming a significant part of our economy, I can’t agree more. It seems archaic to bundle health insurance to my workplace. I can purchase auto, home, life, and whatever other insurance on my own, why not health?

>It seems archaic to bundle health insurance to my workplace. I can purchase auto, home, life, and whatever other insurance on my own, why not health?

Because if you get it through your work, you don't have to pay tax on it. Also, getting it through work also decreases the risk of adverse section on the part of the insurer, making it cheaper.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#66

Post by usaar333 »

Klathmon wrote: post #34
ryaan_anthony wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you are fired or quit. If you are laid off, you have the option to continue your insurance at your employers discounted rate. The program is called COBRA if you want to look into it.

COBRA is temporary (for 18-36 months depending on the situation), and you need to not only pay what you have been paying, but you also need to pay the "employer's share". And it must be identical to the plan you left, so you can't reduce coverage or change anything at all about the plan or you'll lose eligibility. That means people who quit or are laid off will end up having to pay more for their healthcare at a time…

> That means people who quit or are laid off will end up having to pay more for their healthcare at a time when they don't have any income.

(ignoring tax issues) They aren't really "paying more", it's just their salary when they were working was higher than the top-line number.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#67

Post by Der_Einzige »

kempbellt wrote: post #41
synaesthesisx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, it sure would be great if we could decouple health insurance from employment like other reasonable countries. It would be a shame to literally have your existence threatened by absurd factors well outside of your control (like your employer unable to meet payroll due to a global pandemic).

Then let's do it

You gotta vote then. You need to get other people to also vote for candidates who would do it. You need to convince the other sides supporters to abandon their support for the other side.

It would really help if we had a politican who was somehow electable in the primary and didn't hold policies which are deal breakers for the other sides voters. For example, on gun rights or (god forbid) abortion

Unfortunately, if you try to be pro gun in the democratic party they will eviscerate you in the primary. Just look at Bernie sanders in 2016 vs Clinton on the Brady Bill. Until we can convince republicans that the dems won't take their guns away, it's basically impossible to convince a good portion of Trumps base to abandon their support. I don't advocate for pro-life dems but if you really want republican votes you may have to at least pretend to be pro-life.

None of these are easy, but it must be done or else it's more of the same crap.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#68

Post by usaar333 »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #48
Klathmon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COBRA is temporary (for 18-36 months depending on the situation), and you need to not only pay what you have been paying, but you also need to pay the "employer's share". And it must be identical to the plan you left, so you can't reduce coverage or change anything at all about the plan or you'll lose eligibility. That means people who quit or are laid off will end up having to pay more for their healthcare at a time…

Yup — almost made this comment in another thread. There are tons of gotchas with COBRA. Sure, if you can afford it, it can be better than the alternative (especially if you have expensive medications or a pre-existing condition that requires lots of ongoing treatment), but I’ve had plenty of friends who have at various stages had to face questions about health insurance or rent — and as you say, if you’re late at all…

> but I’ve had plenty of friends who have at various stages had to face questions about health insurance or rent

Do affordability tests not apply once you are laid off? I would think your premium subsidies would go up and you can get an ACA plan.

At least living in CA, it generally feels like we have universal, affordable (by some definition) healthcare, but I'm sure there are edge cases where the affordability calculation breaks.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#69

Post by usaar333 »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #35
ryaan_anthony wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you are fired or quit. If you are laid off, you have the option to continue your insurance at your employers discounted rate. The program is called COBRA if you want to look into it.

COBRA is horribly expensive though.

It's the same price as what your employer was paying. It's only more expensive than getting it yourself if you are A) younger than the average of your employers' pool or B) qualify for premium assistance/medicaid.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#70

Post by wil421 »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #7
twblalock wrote: post #6

I hope the furloughed workers will be able to get unemployment benefits or something similar. Otherwise being furloughed is the worst of both worlds: employed, but unpaid. On the other hand, being furloughed rather than laid off will mean the workers keep their health insurance.

Having your hours or pay cut significantly qualifies for unemployment.

Not in certain states. My friend in the hotel industry just got furloughed link Macy’s for 100 days, keeps his benefits but no pay and can’t get unemployment.
Post reply on HN