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

81–90 of 98 posts

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#81

Post by jcranmer »

smartstakestime wrote: post #75
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).

you can buy your own health insurance. This is like saying that because you dont get free lunch anymore that losing your job is "life threatening". Somebody has to pay for it. This liberal mindset of "make rich guy pay" is at its core lazy and selfish. I think that the health industry itself is a scam, and over priced by bureaucracy but that doesnt mean that another person should take your burden. Your health is your…

If you get health insurance via your employer, the value of that health insurance is not considered income, and is tax-free. If you pay for it yourself, you get no tax benefits for doing so.

That kind of skews incentives a fair amount.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#82

Post by filmgirlcw »

usaar333 wrote: post #68
filmgirlcw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 calcu…

Affordability tests are based off what you’re projected to make and if you have any income or savings at all, that can impact that directly. Moreover, depending on your needs, the cheap plans might not work out. If you’re diabetic and require insulin and testing strips and other stuff, a high-deductible plan probably isn’t going to work out. The same is true if you’ve got specific prescriptions you need covered that are only up to a certain amount on a lower-tier plan or aren’t available unless you pay more. So in some cases, the ACA plan could cost the same as COBRA, and you’d be stuck starting from zero with your deductible, which if you had paid into under your employer, could be significant.

But beyond that, let’s say you anticipate you can make $3000 a month freelancing. Now, this isn’t enough for your rent and your insurance, but it’s still too high, perhaps, to qualify you for a lower-rated ACA plan. And it is certainly too high for Medicaid. So if you live in a high-priced city, you’re now stuck having to decide what you pay for — and that’s not always easy. Remember, it’s not like moving is that easy — you may have to break a lease (which costs money you don’t have), and you’re unemployed so signing a new, less-expensive lease is going to be challenging too.

The safety nets we have in place are really only designed for the very, very poor (and even then, they don’t go far enough). If you are anything but that — you’re really fucked, especially if you live in an medium-size or larger city/urban area.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#83

Post by tomp »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #45
pound wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's still technically discounted as those are group rates. Without it the same plan would cost even more for individuals.

Sure — but the point is that it isn’t a viable discount for most people who are laid off — regardless of your income level. A decade ago, when I went off my parents insurance (and before the startup I worked at offered insurance), COBRA was $1200 a month — it was more than my rent at the time. But my medication costs were $1500 or $1600 a month (primarily for an ADHD drug that was still under patent and no generic wa…

Wow, sounds like you just discovered that health insurance is expensive! (Regardless of who pays it, your employer paying it is just a hidden reduction of your salary.)

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#84

Post by atourgates »

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.

I don't know of any states where Furloughed doesn't qualify for unemployment. And the new federal $600/wk unemployment bonus specifically calls out furloughed employees as being eligible.

The only difference in my (generally worker-unfriendly red) state is that if you're furloughed and apply for unemployment, they waive the requirement to demonstrate that you're looking for work.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#85

Post by thaumasiotes »

pm90 wrote: post #73
thaumasiotes wrote: post #72

Hey, this reminds me of the announcement a couple weeks ago that Amazon is hiring 100k warehouse staff. In China, companies responded to this shift in demand by having the online-retail/logistics companies (demand way up, not enough workers) contract with the physical-retail companies (demand way down, too many workers) for their workers' time. You'd still be a Macy's employee, but you'd be doing Amazon's work, and A…

An interesting idea but sounds like you’re treating labor like property.

...you don't think Macy's ordinarily tells its workers what they're supposed to be doing?

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#86

Post by thaumasiotes »

systemvoltage wrote: post #78
thaumasiotes wrote: post #72

Hey, this reminds me of the announcement a couple weeks ago that Amazon is hiring 100k warehouse staff. In China, companies responded to this shift in demand by having the online-retail/logistics companies (demand way up, not enough workers) contract with the physical-retail companies (demand way down, too many workers) for their workers' time. You'd still be a Macy's employee, but you'd be doing Amazon's work, and A…

China runs like a company who’s CEO is Xi Jingpin and they have 1.4 billion employees. I heard the company culture is pretty horrifying - if you don’t follow orders from the security staff, you can face serious consequences. If you whistleblow, you’re destined to death. Nothing less.

Given that I learned about this from a British law firm putting out a short paper for interested parties that began by analyzing "is this legal in the first place?", I tend to doubt that it was directed by the CCP.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#87

Post by [deleted] »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #80
gruez wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

“Because if you get it through your work, you don't have to pay tax on it.” That’s not a natural law but something that should be changed immediately. There is no justification for this.

[deleted]

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#88

Post by MuffinFlavored »

synaesthesisx wrote: post #24
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.

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).

> it sure would be great if we could decouple health insurance from employment like other reasonable countries.

How does this work in Denmark? I read they were the gold standard for how a nation should do health care, but I also read they don't do insurance solely as a public option through the government.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#89

Post by wedowhatwedo »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #23
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.

Yes, the momentum of U.S. healthcare's structures and practices is extremely frustrating. Watching the planning and implementation of the Affordable Care Act was very disheartening. I'm genuinely curious what circumstances or events would / shall be necessary to effect large-scale improvements.

It's hard to accomplish something when half the team is paid to stop the project at any cost.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#90

Post by Traster »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #72

Hey, this reminds me of the announcement a couple weeks ago that Amazon is hiring 100k warehouse staff. In China, companies responded to this shift in demand by having the online-retail/logistics companies (demand way up, not enough workers) contract with the physical-retail companies (demand way down, too many workers) for their workers' time. You'd still be a Macy's employee, but you'd be doing Amazon's work, and A…

I have a sneaking suspicion that it actually works in Amazon's favour for the employees to leave their previous employers. It means Amazon can pick the top performers, retain them after the emergency, cut the low performers once the emergency is over and in the mean time it completely screws up their competitors' work force management.
Post reply on HN