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

71–80 of 98 posts

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#71

Post by maximente »

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

unlikely as both parties are beholden to big corps which love the idea of existential crisis (getting fired => lose insurance => medical bankruptcy) preventing normal individuals from engaging in entrepreneurship/competition/healthy lifestyles

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#72

Post by thaumasiotes »

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 Amazon would send Macy's a big pile of cash.

Somehow that seems better for all involved than the way we appear to be going.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#73

Post by pm90 »

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.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#74

Post by [deleted] »

dankoss wrote: post #62
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…

[deleted]

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#75

Post by smartstakestime »

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).

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 responsibility not your employers.

Employers shouldn't be playing health insurance because that shouldn't be necessary. Minimum wage should cover basic care. Either minimum wage is too low or basic care is too high. We kinda take care of this through taxes but its a bandaid on a corrupt overpriced monopoly industry.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#76

Post by Loughla »

dankoss wrote: post #62
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…

At our institution, every staff member is required to be a part of the rotation on the benefits committee. Also, we are required (state funded institution) to send out the full cost of every staff and faculty member to them every year.

When the letters go out, people open their eyes when they see the institution spent 1/3 of their salary on health insurance. You can tell when someone is on the benefits committee, because they don't complain about salaries for about 3 years.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#77

Post by binxbolling »

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.

Wait til you hear how capital treats labor

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#78

Post by systemvoltage »

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.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#79

Post by JoeAltmaier »

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…

In this climate you can't buy your own - its 3X the cost and not subsidized by your employer makes it worse.

But I agree the connection between health insurance and employment is artificial. I'd rather see some basic universal health, plus a market for better plans.

Re: Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees

#80

Post by Ididntdothis »

gruez wrote: post #65
acwan93 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“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.

Post reply on HN