|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 09:27 AM EDT |
Since Wal-Mart (presumably) has no input as to how Medi-Cal determines
eligibility, this seems like a capricious and unpredictable burden. For example,
if a new employee has six children, would W-M have to pay that person more than
a 10-year veteran with no children, just because more dependents make it easier
to qualify for state-subsidized insurance?
Crazy stuff.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
The real problem is companies who feel employees aren't entitled to living
wages. It's not just Wal-Mart and it's not just in California. In some
instances, you're better off on welfare than you are working. Remember that
plane crash near Buffalo a few years ago? The main cause was pilot fatigue.
Because the airline didn't cover expenses and the crew couldn't afford to stay
in a hotel, the pilot spent the night in the pilot's lounge and the co-pilot
flew hours back to her parents home. As a result, neither had sufficient sleep
before that flight. Also, the co-pilot could have made more working at
McDonalds. This is the result of those who claim they have to cut cost, without
considering the consequences. If you cut, cut, cut, something's going to break.
In this case, it caused a plane crash with total loss of life. With Wal-Mart,
it's the costs being pushed onto the taxpayer.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
