Target to pull health coverage from part-time workers

[legcramp]

Source: Twin Cities.com/Pioneer Press

Target Corp. said Tuesday it will stop offering health insurance coverage for its part-time workers, effective April 1.

Instead, the Minneapolis-based discounter is offering $500 to employees who are losing their coverage, and directing them to seek coverage through health insurance marketplaces run by states or the federal government.

"Health care reform is transforming the benefits landscape and affecting how all employers, including Target, administer health benefits coverage," Target's vice president of human resources, Jodee Kozlak, said Tuesday on its corporate blog.

"Our decision to discontinue this benefit comes after careful consideration of the impact to our stores' part-time team members and to Target, the new options available for our part-time team, and the historically low number of team members who elected to enroll in the part-time plan."

Target said less than 10 percent of its workforce currently enrolls in its part-timer health insurance plan.

Read more: http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_24959284/target-pull-health-coverage-from-part-time-workers?source=nav

[valerief]

1. CEO need mo money!!! nt

[legcramp]

2. No, they need more money so they can try to get the naming rights to the

new football stadium that the taxpayers of Mn. are building for the BILLIONAIRE owner from New Jersey.

[hibbing]

8. Stop the insanity

It sure is a system of screwed up priorities.

Peace

[groundloop]

3. So.... why didn't Target advocate for Single Payer?

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 10:47 PM - Edit history (1)

For that matter why wasn't all of corporate America screaming at the top of their lungs for Single Payer when healthcare was being debated? I remember several years ago someone I knew was involved in contract negotiations at GM. They were told that GM was at a large disadvantage because their European competitors all had government sponsored healthcare. OK, so why the hell didn't GM come out in favor of Single Payer when they had the chance?

[valerief]

5. And harm their investment portfolios? nt

[Lucky Luciano]

6. I often wonder the same thing.

Perhaps as a one CEO's professional courtesy to the healthcare CEOs?

They might say to themselves, "First they came for the healthcare CEOs and I said nothing...then they came for the Fracking CEOs and I said nothing....blah blah blah.... then they came for me and there were no other CEOs left to defend me!"

[lolly]

10. My guess--keeping employees powerless

I suspect that,for many corporations, keeping employees powerless trumps even money.

How many people would be able to quit, retire early, go into business for themselves, or go work for a mom-and-pop company if they didn't need the healthcare offered by employers?

Single payer would save them money, but give employees more freedom.

[Bandit]

23. I think they feel health care is a trap for employees. If employers didn't provide it

their employees might not stay with them, but find better jobs that pay more.

[Massacure]

4. This is probably a good thing

Most part time plans are crap anyway. I work as a full time salaried professional (not for Target), and if I could get the federal subsidy I could get better coverage for a similar price on the marketplace than I can through my employer. And most employers don't don't subsidize part timers as well as they do full time.

[Still Sensible]

7. Probably good for them. My company did the same thing

This change applied to only about 45 of our 600 employees and in almost all cases it turned out to be a better deal for those 45... in that the coverage was a little better AND most qualified for some level of subsidy. I am unaware of any case where any of the 45 were left in worse shape. Before the decision was made to do this, we researched and anticipated this would be the case. I offer this with the qualifier that this is a small sample and simply one anecdote.

It seems to me that in the case of part time workers that are directed to the marketplace, results such as this will help cement support for ACA. JMHO

[Sgent]

9. Agreed

I worked with a 1/2 dozen companies this year who seriously considered canceling health coverage for either part-timers or all employees, based on the same calculus. They decided to keep coverage in place for two reasons (although some did switch to the ACA small business marketplace):

1) They wanted to wait another 1-2 years to see how it plays out before they do so.
2) I'm in a red state that didn't expand Medicaid, so those employees would be screwed.

In almost every case the numbers came out better for both the employer and employee if they sent their employees to the exchange. The employers in question are very profitable businesses that pay 90-100% of health premiums for their employees, and would have given raises to make up the difference in cost.

[ramapo]

11. Definitely a good thing

These people will be eligilble for subsidies. They will have a broader choice of policies. I think many would be better off on the exchanges.

[former9thward]

17. The subsidies are for the premiums not the deductible.

The deductibles on the exchange plans are huge. There is no way of knowing it is "definitely a good thing."

[Omaha Steve]

13. Preparing for a much lower profit for years to come (stolen card info)

Upper management screws up. Part timers pay the price...literally.

Only 10% were using it because only 10% could afford it.

[CFLDem]

21. Yep. Spot on.

[blkmusclmachine]

14. No benefits for you, deadbeat workers!!!

[quadrature]

15. Senate candidates need to speak up!

there appear to be many tight
races for the US Senate.

candidates need to speak up
about this important issue.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

16. Sounds bad.

But it's probably good.


I worked part time at a Target for a while. That plan was pure shit.

[PSPS]

18. In other words, more corporate welfare

Instead of paying for the coverage, Target will let employees purchase insurance through an exchange. And, since they get paid so little, their premiums will be subsidized by taxpayers -- just like their employees have to get food stamps and other taxpayer-funded assistance just to survive. Target is just socializing more of its costs while it continues to privatize all of its profits.

[AllyCat]

19. First they swipe millions of customers' credit card data, then kill insurance for

their workers. Seriously, they are really no better than Wal-Mart. Ugh. But I am sure they will be raking in the dough for their overlords.

[riderinthestorm]

20. The road to decoupling health insurance from employment will be tough but worth it in the end

The final step towards big companies beginning to actually pressure government to offer single payer will be when the upper management no longer gets their prime insurance and are on the market like the rest of us.

But unfortunately the poorest people will have had to suffer for a while til we get to that point.

[Heywood J]

22. They have to pay for all that credit-monitoring somehow. (NT)