Apple to extend full health benefits to its part-time employees

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 66
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dualie View Post


    This probably gives Apple more bargaining power with insurance companies that it already had.



    Also has the benefit of retaining employees since Microsoft wants to poach Apple's.
  • Reply 42 of 66
    zoolookzoolook Posts: 657member
    Double Post
  • Reply 43 of 66
    zoolookzoolook Posts: 657member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Unfortunately, if they did that Macs would cost three times what they do now and Apple would go out of business.




    So when Apple first outsourced its manufacturing to China, the prices dropped by 2 thirds? No they didn't... since many of the components are made in Korea, Taiwan and China anyway, assembling them here would be a minor overhead, and besides the savings aren't passed on the the customer, they're just more profits.



    Now I'm all for companies being successful, but I think they have a social obligation to an extent, and an obligation to National Security, which is threatened by such a huge trade imbalance with our biggest ideological enemy.



    It's funny how people bitch and moan about immigration, but no one seems to give a shit about all the jobs exported overseas... what's more damaging to the economy, José delivering Pizza in Brooklyn to feed his 4 kids in Guatemala and trying to live the American Dream, or some big company firing all its workers and employing teenagers in China to make its goods.



    I realize Apple is not the worst offender, so that rant is not aimed specifically at them.
  • Reply 44 of 66
    I applaud Apple for re-investing its recent success in its employees. Very few companies realize how important morale and health are to continued long term success. I have worked full time for the country's 4th largest retailer for 13 years. I get decent health insurance but have to pay for it. If my company paid for its associate's insurance I know it would have a tremendous positive effect. Happy, healthy employees are the cornerstone of a large company's future.
  • Reply 45 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Direct benefactors of the Apple Tax!



    Beneficiaries!--idiot.
  • Reply 46 of 66
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xyzzy01 View Post


    That's not the case here. Apple's products are not priced based on cost. They are priced on what the company believe is the optimum price, considering market perception ("premium"), competition, strategic initiatives (e.g. if gaining market share in an area would be considered important). An increased cost would come straight off the bottom line, as the optimal price point wouldn't change.

    Thus, no changes in sales.



    Of course, there are positive sides too... better benefits should, on average, result in lower attrition (less training cost, more experienced staff) and happier employees with the benefits that entails (although that's harder to measure).





    Yes I know, they charge what the highest volume of people are willing to pay over cost+margin, like everyone else.



    Still, more costs = less profit and that means the value of the stock goes down.





    Although it's a good thing the part timers are getting health care, I suspect it's coming at cost of a transferring more full timers to part time for flexibility and control.



    I'm sure that Apple Store walkout threat by the employees had a lot to do with this recent decision.



    Apple is very touchy about it's image.
  • Reply 47 of 66
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post


    Beneficiaries!--idiot.



    Actually I had a sneaking suspicion that something was wrong with it but I couldn't make it out between bites of my chicken kabob!--- genius.
  • Reply 48 of 66
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Very wise move.
  • Reply 49 of 66
    rnp1rnp1 Posts: 175member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DKWalsh4 View Post


    I don't know how anyone can see this as a negative thing.



    Welcome to AppleInsider!
  • Reply 50 of 66
    I like it.
  • Reply 51 of 66
    At least they are benefiting from a tax that we CHOSE to pay
  • Reply 52 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Apple's retail locations employ an estimated 9,900 part time workers who could benefit from the change. At a presumed average cost of $8,000 per year, per worker, that could reportedly amount to around $80 million in expenses.





    Let me correct the math for you. $8,000 per is way too high for this estimate. We realistically can assume that the bulk of these part-timers are single so Apple isn't taking on too many families and dependents here.



    A high estimate for average monthly premium (this is assuming HMO coverage in each market with stores) would be $350... That is $4,200 per year per employee electing coverage. So max output is $41,580,000 instead of the $80 million. Of course, not everyone will elect the coveragewhich will cut into that amount significantly.



    If we change the assumption to a self-insured plan (likely scenario because of Apple's size and cash pile) and the monthly premium rates are probably closer to $225-$250. Then we've got $3,000 per year or $29,700,000 max. Again, not all will take the coverage and assuming a generous participation of 75% you end up with closer to $22 million.



    Now add in the cost sharing (Apple is generous but they aren't going to pay 100% of the premium) and the figure goes even lower. Apple covers up to 65% of the full-timers premiums. assuming the same for part timers and Apples out of pocket is closer to $14 million. Chances are that the share is closer to 50% for part time employees so realy we are looking at closer to $11 million.



    That is a great use of money to retain the best of their employees. Just shy of $1200 per employee to limit turnover and incur additional training and recruiting costs. This is a great decsion by Apple.



    My assumptions aren't pulled out of thin air. I am a consultant for Fortune 500s helping them with benefit and compensation strategies. Pretty standard numbers.
  • Reply 53 of 66
    and how many of these 9,900 part timers never even stay a year in the first place? Many part-timers will leave before a year is up to take a full time job somewhere else. I'd be very interested to know the number of part timers who are actually enrolled after the end of the first qualifying year. I think it will be significantly less than 9,900, maybe a third
  • Reply 54 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DKWalsh4 View Post


    I don't know how anyone can see this as a negative thing.



    Negative is not the thing, but the self-revelation.
  • Reply 55 of 66
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPoodOverZune View Post


    And the stock takes a tumble for that?!





    actually the stock tumble was likely cause of the "holiday is set" articles which means no tablet in anyone's christmas stocking.



    a good half if not more like 3/4 of all retail doesn't give benefits to part time staff. they don't get insurance, sick time off, 401k (outside of states that require it), stock options etc. often in retail shops in malls the full time will also get subsidized parking if employees have to pay for a parking pass, but not part time. and so on.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Of course, it costs the company money to cover these part timers. This means higher product costs and thus less people are able to afford to buy Apple's products.



    they have a good billion dollars in the bank. they can afford to spend some of it on their staff. who will now be healthy, not coming to work spreading germs around etc.



    All, thanks to that big chunk of cash, without having to raise prices or cut back hours. [/QUOTE]
  • Reply 56 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post


    I am bold to say that its still a form of slavery. We just moved it out of our sights. So what do we do?



    You could: (i) live without electronics, clothes, appliances, car parts, electrical goods, etc etc; or (ii) move.
  • Reply 57 of 66
    The comments about the 'obscene profits', are silly. And uninformed. Apple has operating margins of about 21% or 22%; companies like Google and Microsoft are in the 35% region, while Intel is in the mid-20%s; RIM's is about 19%, which is qualitatively not all that different from Apple's.



    Apple is very frugal with its spending, manages its growth well, and doesn't throw away $$ in value-destroying (and distracting) acquisitions or unnecessary capex or useless R&D.
  • Reply 58 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by David Steuber View Post


    As for the stock prices... I think that people have decided to realize some of their gains. The prices are sure to rise again when the x-mass season is over and the tallies are in.



    After-hours today, the stock is up over $5, about the same amount by which it fell today. This is just 'noise.'



    I am more concerned about the fact that AAPL stock may have, in the past few months, gone up a little too much too fast relative to where its fundamentals currently are. The market is anticipating some great growth opportunities to materialize. (And, I start to get even more worried when know-nothings like Jim Cramer start putting $300 price targets on the stock.)
  • Reply 59 of 66
    Please stop telling only half of the tax story - yes our Corp tax rates are higher than anywhere except Japan. The minimum tax rate for Corporations in the US is 35% but due to tax credits those that actually have to pay the highest rate only average 26% according the the IRS. Out of the 27 million eligible businesses only about 2.2 million actually pay the corporate income tax.



    During the 1990s corporations paid an average of about 25.3 % of their profits as CIT. Corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP peaked at 49% in the 1950s and shrunk to their lowest levels ever in 2003 at 7%.



    Please stop repeating this tired old talking point because it is just not supported by actual fact.



    James



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    I agree, most tech devices are made by machine, so the labor is minuscule. It's because the corporate tax rate in the US is second highest the world, Japan is the highest (and see their economy now)



    If our moronic government finally "gets it" like Bill Clinton finally did near the end of his presidency (and recession he couldn't solve) and lowers the corporate tax rate, the jobs will come back here.



    Of course the rate has to be lowered and kept there, not a assault on capitalism when one party is in office and then change up when another party gets in.



    When a company moves or opens a factory, it needs to stay profitable for as long as possible to promote stability and jobs.



    More jobs, means more people can buy and creates more jobs. More jobs and income means more tax income for government to take care of things, not borrow and spend and dig a bigger hole.





    The US has a lot of land space and a growing population, unlike Europe or Japan. We can pull out of this economic mess if the socialist mentality that has invaded Washington (and the nation) is changed.



  • Reply 60 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slowereastside View Post


    No better way to build an effective workforce than to keep them alive.



    Now we need Steve to start lobbying for Medicare For All / HR 676.



    Oh, hell no. Where do you think the magical funds come from to pay for all this? Seriously!
Sign In or Register to comment.