Like A Boss: Starbucks CEO Won’t Cut Employee Benefits Because of Obamacare


As company after company announces cuts to health insurance benefits and hours, blaming Obamacare for this “unfortunate” situation, one CEO refuses to compromise the livelihood of his employees.

“Other companies have announced that they won’t provide coverage for spouses; others are lobbying for the cut-off to be at 40 hours. But Starbucks will continue maintaining benefits for partners and won’t use the new law as excuse to cut benefits or lower benefits for its workers,” Starbucks’ CEO Howard Schultz told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010, requires companies with 50 or more employees to offer health benefits to those who work at least 30 hours a week. Companies who do not abide by this law are fined, thus many employers, such as Papa John’s and UPS, have cut workers’ hours to evade the new mandate.

Many large companies  claim that Obamacare has forced them to slash benefits and hours. However, studies show that employers have been doing this for years in an attempt to shift costs onto employees — years before the health reform law came into play. As Schultz pointed out, Obamacare is simply a timely scapegoat.

Starbucks will continue to provide insurance to even part-timers who work 20 hours or more, despite benefits costing the company $300 million in 2010 — more than it spends on actual coffee.

H/T Reuters + PicThx Starbucks

By Charisma Madarang

Charisma has an undying love for gritty literature and drinks coffee like water. She also hails from Toronto, Canada and is a die-hard Maple Leafs fan, sigh.

9 replies on “Like A Boss: Starbucks CEO Won’t Cut Employee Benefits Because of Obamacare”

It hasn’t “forced” them to do anything. These corporations are cheap and greedy, plain and simple. Obamacare would be a wonderful solution in a world where people’s lives meant more than a company’s profit. Don’t tell me that a multi-billion dollar company can’t afford basic benefits for its employees. But oh no! They’ll only make $23 billion a year instead of $23.5 billion. How tragic. Instead of taking a small hit and consoling themselves with their piles of cash, they force their employees to choose between taking care of themselves and their families, and paying their bills. It’s completely disgusting. No matter what these companies say, they don’t care about their employees, only that they continue to make them money.

NOT!, I live in one of the poorest areas in the country & work 40
hrs. a week for not a much over minimum wage. Ask yourself this (if you
work) – did you ever get a job from a poor guy??? No!

I’ve worked steadily since the age of 13. Who is saying anything about poor? You obviously missed the bit about these companies, even if they DID provide healthcare benefits to their workers, STILL making a profit in the tens of BILLIONS. It’s not that they are financially unable to provide these benefits. They CHOOSE not to and in so doing, knowingly and deliberately put their resultant inflated profits ahead of their employees welfare.

I honestly don’t think a company with 50 employees can afford all of this. Maybe a company of a thousand but 50… that was asking a bit much and I am pretty sure they knew it. It looks as if it will be the mom and pop small business that end up really losing their shirts in this deal.

Leave a Reply