Target to Drop Health Insurance for Part-Time Workers



Might be a good business decision from Target’s viewpoint, but it also might cause a backlash from the customers, if it hasn’t already. Not to mention from their employees.


Wouldn’t that be – all of them?


I think our leaders have gone out of their way (with your money) to express the attitude they would like people to adopt (for example, example, example, and example).



We will see more of this as the temporary waiver for the employer mandate moves closer and closer to expiration.

We’ve already seen many employers cut hours back to less than 30 hours a week; we see millions being thrown off of their individual policies; we see employers dropping all but utterly mandatory insurance (and will see more and more of it).

Wait till we see a downtick in marriage and an uptick in divorce. It’s already been discussed (for example, this story from last November)

Wait till small business employers have their group insurance dropped just like individuals had happen to themselves last fall.

“Feel good” legislation like Obamacare just doesn’t work. Period. No matter whether it had good intentions or not, the negative side effects will outweigh any positive benefit.


Of course this is the entire reason why Obamacare was passed. Ultimately for it to be a disaster for individuals and businesses. Eventually the public with the aid of the media will demand that the govt fix it. Of course the only solution is that there will only be one insurer and one payor funded by taxes. You get what you vote for.


Or soon-to-be all of them. :slight_smile:


Swell. Instead of having one 40 hour a week job, now we are going to have to work two 30 hour, part time jobs, just to make ends meet, and still no health insurance. :hypno:


Something I read about this said that only about 10% of the part-time workers actually carried insurance through Target. If I can get family insurance through my spouse/parents, than it makes better sense for me to carry my insurance there. But I have no idea now many of the 90% atTarget (or wherever) actually had insurance at all. It may have been that they waived any insurance to keep their paychecks higher.

I wonder if that’s the case with other businesses that have dropped insurance for their part-time workers?

This whole this is such a mess! The next shoe.


Yes, Target stated in their announcement that less than 10% of their part-time employees had insurance through the company plan. One of their other reasons they gave for eliminating this benefit is that it would be cheaper for those employees to purchase through the exchange because they would now qualify for a subsidy.


In post 10 we saw (bold mine) . . . .

One of their other reasons they gave for eliminating this benefit is that it would be cheaper for those employees . . .

Looks like “this benefit” that isn’t all Target is “eliminating”.

Target eliminates 475 jobs, most at Minneapolis HQ
Article by: ADAM BELZ , Star Tribune
Updated: January 22, 2014 - 11:45 PM

Target Corp. laid off 475 employees Wednesday and said it will not fill 700 open positions as the company struggles . . . .

The retailer declined to . . . say whether more layoffs are in the works. . . . .

. . . The layoffs have been in the works for more than six months, the employee said, and she and her family had been preparing. . . . .

. . . . The layoffs are not related to the data breach, Snyder said. But the breach has coincided with other setbacks for Target, Yarbrough noted. . . .

. . . . Separately, the retailer said Tuesday it would end its health coverage for part-time store workers. . . . .

. . . . “From a business standpoint, this is small potatoes,” John said

See the whole story here. And their local reaction here.

Target has had “a 3 percent” INCREASE or “jump in sales” although this is 29% less than a year ago, so it is evident Target knew something was coming down the pike earlier (along with the employee quote above).

What do you think Target knew was coming at about this time?

Obamacare may have advertised the intention of helping the poor. Unfortunately it is making other people poor while causing more government intervention in our lives and making less taxpayers. And as always somebody also has to “pay” for these programs. These programs are not FREE and they do have consequences. The programs of course will come with more and more Federal mandates, regulations, and intrusions as they “GROW”. . . . and GROW they will.

Over-regulating may do this to big businesses (but that is “small potatoes” for them). It may also retard or even eliminate the possibility of new smaller businesses (who would be in competition to the big business and which over-regulation would be “big potatoes” for) from beginning.

Helping BIG business under the guise of helping small business. Some have even (hopefully erroneously) stated that’s what the real goal is.

It all sounds so cold-hearted.

“John” said: “From a business standpoint, this is small potatoes”.

“John” (George John) incidentally, is the Associate Dean from the University of MN (Carlson Business School) who among others was interviewed for this story.

“John” did not speculate on if this was “small potatoes” for the people who lost their health insurance coverage days earlier, nor did John speculate if this was “small potatoes” for the people who lost their jobs.

I am sure Dr. John did not intend a heartless sounding statement, nor did the writers for this newspaper. When you are getting interviewed and writing for deadlines, things can get transcribed like this. It just sounds tough. I’m sure it is even tougher for those people who lost health insurance coverage and jobs (and difficult for their their families too).

Let’s keep these people in our prayers. All of them. And let’s keep our country in our prayers as well please.


Why would their customers care? Perhaps they should, but en masse, the shoppers aren’t going to give two figs about this.


The majority of them probably don’t. You’re right about that. But if I had a dollar for everyone who said they weren’t shopping at such-and-such anymore because they were exploiting their workers or something to that effect…


Obamacare is “A Carnival of Perverse Incentives” as noted by John Goodman in a recent WSJ article. The Target story is the latest in a lengthy and distinguished list of losers resulting from this ill conceived and certainly poorly executed law.

Think about it:

For Obamacare’s exchanges to work, they must attract young healthy people to pay in but not use the healthcare so older and sicker people can access healthcare. (if you haven’t seen the hilarious video of a 60 something couple chuckling about how the youth of America are paying for their Levitra it’s worth the price of admission). But what did they do to attract young people?

Let you stay on your parents’ insurance until age 26. That’s likely to inspire a lot of 20 somethings who don’t have jobs to pay for their own healthcare.

The fine for not buying healthcare is minimal. Young Americans will continue to “go bare” knowing if disaster strikes they can get insurance.

The exchanges offer policies with very large deductibles, limited provider panels and limited formularies (drugs covered). Why pay for “insurance” if your deductible is $6000!

The policies are overpriced because they require providing many services that are neither wanted nor needed…the 60 year old single man does not need Yaz.

Then of course the various perversive incentives such as not requiring insurance for part time employees thus forcing many to try to live on two part time jobs…neither of which provide insurance as noted with Target.

Obama in a very obvious move to help Democrats avoid incoming from O-BOMB-acare put off several crucial deadlines and requirements such as the employer mandate while forcing individuals to knuckle under.

So let’s see who’s stupid idea was this? And who VOTED for it. That would be DEMOCRATS…remember in November



You should be able to get your health insurance under the ACA. Or you can always do what the workers at my brothers workplace did, organize. They did and they are now guaranteed a 40 hour work week along with a health benefits package that meets federal standards. So there can be light at the end of the tunnel for many workers if they want.:slight_smile:


Worked well for Hostess workers


I’m glad to hear it. It’s always better to bargain collectively for your terms and conditions of employment. :slight_smile:


Did you know that was sarcasm? Hostess closed and put thousands out of well paying jobs because they pushed too hard. Unions are fine in theory but the only place they seem to work now is with states/cities/feds because there is no opposing party and they vote for “managment” (I call those Democrats)


It is not always better, because when you have collective bargaining your wage is based on the average worker’s value rather than the individual worker’s value. A number of years ago we lost a professor because she got offered a job with a $30k raise. There was no way we could raise her salary in any way to attempt to make a counter offer. If unions would allow their individuals to bargain their own contracts if they can do better, then you might have a point. But unions by and large don’t care about the valuable workers.


Agreed. Does ANYONE think unionizing teachers has improved our education system? How many times do we hear stories of not just incompetent teachers but CRIMINALS who abuse children being supported by their union? As Stink-cat noted the equal pay and inflexibility means the top employees are either held down or leave while the bottom feeders are carried on the backs of the productive.

Getting off topic here though. I don’t think union dues would add value to these low wage part time workers lives.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit