Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Fog Tripper
Mar 3, 2008

by Smythe
Last Spring (2014)I was hired at a company that as a full-time employee offered either medical insurance or an opt-out option. I chose the latter and filled out the paperwork which stated the money would be going toward my part of insurance on my wife's plan. At the time of that payment and filing of papers (specifying the policy information the funds would go toward), the minimum to be eligible was 36 hours a week.

Early this year (2015)my employer told us that part time employees would be eligible for medical at the 36 hour/week minimum, however full time employees now could not go below 40 hours/week too many times or they would lose their opt-out, with no recourse of switching to medical and one would have to wait till open enrollment (December)to become eligible for opt-out once again.

A few weeks ago my manager told me that if I went below 40 again I would lose the opt-out. It turns out after reviewing my pay stubs since, that at that time I had already lost the opt-out and now my pay checks are short $120 each 2 weeks. This was money that was going toward my insurance on my wife's plan and now I do not have that money coming in, despite working 40+ hours.

So my question to you (if you have an answer) is if this is all up and up, and not something the employer changed on a whim. They told us this was due to changes brought on by Obamacare, but in light of part time employees not being held to 40 hours a week yet receiving medical coverage through the company, it makes zero sense whatsoever.

Is anyone well versed in what Obamacare has effected in this way? Is it bullshit? I have an email into the department of workforce in my state as well.



As an aside, I only had 1 week vacation as of this year, we do not have personal day or sick days. So it was quite easy to go below 40 a number of times since I used my vacation time for an actual vacation. The industry (timber framing) I am in is pretty brutal on the body, and last year it was nice to be able to scoot after 36 some weeks, just to allow the body to heal a little more.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Clemocracy
Jul 21, 2015

by Ralp
Short answer: yes.

Long answer: You are now legally required to have health insurance and one of the ways they are enforcing this is leaning on the employers. There used to be a lot of leeway between what constituted a full time employee and a part timer but its more rigidly defined now. That seems to be where you are getting screwed. You might just have to get on their insurance plan.

Fog Tripper
Mar 3, 2008

by Smythe
Well, the problem is that I can neither get my opt out back nor get on their insurance until decembers open enrollment.

In effect I have lost $120 out of every pay period untill december.

Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Jul 28, 2015

Nettles Coterie
Dec 24, 2008

Play in the Dark, lest the Heat catch you standing still
That seems odd to me, but I am certainly no expert. What state are you in? I'm in California and work full time, but I almost never get to work a full 40 hours/week. I get closer to 36-38. Full time at my job is basically defined as "over 34" and you have to be out of status (working more than 34 hours if you're part-time, or under 34 if you're full time) for 6 weeks straight before it affects your benefits. I honestly don't know how much of that is company policy and how much is a legal issue, but I've never heard of a full time employee being penalized for dropping under 40 hours. Especially if it was because you used your vacation time and not, like, dipping out early every day or something.

n8r
Jul 3, 2003

I helped Lowtax become a cyborg and all I got was this lousy avatar
You have opted out of healthcare but they are deducting $120/pay period regardless?

photomikey
Dec 30, 2012

n8r posted:

You have opted out of healthcare but they are deducting $120/pay period regardless?

I also find this odd.

My understanding is that the law is that you have to pay for healthcare or pay a fine. I can't see how they can make you pay fine if you are getting healthcare elsewhere. I would consult an employment attorney. The very few times i have been at an impasse with Human Resources, just uttering the phrase "that's odd, but my brother is an employment attorney... I'll just ask him" seems to clear things right up.

Nettles Coterie
Dec 24, 2008

Play in the Dark, lest the Heat catch you standing still
The way I read it, they offered him basically a $120/check bonus for NOT getting healthcare through them... but I don't see how that could be taken away when, if OP had opted for insurance through them, it would not have been taken away just because he dropped under 40 hours.

Joementum
May 23, 2004

jesus christ
http://www.irs.gov/Affordable-Care-...rdable-Care-Act

quote:

1. What are the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions?

For 2015 and after, employers employing at least a certain number of employees (generally 50 full-time employees or a combination of full-time and part-time employees that is equivalent to 50 full-time employees) will be subject to the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions under section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code (added to the Code by the Affordable Care Act). As defined by the statute, a full-time employee is an individual employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week. An employer that meets the 50 full-time employee threshold is referred to as an applicable large employer.

quote:

15. How does an employer identify its full-time employees for purposes of the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions?

An employer’s number of full-time employees matters both for purposes of whether the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions apply to an employer and whether an Employer Shared Responsibility payment is owed by an employer (and the amount of that payment). An employer identifies its full-time employees based on each employee’s hours of service. For purposes of the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions, an employee is a full-time employee for a calendar month if he or she averages at least 30 hours of service per week. Under the final regulations, for purposes of determining full-time employee status, 130 hours of service in a calendar month is treated as the monthly equivalent of at least 30 hours of service per week.

Fog Tripper
Mar 3, 2008

by Smythe

Nettles Coterie posted:

That seems odd to me, but I am certainly no expert. What state are you in? I'm in California and work full time, but I almost never get to work a full 40 hours/week. I get closer to 36-38. Full time at my job is basically defined as "over 34" and you have to be out of status (working more than 34 hours if you're part-time, or under 34 if you're full time) for 6 weeks straight before it affects your benefits. I honestly don't know how much of that is company policy and how much is a legal issue, but I've never heard of a full time employee being penalized for dropping under 40 hours. Especially if it was because you used your vacation time and not, like, dipping out early every day or something.

I am in Utah.

n8r posted:

You have opted out of healthcare but they are deducting $120/pay period regardless?

When eligible, I chose Opt-Out. Which means rather than them putting you on their insurance plan, you are paid that amount per pay period and the funds are used for the health plan of your choice. In my case it went toward my coverage through my wife's plan.

Nettles Coterie posted:

The way I read it, they offered him basically a $120/check bonus for NOT getting healthcare through them... but I don't see how that could be taken away when, if OP had opted for insurance through them, it would not have been taken away just because he dropped under 40 hours.

In a nutshell. If I were part time I would have my health benefit. Since I am full time I lost my (opt-out) insurance because I dipped below 40 too many times.

1. What are the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions?

quote:

For 2015 and after, employers employing at least a certain number of employees (generally 50 full-time employees or a combination of full-time and part-time employees that is equivalent to 50 full-time employees) will be subject to the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions under section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code (added to the Code by the Affordable Care Act). As defined by the statute, a full-time employee is an individual employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week. An employer that meets the 50 full-time employee threshold is referred to as an applicable large employer.

Our company has <50 employees.


What government agency could I get in touch about this very hosed up situation? For the record, I am still on my wife's plan, but we have to suck up the $120/pay.

Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Aug 3, 2015

photomikey
Dec 30, 2012
I'm not sure how unfriendly your company is being about this, but I'd return to whomever you're having this discussion with and tell them you looked into it and you can't figure out where this requirement comes from, and ask them to explain it or point you toward the law where you can find it.

My (limited) experience with AHA is that basically nobody understands it.

Further, I think raising a stink about your take home pay dropping $120/mo with no warning is understandable and expected.

sheri
Dec 30, 2002

I don't think they have to offer you opt out money. Nothing about opt out $ was included in ACA.

You probably had to work 40 hours a week a minimum of x weeks a year to continue getting the opt out cash, and you worked less than that too many times. Sounds like their policy, not Obamacare.

Raldikuk
Apr 7, 2006

I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

sheri posted:

I don't think they have to offer you opt out money. Nothing about opt out $ was included in ACA.

You probably had to work 40 hours a week a minimum of x weeks a year to continue getting the opt out cash, and you worked less than that too many times. Sounds like their policy, not Obamacare.

What opt out money? The opt out money here is simply not having to pay for the insurance. Previously he was not enrolled in the insurance his employer offers as he is insured under his wife's plan. Now apparently he is being forced into his company's health care plan and can't opt out, hence the drop in pay. The company is blaming the ACA for it but the ACA doesn't mandate that an employee has to utilize his employer's health insurance, it only mandates that if a company is of sufficient size it has to provide the option.

sheri
Dec 30, 2002

His OP says he got to choose insurance or opt out $ if they worked 40 hours a week. He chose opt out, so they gave him an extra $120 a paycheck for opting out. He then failed to meet 40 hours a week, making him no longer eligible for full time benefits. I know plenty of employers that will give you extra cash if you are full time and don't take their insurance since it is way cheaper for them to give you an extra couple hundred a month then to provide insurance.

It says it right in the OP:

"Last Spring (2014)I was hired at a company that as a full-time employee offered either medical insurance or an opt-out option. I chose the latter and filled out the paperwork which stated the money would be going toward my part of insurance on my wife's plan. At the time of that payment and filing of papers (specifying the policy information the funds would go toward), the minimum to be eligible was 36 hours a week.

However, full time employees now could not go below 40 hours/week too many times or they would lose their opt-out, with no recourse of switching to medical and one would have to wait till open enrollment (December)to become eligible for opt-out once again."

sheri fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Aug 3, 2015

ann disaster
Jan 27, 2007
Garbage and dogs are not part of a balanced diet.
It sounds like the issue is that you are now having the premium for your employer's insurance deducted from your checks (the $120/period) but aren't actually covered by your employer's insurance until the open enrollment period in December. Is this correct?

If you ARE covered by your employer's insurance, it sounds like your wife should drop you from hers so that you aren't paying for coverage twice. If you aren't covered by your employer until December, you shouldn't be paying an insurance premium to your employer.

Right?

sheri
Dec 30, 2002

It all depends if the $120 he was getting was:

1. Because he wasn't getting insurance, and the $120 was the premium for the insurance through his employer, so the difference was he wasn't getting coverage and therefore not paying the premium OR

2. The $120 was a "hey thanks for not signing up for insurance with us since you have coverage elsewhere, here's an incentive we give for people to not take insurance through us" situation.

If he's now paying for premiums (situation 1), he absolutely should have coverage and his wife should drop his part of her coverage if they want.

If he lost the 'don't have insurance through us' incentive (situation 2) then he's probably SOL and should have made sure to work 40 hours a week to keep that incentive.

Fog Tripper
Mar 3, 2008

by Smythe

sheri posted:

His OP says he got to choose insurance or opt out $ if they worked 40 hours a week. He chose opt out, so they gave him an extra $120 a paycheck for opting out. He then failed to meet 40 hours a week, making him no longer eligible for full time benefits.

The minimum was 36 when I was hired and when I filled out the required paperwork.
This year we were told that because of the aca, it now was 40. No new paperwork on it happened.

The answer to your post right above this is 1. Papers were filed when I became eligible for either insurance or opt out. Since I chose the latter I had to provide the policy information that the funds were to go to. Now I get neither the $120 biweekly or supplied employer paid insurace, they tell me until open enrollment. You seem to not be grasping the situation completely.

Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Aug 5, 2015

adorai
Nov 2, 2002

10/27/04 Never forget
Grimey Drawer
I interpret it to mean that employees who were eligible for employer subsidized health coverage could opt-out, and get what was effectively a bonus for doing so. Now that you are no longer eligible, they have elected to not even give the bonus. They are right to assert their right to no longer give it if you did not work full time for enough weeks this year.

Buried alive
Jun 8, 2009

Fog Tripper posted:

The minimum was 36 when I was hired and when I filled out the required paperwork.
This year we were told that because of the aca, it now was 40. No new paperwork on it happened.

The answer to your post right above this is 1. Papers were filed when I became eligible for either insurance or opt out. Since I chose the latter I had to provide the policy information that the funds were to go to. Now I get neither the $120 biweekly or supplied employer paid insurace, they tell me until open enrollment. You seem to not be grasping the situation completely.

I want to make sure I understand this correctly..

Basically, your ER said "You can sign up with us or opt out." You chose to opt out, but have the funds go towards your wife's insurance. So you're getting paid (hypothetically) $1000.00 bi-weekly. They take 120 of that and put it towards your wife's insurance. They then said that 'sorry, can't do that anymore' and now you're only getting paid $880 bi-weekly and they blamed it on the ACA.

If that's all correct, then it sounds like your employer is full of poo poo.

Money quote:

The ACA's own drat web site. posted:

Employees who work at least 30 hours per week or whose service hours equal at least 130 hours a month for more than 120 days in a year are considered full-time.

Also if that money is money that you would have kept regardless of where it went as opposed to a bonus for opting out, then they're doubly full of poo poo.

If it's bonus money then they may have altered their bonus policy to make it more strict in order to make up for the fact that they now have to offer insurance to more of their employees than before. If that's the case then I guess I can see how it's the ACA's fault. So..was it bonus money or not?

Also also I am not a lawyer.

astr0man
Feb 21, 2007

hollyeo deuroga

Buried alive posted:

I want to make sure I understand this correctly..

Basically, your ER said "You can sign up with us or opt out." You chose to opt out, but have the funds go towards your wife's insurance. So you're getting paid (hypothetically) $1000.00 bi-weekly. They take 120 of that and put it towards your wife's insurance. They then said that 'sorry, can't do that anymore' and now you're only getting paid $880 bi-weekly and they blamed it on the ACA.

It sounded to me more like his pay is $1000, and normally the company would pay $xx on top of that for his healthcare benefits if he got them through his employer. Since he did originally opted out he got an extra $120 on top of his $1000 as an incentive to get his own private healthcare (this is not unusual since it probably costs his employer more than $120 for whatever healthcare they provide). At some point his employer changed the requirement to be able to opt-out from 36 hours to 40 so now he just doesn't get the $120 bonus but still gets his $1000 base paycheck.

sheri
Dec 30, 2002

astr0man posted:

It sounded to me more like his pay is $1000, and normally the company would pay $xx on top of that for his healthcare benefits if he got them through his employer. Since he did originally opted out he got an extra $120 on top of his $1000 as an incentive to get his own private healthcare (this is not unusual since it probably costs his employer more than $120 for whatever healthcare they provide). At some point his employer changed the requirement to be able to opt-out from 36 hours to 40 so now he just doesn't get the $120 bonus but still gets his $1000 base paycheck.

This is how I'm reading it as well.

n8r
Jul 3, 2003

I helped Lowtax become a cyborg and all I got was this lousy avatar

Buried alive posted:

I want to make sure I understand this correctly..

Basically, your ER said "You can sign up with us or opt out." You chose to opt out, but have the funds go towards your wife's insurance. So you're getting paid (hypothetically) $1000.00 bi-weekly. They take 120 of that and put it towards your wife's insurance. They then said that 'sorry, can't do that anymore' and now you're only getting paid $880 bi-weekly and they blamed it on the ACA.

If that's all correct, then it sounds like your employer is full of poo poo.

Money quote:


Also if that money is money that you would have kept regardless of where it went as opposed to a bonus for opting out, then they're doubly full of poo poo.

If it's bonus money then they may have altered their bonus policy to make it more strict in order to make up for the fact that they now have to offer insurance to more of their employees than before. If that's the case then I guess I can see how it's the ACA's fault. So..was it bonus money or not?

Also also I am not a lawyer.

Keep in mind rules for small employers is different, but it's kinda hard to tell what they are. It appears that requiring 'part-time' employees to work 36 hours prior to getting health insurance does run afoul of the 30/week provisions in the ACA.

http://www.kellerbenefit.com/white-papers/employer-reimbursements-for-health-insurance-under-the-aca

This may be helpful?

Fog Tripper
Mar 3, 2008

by Smythe

adorai posted:

I interpret it to mean that employees who were eligible for employer subsidized health coverage could opt-out, and get what was effectively a bonus for doing so. Now that you are no longer eligible, they have elected to not even give the bonus. They are right to assert their right to no longer give it if you did not work full time for enough weeks this year.

What part of when I signed the agreed-to paperwork and gave the policy information the funds would go toward, the minimum was 36 hours are you not understanding? By taking away the funds, they effectively took away the payment for the law-abiding insurance.

Buried alive posted:

Also also I am not a lawyer.

I requested copies of the opt-out agreement from the office manager today. She said she is burried in tax stuff but will do so when she can.

astr0man posted:

It sounded to me more like his pay is $1000, and normally the company would pay $xx on top of that for his healthcare benefits if he got them through his employer. Since he did originally opted out he got an extra $120 on top of his $1000 as an incentive to get his own private healthcare (this is not unusual since it probably costs his employer more than $120 for whatever healthcare they provide). At some point his employer changed the requirement to be able to opt-out from 36 hours to 40 so now he just doesn't get the $120 bonus but still gets his $1000 base paycheck.

Precisely. Note: No new papers were signed when they decided to change the "requirements". They pretty much immediately blamed the ACA.


n8r posted:

Keep in mind rules for small employers is different, but it's kinda hard to tell what they are. It appears that requiring 'part-time' employees to work 36 hours prior to getting health insurance does run afoul of the 30/week provisions in the ACA.

http://www.kellerbenefit.com/white-papers/employer-reimbursements-for-health-insurance-under-the-aca

This may be helpful?

Yeah, that is the most hosed up part: they are likely paying more than the $120/pay for the 36 hour part time people's insurance than my $120/pay opt-out.

Will peek at the link.
edit: started to skim it and worth noting that it was taxed along with my regular pay.

Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Aug 6, 2015

Buried alive
Jun 8, 2009

Fog Tripper posted:

What part of when I signed the agreed-to paperwork and gave the policy information the funds would go toward, the minimum was 36 hours are you not understanding? By taking away the funds, they effectively took away the payment for the law-abiding insurance.


I requested copies of the opt-out agreement from the office manager today. She said she is burried in tax stuff but will do so when she can.




Precisely. Note: No new papers were signed when they decided to change the "requirements". They pretty much immediately blamed the ACA.



Yeah, that is the most hosed up part: they are likely paying more than the $120/pay for the 36 hour part time people's insurance than my $120/pay opt-out.

Will peek at the link.
edit: started to skim it and worth noting that it was taxed along with my regular pay.

Since it's bonus pay you might be SOL. All they need is something, somewhere that you signed which says something to the effect of 'we reserve the right to change our own bonus policies sometimes and we're not going to grandfather in old stuff'. The reason why your bonus got cancelled is because they can, plausibly, do that legally. They cannot cancel insurance legally if their employees qualify and want in. Blaming the ACA sounds a whole lot like them going "We were being dicks to our employees, but now we can't do that anymore so we're going to be dicks to our employees in innovative ways instead, but it's all the government's fault. No responsibility here, nope."

Edit: And upon actually reading the link all that stuff about creating an HRA throws a bit of a wrench into the works. Oi.

Buried alive fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Aug 6, 2015

adorai
Nov 2, 2002

10/27/04 Never forget
Grimey Drawer

Fog Tripper posted:

What part of when I signed the agreed-to paperwork and gave the policy information the funds would go toward, the minimum was 36 hours are you not understanding? By taking away the funds, they effectively took away the payment for the law-abiding insurance.

I am going to assume this is not a small business (because obamacare would not apply) and that they probably aren't total dumbasses. They ran it by their lawyers, and it's legal. Did the paperwork you signed say that you agreed to X, or that they agreed to X? most likely the former, and they are not on the hook here.

Lemniscate Blue
Apr 21, 2006

Here we go again.

adorai posted:

I am going to assume this is not a small business (because obamacare would not apply) and that they probably aren't total dumbasses. They ran it by their lawyers, and it's legal. Did the paperwork you signed say that you agreed to X, or that they agreed to X? most likely the former, and they are not on the hook here.

This is a dangerous assumption when dealing with business in the US - particularly small business owners.

wilfredmerriweathr
Jul 11, 2005
This is Utah.

They are almost assuredly total dumbasses.


BTW I just moved to Utah and I am looking for a job. This state loving SUCKS to try to buy individual insurance in. The plans are terrible and rates are sky high.

It's a typical "DURR I'M A JOB CREATOR" move to blame the ACA.

genericuser
Mar 1, 2007

[insert clever comment here]
Jesus, as a Brit, this reads like a loving nightmare. Especially the 1 week holiday. You should vote that Sanders guy in and get yourself 30 days paid leave like the socialist paradise we have over here. Many things may suck in the UK, but free healthcare and minimum paid leave are pretty sweet.

sheri
Dec 30, 2002

We have 0 paid leave required by law. Zero days.

genericuser
Mar 1, 2007

[insert clever comment here]
How does that work in practice? What happens if you need an electrician to visit your house or see a professional about something?

wilfredmerriweathr
Jul 11, 2005
You take unpaid time off (if you are hourly), or you work late after your appointment, or you convince your boss to let you just leave for a while. Or you let the electrician run amok in your house without being there.


It's called freedom

sheri
Dec 30, 2002

My company offers paid leave, and a lot do, but no one has to if they don't want to.

And if you don't have paid leave you either hope you can take it unpaid or work later/earlier to make up for it or hear a lot of "should get a better job if you need time off"

Buried alive
Jun 8, 2009
In addition to the above, there's also the ever-present option of "Well, I guess you gotta take care of your house or whatever. Don't bother coming in on Monday. Or ever again."

fordham
Oct 5, 2002

Your argument is invalid.
Exciting Lemon
Do you have a contract for your employment? My guess is no, which pretty much means you are hosed.

There's no legal requirement to pay you extra if you do not take employer-subsidized health insurance so they can take away that benefit anytime they like for anyone they want.

Unless of course you have a contract that specifies benefits.

genericuser
Mar 1, 2007

[insert clever comment here]
We had to fire one of our employees recently. We had inherited him from an outsource and basically he was not up to the job. It took approximately 9 months of paperwork and then we paid him three months wages as a golden handshake.

I don't know whether that's right or wrong but the concept of firing people without massive admin is basically impossible in the EU. Assuming you're a permanent employee. Most people get paid off.

The situation sounds poo poo. I've been to Utah. The people were nice but a bit weird.

Fog Tripper
Mar 3, 2008

by Smythe
Chalking it up at this point to needing to find other employer.

Last I inquired, I was told that no, it is not a policy but rather a bonus. The waiver form I filled out was just me waiving the healthcare, even though it was required to be filled out to get the opt out. But even as a not policy, I need to wait for open enrollment in december to get back on the opt out.



:iiam:

FarmerDan
Aug 8, 2006
Cold Bacon!
Not sure if this helps, but in MI, if you have a life qualifying event, you can change the level of your insurance coverage. Things like getting married or having children certainly apply, and I think I remember reading that changing status counts as well (Full to part time). If they are deducting the "bonus" already, might as well try to switch so you're taking advantage of the health care they provide.

numtini
Feb 7, 2010
What your sleazy bosses have done is figure out a way to save on insurance. They talk you guys into taking this deal and going with your wives insurance which saves them money because your wife's employer pays. Then after its too late to enroll in their insurance, they come up with rules to take the extra $ back. Then they blame it on Obama and hope you'll buy the BS and vote for a Republican so they can cancel the entire insurance plan and throw you to the wolves.

wilfredmerriweathr
Jul 11, 2005

numtini posted:

What your sleazy bosses have done is figure out a way to save on insurance. They talk you guys into taking this deal and going with your wives insurance which saves them money because your wife's employer pays. Then after its too late to enroll in their insurance, they come up with rules to take the extra $ back. Then they blame it on Obama and hope you'll buy the BS and vote for a Republican so they can cancel the entire insurance plan and throw you to the wolves.

Yep. It is utah after all (though this happens all over our great land).


Job Creators

Vylan Antagonist
Jun 5, 2005

Much less clever than he looks
Tortured By Flan

numtini posted:

Then they blame it on Obama and hope you'll buy the BS and vote for a Republican so they can cancel the entire insurance plan and throw you to the wolves.

This is Fog Tripper, he already votes Republican.

But yeah, blaming the ACA for this is just the sort of ridiculous deflection that I would expect from a number of dickhead business owners I know.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

wilfredmerriweathr
Jul 11, 2005
On the plus side, this kinda stuff happening to a republican can sometimes actually make them reevaluate their political beliefs.

But usually not, they'll just blame it on black people or something instead of realizing that most businesspeople are colossal assholes and that the American workplace is tailor made to gently caress its employees.

  • Locked thread