Chris2189 Wrote:
Feb 02, 2013 9:31 AM
"......this has meant less than 100 positions have been made redundant across various departmental functions in our Tennessee and Massachusetts sites." What? So without the tax this organization would have just let 100 redundant positions exist because why not? How many businesses have you ever heard of that are just fine with $5million worth of wasted labor expense per year (assuming the average cost of the positions is $50k per year, while it's likely higher)? If the argument is that the tax is likely to decrease sales then that makes sense. If the argument is that this organization was spending all that money to keep people employed just cause they're generous then it's ridiculous. Guess that's why health costs are out of control