Where to eat, not eat

Several restaurants are laying off employees, needlessly, as a form of passive aggressive snit in objection to Obamacare. They don't want to have to give their employees health insurance. I think some of these companies are also known for having opposed Obama in the election, which is their right (corporations are people too, after all!) but this is actually, in my view, a form of voter intimidation large scale. If the mainly fast and medium-speed food industry collaborates tacitly or not to make a certain voting pattern hurt all of their employees, they are creating a class of people who may fee forced to vote against their own interest.

So, you know what to do. You will have to avoid eating in those establishments. Here is a graphic that lists the currently known offenders:

That is from here.

According to Fat Chick in LA, there are some companies that are "good" (for now). They are:

  • White Castle
  • Starbucks
  • California Pizza Kitchen
  • PF Changs
  • T.G.I. Fridays

Click through to FCILA's tumbler to read the details on the benefits offered by the "good" (for now) companies.


More like this

What? Chic Fil A is not on your list?

Let's see. I will continue to support LongHorn, Applebees, but the rest I could really care less about. make sure to protest and rebel against Los Angeles' "Meatless Monday" mania they have going on over there. Ever since King Bloomberg order his majestic decree of no more large sodas and ever since cucumber head in Los Angeles let out his spree of stupidity about "Meatless Monday" I have ordered my own decree: "On Monday, Thou shalt have two eggs with ham and bacon for reakfast with a arge coffee. For Lunch thou sahlt eatest of the bird by partaking in fried chicken with a order of french fries and a LARGE soda. For dinner thou shalt takest part in a cow by eating a large steak with fries, non GMO ketchup, and another LARGE soda.Then thou shalt taketh photos and placeth them on facebooketh and aimeth thy voctory at thou enemies who art mandating thy doom and thy freedom. "

In other words, post your photos of large sodas and large meat plates on MONDAY in protest of the food police. It's like saying F you but in a nicer way. Then again, why be nice to DICKtators. The only thing they shoud receive in a steel toe in their crack as they are ousted from power.

By Kevin Sanders (not verified) on 13 Nov 2012 #permalink

Of the restaurants on this list that I have ever been to (I haven't been to Longhorn or Applebee's--the former has no stores in my area, but there is an Applebee's about 20 minutes away), all serve mediocre food.

I'm 20 minutes from a foodie paradise of locally owned restaurants, and there are decent places closer to me. (Domino's is the only one on the list with a store in my town.) So there's no particular reason for me to patronize these places. You give a good reason to avoid these restaurants, but they never did offer a good enough product to attract me in this market.

By Eric Lund (not verified) on 14 Nov 2012 #permalink

QUOTE: "Several restaurants are laying off employees"

Yes, because what successful companies do best is to sit around and think of needless activities to engage in. And they all demonstrate in passive aggressive behavior. Sounds just like everything I know about the business world.


By Michele Burtino (not verified) on 15 Nov 2012 #permalink

Michele you are not making an sense, please explain what you mean.

Speaking of restaraunts and other businesses ...

Come January if you eat at Denny's your bill will be higher due to Obamacare. The owner said that whatever extra costs in insurance, benefits, etc. that Big Brother was enforcing, he would simply add it to the cost of his products. So in other words, we all, rich and poor, now have to pay for Obamacare becuase businesses will be adding their cost to their products and passing it right along to the customers now. Thanks alot liberals. You really solved the whole problem now did you not? Thanks again to liberals and their free stuff mentality we all suffer the consequences.

By Kevin Sanders (not verified) on 15 Nov 2012 #permalink

What is going to happen now, is that restaurants will close. They will do so, not due to some kind of a conniption fit, but due to the economics of operating a going concern. You have to be able to afford to pay labor out of the money that your customers can afford to pay. In the nineties, this was not particularly the case in Sweden. When I visited there, I found that there simply were not any casual eateries. There was McDonald's in the tourist district. There were very expensive hotel restaurants. Nothing anything like a Denny's or a Cracker Barrel. Forget about it. Not affordable to the Swedish people. We are heading towards that kind of a society now.

By Michele Burtino (not verified) on 15 Nov 2012 #permalink


greg, what michele is trying to say is that she knows nothing about business, particularly when run by right wing zealots.

and kevin is personally illustrating the fact that right wing zealots know nothing.

By michandaro (not verified) on 15 Nov 2012 #permalink

In the the American restaurant business model, especially in restaurants, the hourly employee subsidizes the customer through low pay and lack of insurance. When this is rectified, the customer will not, in fact, be subsidizing the employee - he will just be paying what he should have been paying all along.
This brings us to parity not only with the Swedes and the Norwegians, but with every other civilized country on this planet.

well said, otto!

By michandaro (not verified) on 15 Nov 2012 #permalink

Another thing to remember is that many restaurants do not actually pay a large portion of the wait staff's income: this comes through the American custom of "tipping". Clearly this is not true at fast food establishments but otherwise the customer is already directly subsidizing the ability of servers to have a salary. This means employers are responsible for even less additional payments (social security, unemployment etcetc)

Look, these are all big corporate chains. Easy to avoid. Eat local.

By Vincent Sperrazza (not verified) on 16 Nov 2012 #permalink

Given that more than one of restaurants on this list have been shown to contribute to obesity, diabetes, and other health problems, there SHOULD be an obligation for them to pay for health care. That's known as the "true cost" of a product. (The cost of waste disposal and/or recycling should also be included in any product's sale price to arrive at its true cost. This would encourage consumers to consume more wisely). Higher prices at McDonald's or Denny's might encourage diners to eat at better restaurants and eat better foods--and we wouldn't need so much health care.

Thinking further about it, the fast food industry gets a LOT of subsidies, doesn't it? Corn, beef, energy, payroll, insurance, indirect costs written off, probably more. The world would actually be a better place if a Big Mac costs what it costs (about 9 dollars, I would guess). Minimum wage at $12.50 an hour, universal health care, eat healthy food at home a lot more, etc. etc.

We should try that.

otto, one quibble. We will be paying more than we should be paying because the Republicans in Congress insisted on hanging onto a private-insurance model of health care, which costs far more than a centralized model.

By Stephanie Zvan (not verified) on 16 Nov 2012 #permalink

He he, Michele, I can't say that we particularly miss MacDonalds here in Sweden. In my small town (~10000) we have two thai-restaurants, four small pizzerias and a bunch of other more Swedish lunch places. Every one of them easily affordable for a working class Swede. They are making their way in a free market, paying their share of taxes, sick leave and vacation etc. (I guess the expensive ones you saw were fancy inner city Stockholm restaurants.)
Of course ordinary people have to pay for healtcare in the end, there's just different ways of making that happen.
I have no illusions. I'm sure it's hard work to run a restaurant even in Sweden. Also, we have our share of problems and many things are done better in America (or?). But still I don't think it's a good idea to use Sweden as a bad example regarding politics and social economics. A we are NOT socialists, on the contrary I would say.

@Andreas: I have been to Sweden a couple of times myself, and while there are certainly fancy restaurants in Stockholm, there are plenty of locally owned places with much more reasonable prices, even in central Stockholm (to say nothing of Uppsala, which is a university city and therefore full of students looking for inexpensive places to eat). I remember my restaurant bills in Sweden generally being in the SEK 100-200 range (the exchange rate on the USD was about 8:1 when I was there), and I wasn't trying very hard (apart from not drinking beer, which is expensive in Sweden due to high excise taxes) to keep my expenses low. At restaurants of comparable quality in the US my bills are usually in the $20-30 range.

One thing about Sweden (and other European countries I have visited) is that the posted prices include tax and gratuity. If your main course has a listed price of SEK 100, it will cost you SEK 100, not SEK 120-130 after you add tax and gratuity as is customarily done in the US. It is common to tip by rounding your bill up.

By Eric Lund (not verified) on 16 Nov 2012 #permalink

Stephanie Svan: Yes and no. Well, not really. It's essentially a wash. Since opposed factions - the Neo Cons and the Unions share equal blame here - have blocked tje kind of health care used by most developed countries, we all,aside from seniors .and Medicaid users, our model is privare and for profit. In that sense we are all paying more ,than we should have to, anyway.. Were the country to adopt real socialized health care for all, you would not be paying at the restaurnt but through taxes. It's probably a wash, bit at least employer provided health care gives you the option not to sibsidize with your restaurant check.
part of the fallacy of this discission is the initial assumption that consumers have a right to essentially underpriced goods and services like fast food and cheap clothes, and that visionary entrepreneurs have a right to excessively high profits made possible by undercompensated labor. (There is a contrary assumption regarding compensation of organized labor, which confises thongs even more)

In simple terms: Look at large companies headquarters
Look at how many employees are 100K
Look how much restaurants pay their waitstaff
Look who is paying them more per hour/tips

Don't cry unfair because these companies are finally having to buck up and be fair to the people who on a daily basis make them look good by treating their customers well. I'd like to see them put up with crabby, whining people on a daily basis.
Turn in you corporate jets, turn the heat down in your hot tubs, sell that 2nd, 3rd and 4th home and pay your employees that are affording you that lifestyle!

I would to see some quote by company officials or something that substantiates your assertion that these companies intend to lay off people to avoid insurance. Just as I have seen the owner of Papa John's stating his position, let me see the others. I can't accept your statement because, on personal knowledge, I know it is not true about one of the companies on your list. Thanks.

Edith, go to the source, which I provide here, and as them.

What company do you now should not be on this list and why/how do you know that? Of course we want to know.

These issues are always complicated. Much is left out (the companies that are good, or bad, and not mentioned) and there are franchise issues. Last year during the Chick fil a thing, one franchise gave all its profits for a day to the local gay pride parade (or something along those lines) and Chick fi a has been sponsoring kids programming on PBS. What does that mean?

So Edith, do give us the additional information. Thanks.

Standard group-think here. The naievete of this piece is astounding. These are not passive aggressive political statements, these are companies whose goal is to succeed financially first and foremost. They have done the math and cannot grow or succeed under the idiocy of Obamacare. They're not laying off employees to punish Obama or the electorate; they're doing it because they need to in order to succeed financially. The fact that you people actually believe it's a political statement says a lot about your connection with reality.

"Group Think" is a buzzword meaning "I don't understand what you are saying but I think I maybe do not agree with it."

There are companies and owners who are making this fuss, and those that are not. Do they have different math?

By Vikki Frederick (not verified) on 17 Nov 2012 #permalink

Robert, I have also done the math and millions of others have as well. We can not sustain even a modest way of life with the old system of health care, and this first draft of a revised and fairer system is an improvement. We are not trying to punish these small business owners. We are just trying, with our families, to get through life without too much suffering. That, Robert, is reality.

Robert, If it is a matter of needing to lay off their employees to succeed and grow. And it's all finacial. Then let the ceo's sell their summer mansions and their car collections. Let them sell a few of their private jets. This grow and succeeding your talking about is nothing more then their greed. Greed for that new lamborghini for their car collection. And that new mansion in europe. Let them tighten their damn belts a bit for once. Let them sell some of their crap. They have enough money to feed entire countries for years. Let their money pick up the slack, leave the poor peoples jobs alone. They have it hard enough.

I will no longer eat. at any Restaurant that do not have any respect for humans life, when any company employed any employee should man up for a safe haven for their employees,if they pay their worker enough money for their hard labor then the employee could afford to have insurance for their self and their families. Rich people say we want stuff , while they want a lot of stuff and big stuff at that.

By Sharon Ray (not verified) on 17 Nov 2012 #permalink

The franchise question is a good one, though; for each of these companies, who actually makes the decisions about whom to hire, how many workers, for how many hours? With Chick Fil-A, it was a matter of one individual's philosophy, which he stated and which franchisers maybe knew about and maybe not--but they still were part of a company whose head held this publicly abhorrent (IMO) philosophy, and they sure as hell know now.

This is different, though. Not that any of these are particularly awesome places to eat, and being aware of universal-type menus and prices for certain (or all) selections, which obviously closes the window on raising food prices in order to pay a fairer wage to employees, do the corporate weenies really have a say in what Joe Franchiser Guy does with his employees' work schedule? If the Pizza Hut down the street is shafting its people, cutting their hours to avoid paying healthcare, while the Pizza Hut a mile further away has made the choice to treat its employees fairly, I'd rather reward the latter than simply blow off Pizza Hut completely. (Okay, bad example; they make pretty non-fabulous pizza. But you take my meaning, right?)

By Jenn the Greenmom (not verified) on 17 Nov 2012 #permalink

I have always felt that in a situation like this, it would be much more effective to boycott one company instead of ten, and because the boycott would be focused, it would be possible to continue it until the CEO agrees to suffer real personal damage. Which one to boycott? Select it by lottery, and maximize exposure by advertising date of lottery.

If we boycotted these establishments it would lower the demand for their goods and so a lowered demand for labour. This means they will employ even less people and/or lower work hours.

If we want to help our the workers in these firms out we should actually be buying more from these firms. This would increase the demand for their workers labour and lead to both an increase in the wages of labourers and an increase number of people being employed and/or for longer hours.

By Frank Knight (not verified) on 18 Nov 2012 #permalink

the laid off employees should vote democrat, contrary to their republican corporate bosses. papa john's just throws me into a rage when he blames his employees for a potential $.14/pizza price hike to cover healthcare. ever see papa john's pizza "hut" that he lives in? it's a huge sprawling estate with its own golf course and a total monument to greed and vanity.
otherwise i only very rarely buy a burger from in-n-out burger.

By marvin nubwaxer (not verified) on 18 Nov 2012 #permalink

Chances are highly likely that these companies would rather keep profits for themselves rather than share the wealth w/the employees for whom they pay minimum wage in order to get those profits. It is incredibly unfortunate that there are so many greedy people, companies, corporations in this country. F.Y.I. I would like to clarify that it is called "The Affordable Healthcare Act" not Obamacare as many folks state. It would seem important to get the facts, before spewing heresay, before making comments and sharing opinions.

"Obamacare" is considered an acceptable term for the AHA. I've always liked the term my self, and recently the President said he liked it too.

As someone who has worked in the restaurant industry at all levels in my career, I have a hard time swallowing this for a couple of reasons.
1) The folks that are paid hourly often can't afford to opt in to the employer-offered insurance even when they are eligible, as the amount deducted eats most of their take-home, leaving them nothing to live on. I know and work with a good share of these folks. They are stuck in a catch-22.
2) It is a universal given that restaurants are in a constant state of hiring. I have NEVER worked in a restaurant that was overstaffed for longer than a period of a few weeks, because people who work in the restaurant business are generally entry level workers, students, etc. who are trying to build work experience to be able to be hired somewhere else for better opportunity. With few exceptions, they don't stick around long term.
3) I am more inclined to believe the part about them cutting people back to part-time to avoid allowing them to be eligible for health care than I would the part about them laying people off. They can't afford to lay people off because they already have a hard time staffing their establishments. I have many many times seen people work full-time hours being coded as part time so that the company doesn't have to pay benefits. That's not new, though. That has been going on long before Obamacare, and to blame that activity on this new policy is just asinine.

Let Markets set wage rates. Go Michigan.....

Imagine - businesses objecting to coercion, and acting in their own interests. What a concept.

Lots of massively ignorant comments here, starting with the original post. Lots of envy, and the desire to bring others (those EVIL rich people) down, rather than bring others up. Lots of belief in an undefined "fairness", and an astoundingly naive faith that government can provide it - somehow, despite thousands of years' evidence to the contrary.

What do you all plan to do after high school?

By alanstorm (not verified) on 10 Dec 2012 #permalink

I hope the first to be laid off, and the first to be permanently fired, are those that voted for this communist enemy that claims but does not deserve the title of president. The restaurants, and other corporations (you do realize this is endemic to the economy, right?) are not being greedy, they have a bottom line, shareholders, bills to pay, and are trying to survive. The CEO may have a nice house, but he deserves it for taking the risk he did. The corporations do not exist to provide jobs, never mind healthcare coverage, to some group of schmucks with degrees in womens studies or medieval French literature. They're trying to make some money by providing a product or service to the dumbfounded d!p$h!t$ that want it. They have expenses, and you want to add another one. Let me guess, you'd bitch if they raised prices, but they either have to raise prices or control expenses. Can't have it both ways, child. So here are your choices: the price goes up (good on that Denny's franchise for announcing it) the service goes down (good on Papa John for being upfront) or the company goes out of business (Ever hear of Hostess?).

This is NOT some kind of tantrum (although that would probably be appropriate) this is merely businesses facing reality (which you obviously can't) and making hard decisions trying to keep operating under adverse conditions. Conditions that are being caused arbitrarily and needlessly by people trying to enforce stupid rules that will not work.

By Mr Evilwrench (not verified) on 10 Dec 2012 #permalink