Applebee's Backlash Sparked By Zane Tankel's Obamacare Slam

Heated comments from an Applebee's franchise owner sparked viral outrage against the giant restaurant chain, marking a new phase in the war over Obamacare.

Over the weekend and on Monday, Applebee's employees and customers expressed their anger over comments made on the Fox Business Network last week by Apple-Metro CEO Zane Tankel, who owns 40 Applebee's franchises in the New York metropolitan area. Tankel said he would not hire any more workers and was considering cutting the hours of current employees because of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

Already Applebee's parent company, DineEquity, is distancing itself from Tankel's remarks. "It's certainly our hope that our guests recognize and realize that Mr. Tankel's views are not representative of the broader Applebee's brand," said Dan Smith, a spokesman for DineEquity. Smith said the company has received a torrent of customer feedback on Tankel's comments and noted that individual franchise owners do not speak for all of Applebee's.

Tankel, who declined repeated requests for comment through a spokesman, is just one of several CEOs who've announced they will take drastic measures to deal with Obamacare. Last week, Papa John's CEO, John Schnatter, said he'd likely reduce workers' hours as a result of President Barack Obama's reelection. In October, Jimmy John Liautaud, founder and CEO of Jimmy John's sandwich shops, said he would cut employees' work weeks -- "bring them down to 28 hours" -- in order to skirt Obamacare requirements on providing health insurance for full-time-equivalent employees. Liautaud was a prominent Mitt Romney supporter.

These outspoken businessmen may find such political comments hurt their bottom lines. Some employees seem eager to find new jobs. And customers are threatening boycotts -- on Twitter and Facebook.

Applebee's waiter Brandon Baker is considering quitting in light of Tankel's remarks. "It's ridiculous with all the money they make they can't take care of their employees. They sit in their mansions and we scrape by," said the 35-year-old artist, who waits tables to pay the bills. "I have no idea what it would be like to get a real break or have sick days or insurance." Baker, who lives in Seattle and doesn't work at a Tankel-owned store, pays out of pocket for his dentist and doctor visits.

Ninety-nine percent of Applebee's 2,000 locations are owned and operated by about 40 franchisees. DineEquity doesn't mandate its franchisees' health care policies and coverage, and Smith, the DineEquity spokesman, said that "it's not Applebee's place to engage in political commentary."

Despite that clarification, many customers don't differentiate between a franchisor, its franchisees and the overall brand. "Zane Tankel is a pathetic, greedy, mentally and follicle-impaired fraud," wrote Rex Kenneth, a New York City resident, in an email to The Huffington Post. "By [boycotting] Applebee's you can save money and improve your health." Kenneth is planning to boycott the chain in his area and hopes to persuade his nieces and nephews in Ohio to do the same.

"I would rather pay a few cents more at a business that treats employees with decency than one like [Tankel's]," Sandy Goodwick, another potential customer, wrote in an email to The Huffington Post.

Jimmy John's and Apple-Metro would not comment on the current controversy. Papa John's did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Even before the Obamacare brouhaha, Applebee's, like others in the casual dining industry, didn't offer the best wage and benefits packages. Many of its franchisees other than Tankel pay low wages, keep workers part time and offer unaffordable benefits plans, according to testimonials from six current and former Applebee's employees.

"Most employees live paycheck to paycheck," said German Ramos, a former manager at an Applebee's in Newtown, Pa., who supervised 60 workers. "As managers, we did not promote the insurance as a benefit because the premium was tough to manage."

"The [franchisee] has done a lot to cut all benefits for hourly employees and managers," said Ramos.

"Applebee's had an insurance plan, but the cost was more than I was earning," said Krista Trovato, who worked at locations in Pennsylvania and Florida. "I think paying insurance for employees is the cost of doing business, and if they can't afford it, they need to get out of business and accept their failure."

Smith of DineEquity responded that Applebee's "certainly can't comment without knowing the details about these individual cases. I can speak on behalf of Applebee's the brand, but not on behalf of our franchisees."

Meanwhile, many franchise owners beyond Applebee's argue that the costs of Obamacare are just too high to stay in business. "I can't tell you how many franchises say they would like to be able to provide coverage, but once they start analyzing the costs, say this isn't going to work," said Judith Thorman, senior vice president for government relations and public policy with the International Franchise Association, a trade group that has opposed the health care law. "They're looking at a tough business climate and this tremendous cost. It's hard for them to deal with this law, however they decide to deal with it."

Under Obamacare, businesses with 50 or more full-time-equivalent employees that do not provide health insurance coverage must pay a penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee in excess of 30 full-time employees.

Many more franchise owners may be quietly considering taking the same actions as Tankel. Obamacare will add more than $6.4 billion in costs to franchise businesses, not including the cost of regulatory compliance, according to a report prepared for the International Franchise Association. The report warns that this could cause about 3.2 million full-time employees at tens of thousands of franchise businesses -- mostly quick- and full-service restaurants and retail stores -- to lose their jobs.

Thorman acknowledged that franchise owners are discussing several ways to deal with Obamacare, including reducing employees' hours to part-time status.

As for the customers who object, Thorman said, "This is a country where people have the right to express their view. [Boycotting] would be unfortunate, though, because these are small-business people trying to deal with a complicated law and keep their employees employed."

via www.huffingtonpost.com

Comments

[NC Tony]

At this rate nobody's going to want to go out to eat anymore because of all these businesses publicly admitting that they're firing people and cutting back on hours because they don't want to treat them like human beings. Even the ones that won't admit it might feel the backlash too because people will be wondering if the place they're planning on is one of the ones that's cutting back on employees and their hours to skirt Obamacare.

What really gets me is this:
"[Boycotting] would be unfortunate, though, because these are small-business people trying to deal with a complicated law and keep their employees employed."

Small businesses? These are MULTI MILLION DOLLAR CORPORATIONS that are complaining about this. If the greedy CEO's could cut down on the money they pay themselves and actually let some of that money trickle down to the people who keep them in business, maybe then they wouldn't be crying about how much money Obamacare is costing them.

[Cyenna]

At my job, they cut everyone's hours, even all the way at the top. But we at the bottom got hit the most. I went from 30hrs a week to 10, and I was one of the lucky ones.
I was against Obamacare from the start, purely because of how fast it got spit out- no one got to do a proper analysis on it, not even businesses. A lot of businesses who supported it are now cutting hours like this, and it's so frustrating.

[BookishGirl]

And this is just another reason why they needed to go that one step further and take health insurance away from employers completely. Your employer should pay you wages. Full stop. End of Sentence. You should then be able to go to a health insurance company and negotiate the policy that suits you and your family. This removes the supposed 'cost' from employers and leaves the employee free to get what they need. Just the same way they do it in the rest of the world.

[Kryss LaBryn]

I have absolutely no idea why the US doesn't institute a national health care policy and base it on one of the ones from, oh, say, Canada, France, England--pretty much every other First World country has had public health care and has had it for decades. Pick the style you think would work the best for you and institute that. Done. No really in-depth research and analysis required because, hey, this is what your system would look like forty years years later. Is it still working? What are the problems? How do the original countries deal with them/plan to solve them/developed them in the first place?

By joining the rest of the world so late in the game, you really do have the advantage of seeing how various systems work out.

At the very least, do it the way Canada does: health care expenses are paid for directly by the government, out of general revenues and lottery ticket taxes. You are registered in your provincial plan at birth and that registration stays with you until you die or move to another province (in which case you re-apply for a new card from your new province, because health care here is run by the provinces, albeit to federal rules).

You see a doctor. You don't even *see* the bill; the doctor bills the government directly. And your employer just pays their taxes like everyone else, and there is no point in limiting employees hours or wages or numbers, because the portion of their taxes that go to health care isn't separated from the rest of their taxes.

Sad to say, I'm not surprised employers are being dicks about it. I *am* surprised at the way the system seems to be being set up. Why not just say "XX% of the federal budget will now go to covering health care costs." For *everyone*. Seriously, your system bankrupted *Superman*. The only reason Christopher Reeves, a guy will a couple bucks in his account, and his family didn't end up on the street was that Robin Williams helped them out. Sheesh. What the hell is wrong with a system where health care costs in an emergency can bankrupt a millionaire??

Anyways, I'm getting distracted. Pay the costs directly out of taxes and stop involving insurance companies. And then companies won't have yet another excuse to screw workers.

They have enough already.

[jealoussin]

Kryss, I agree. While reading what you wrote I imagined companies with quivering lips saying, "B-but, money! Money that should be ours!" It is really sad that people are going to lose their job or have their hours cut into nonexistence because of money.

[Dev]

Kryss: That's the way Obama wanted to go. The Republicans refused, and this was their compromise. They don't even like their own compromise, but were willing to do anything to keep the sweet, sweet, sweet donations of the health insurance companies.

And those who were against "Obamacare from the start:" I'll remember you as my Uncle slowly dies of cancer before year's end because he couldn't get insurance due to an illness he had as a child. I'll remember that you don't feel like health care is a right, not a privilege.

[Spritzy]

My parents are against Obamacare and it's weird that they are since my dad is self employed and can't afford sufficient coverage and my mom isn't even eligible for insurance because of a genetic disorder that she was born with and is incurable. This disorder is slowly robbing her of her vision and affecting her mental state...and yet lower-cost insurance isn't what they want.

[LegendaryOdin]

That was my whole point. People keep screaming "Oh, socialism this and that" but Canada, England, Germany, even Scandinavia is whooping us good in most departments, especially education and healthcare T_T but while the Republicans keep trying to stop Obama at every turn we're just going to get to sit here and hear more nonsense.

[Queer Geek]

Sad to say it's capitalism and corporate greed that killing America! It doesn't matter who is in the White House, we're screwed!

[Cyenna]

@Dev, I said I was against it because of how fast it was spit out, not because of the basic premise. But a basic premise is all fine and dandy when the details written by hundreds of people all with opposing viewpoints sink the ship. It was too conflicted to do anything but contradict itself and have unnecessary complications.

There needed to be an overhaul, but the way Obamacare was written and quickly pushed through made everything go pear-shaped in a hurry.

[glottis]

What I, from my admittedly faraway viewpoint over here in euro-land, don't get is how people, like, normal, hard-working, average-income people that make up a larger percentage of republican votes than there are CEOs and like, can honestly believe that concentrating money is a way to improve economy. Corporations are going to earn money with whatever they provide, so far so good, and if we allow them to just keep it, everyone will profit, because soon all the currency and thereby power will be centralized to people who know better and in exchange for your hard work you will be supplied with all (management thinks) you need to live by your benevolent owner - eh, employer.
No wait a sec - I mixed that up. That was communism.

[Book Baby]

This is one reason I patronize particular service station here in town: they give health insurance to ALL of their workers.

[Skittles]

Love that 6.4 billion number up there oh noes thats lots and lots of moneys. In 2011 there were 735,571 franchises in the US, when you do the math that 6.4 billion comes out to 8211.31 per franchise. My grandmother owns a starbucks her check from that is roughly 7000 per month. Since I highly doubt that is a monthly figure if you average 8212(rounding up) over the year you get a monthly cost of 684.34, Which sounds about right to me, considering the cost of health care per employee to the bussiness is roughly 80-100 per month. Some places have more employees some have less. So extrapolating that math grandma gets 6300 a month roughly. I'm sure she'll survive. What interests me is when bussiness used to be down the people at the top took an equal hit since they looked at it as less profits. For some reason now it has to come out of people at the bottom because god frobid the CEO get 100 million instead of 150 million.

[TerminusOmega13]

As a retail slave, I have to say this. It is not the CEOs at the top who earn the company money. It's the retail slaves at the bottom. Most customers never know who the CEO of Hellmart, Greedway, or any other company is. Yet they know the faces of the people who work at their local chain. I'm the one standing behind the counter, providing the service that keeps customers coming back, not the CEO. I'm sorry, but NOTHING in my mind justifies the amount they make versus what we make. I deserve more pay, they deserve less. END OF STORY. We deserve benefits and we deserve breaks, vacations and sick leave. We should not suffer for their profits. This isn't the Victorian era.