Companies downsizing hours to avoid Obama Care

[Buffy]

All this is going to do is drive away the good talent to other jobs and have these companies left with temps and the scraps that desperately need the job at any wage.

Which is actually the way it should work. Good companies, those committed to paying their employees and paying their part-timers benefits will themselves benefit from this. Papa John's might not pay their employees over 29 hours, but I know Starbucks does. And did, long before Obama care, they paid for part-time benefits. That's why it was the best college student job ever. My work, the YMCA is paying all their part time benefits starting in 2014 (The obligatory start date for Obama care). It's like an extra $400,000 a year in insurance costs, but if we don't do it, we will lose every single child care employee.

[kuronosan]

It's just another step in evolution. Employers working off of an archaic model will lose talented workers and executives will always blame someone else.

[Meresgi]

Not surprising in the least that companies would pull this shit, will at the same time showering themselves with bonuses. "We cant affords yo health insurance....btw look at my new benz and condo in Monaco "

Eventually all the talented employees will realize they should just all ban together and create start ups to get themselves more of the pie then they are getting working 9-5 for some company that refuses to share, like a fat kid with a box of twinkies.


If CEOs and top execs want to pay themselves that much, then w/e, it's not like anything is going to stop them from cutting hours/wages to let them skim more and more, just a shitty thing to do but that's business. Hell I know of people in the IT industry who manage a programs development, take NO consideration for security so they can get it done under budget and ahead of time, to get a promotion, so when the shit hits the fan the new guy who took over is blamed.

[Acevalefor]

What is....I don't even....

[Salodin]

I don't remember Obama care specifics, is health insurance not mandatory if an employee works under 30 hours a week? I thought the only stipulation was if a business had over 40 employees then it must provide insurance for all of them.

[Callisto]

I don't remember Obama care specifics, is health insurance not mandatory if an employee works under 30 hours a week? I thought the only stipulation was if a business had over 40 employees then it must provide insurance for all of them.

If they have over 50 employees, they have to offer coverage to all full-time workers, with 30 hours/week being the bar that determines full-time status.

[Talint]

What is....I don't even....

http://thanks-obama.tumblr.com/

[Kalmado]

Laughing more than I should at those .gifs

[Zerk]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...are/?mobile=nc

Most of us used to get 30-35 hours per week, this lasted up until when The Hobbit came out, and they hired 35 more people (doubled our amount of floor staff). We went from 5 shifts per week (if you wanted that many) to 3 if you were lucky, and then they kept overscheduling for 2 months so you were lucky to get your whole shift. I used to always work 35+ hrs per week, but now i'm lucky to hit 20/week, and now they're doing another round of hiring since they lost most of those new hires from December. Shit sucks.. but just more push to find a different/another job.

[archibaldcrane]

they hired 35 more people (doubled our amount of floor staff).

sounds like obamacare is a job creator to me

[Callisto]

In reality something like that had little to do with the health care changes, that particular portion of it doesn't even go into effect until January. Them doing this so early shows that they already felt that all of their full-time non-salaried workers were easily replaceable by any schlep off the street, and they'd be just as profitable rolling through any number of unskilled laborers who are desperate for any form of income.

[Salodin]

Them doing this so early shows that they already felt that all of their full-time non-salaried workers were easily replaceable by any schlep off the street, and they'd be just as profitable rolling through any number of unskilled laborers who are desperate for any form of income.

So unskilled laborers complaining because they got replaced by a mass of cheap labor.

Another question, does this mean employers are expected to foot the entire bill of health care? Or do these over 30 hr employees just buy into it like every current plan? If it's the latter then a lot of them probably take home more money at 20-25 hrs a week then at 30-35 with benefits. Of course the benefits one should be better cause of health, but health don't matter when you can't afford the roof over your head.

[archibaldcrane]

Another question, does this mean employers are expected to foot the entire bill of health care? Or do these over 30 hr employees just buy into it like every current plan? If it's the latter then a lot of them probably take home more money at 20-25 hrs a week then at 30-35 with benefits. Of course the benefits one should be better cause of health, but health don't matter when you can't afford the roof over your head.

It means the employers need to offer an obamacare-qualifying health care plan which employees either have to buy into or obtain health insurance independently.

Remember that most people working these shitty jobs earn little enough that they qualify for partial or full government subsidy of their premiums.

[archibaldcrane]

Remember, we're talking 11-13 cents per pizza of employer burden here. I worked for a papa johns one summer, we wouldn't even do 100 pizzas most days - so we're talking like less than $15/day to provide health insurance to all their full-time workers...


...and instead of paying that they're cutting everyone's hours and hiring more P/T employees.

[Jakson]

It's going to cost these companies more in constant training fee's than what the benefits would've cost them in the long run. Since the turn around rate is going to be high as hell for a lot of them. Obviously its conjecture at this point, we shall see by the end of the year the repercussions of their decision.

When I was doing some management training years ago, one point that was driven in was concerning how it costs thousands of dollars to train employees (which I had assumed, and have no reason to disbelieve, meant training videos, paperwork, etc.) which reminds me of a question I put in the Obamacare thread a long time ago but I never saw answered: Are there any sites that can give practical and realistic estimates to how much this is going to cost employers (per hourly employee, etc.)?

[Callisto]

So unskilled laborers complaining because they got replaced by a mass of cheap labor.

Another question, does this mean employers are expected to foot the entire bill of health care? Or do these over 30 hr employees just buy into it like every current plan? If it's the latter then a lot of them probably take home more money at 20-25 hrs a week then at 30-35 with benefits. Of course the benefits one should be better cause of health, but health don't matter when you can't afford the roof over your head.

The portion of the insurance cost that the employers pay for each plan remains the same, the employees still buy in like usual. I do think the legislation set requirements that the plans offered by the employers had to be low-to-mid deductible plans iirc, which insurers are currently gouging prices for.

[Buffy]

When I was doing some management training years ago, one point that was driven in was concerning how it costs thousands of dollars to train employees (which I had assumed, and have no reason to disbelieve, meant training videos, paperwork, etc.) which reminds me of a question I put in the Obamacare thread a long time ago but I never saw answered: Are there any sites that can give practical and realistic estimates to how much this is going to cost employers (per hourly employee, etc.)?

It is costing my company about $4,000 a year to equip our part time 30-40/hour a week employees with the same health coverage that full-time salaried employees receive.

edit: that's $4,000 per person. It's about $360 a month in health care costs to my employer.

[Salodin]

that's $4,000 per person. It's about $360 a month in health care costs to my employer.

Jesus... I see why a lot of businesses cut back then, that for every employee is a steep price to pay; doubly so if they could just take steps to not pay it and have the guvment pay for there employees health care any ways.

If I was a business owner that had legitimate concern for my employees then I'd consider the same thing. They might work fewer hours, but there take home pay would (probably) be less any ways after you subtract the monthly fees, and if you explain it like that then many of these people complaining about it would probably not mind it.

Of course, exceptions apply, like the Regal one earlier where they just over hire because they're in full freak out mode.

[archibaldcrane]

Remember, that's just to provide what they already pay the insured people - it could be a "more than bare minimum" plan, or they may not require a maximum contribution from their employees.

[Salodin]

Yes, but iirc if an employer offers a plan and they decline it, then uncle Sam won't help foot the bill on one the person attempts to get alone which might be better then the bare minimum plan. If that's the case, then just having an employer take the cheapest plan they can get would still hurt an employee more then these current measures we hear about (again, just assuming here).

Plus there's also the idea of current full timers getting crappier benefits if they go the cheap route now all the part timers have to be paid for too, which might make that talent and skill go find a job elsewhere.