Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

More Companies cut part-time worker hours to avoid Obamacare requirement

Companies cut part-time worker hours to avoid Obamacare requirement: report
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/companies-cut-worker-hours-avoid-obamacare-report-article-1.1333305

Obamacare may end up hurting many of the part-time workers the President had hoped it would help.

Under the far-reaching health care law, large employers are required to offer health insurance to part-time employees working at least 30 hours a week.

But that’s not how it’s played out.

Instead of granting insurance plans to part-time employees, a growing number of larger firms are actually cutting back on workers’ hours altogether, the Los Angeles Times reported.

In the process, the employers are stripping part-time workers not only of their ability to get company health insurance but of their much needed wages as well.

The city of Long Beach, Calif., for example, is cutting the hours of many of its 1,600 part-time workers to fewer than 27 hours per week, the Times reported, in an effort to prevent them from qualifying for company-offered health insurance.

Obama's signature Affordable Care Act has had unintended consequences.

Long Beach officials have said the benefits they otherwise would have to offer could cost the municipality as much as $2 million, a price that could result in cutbacks to city services.

"We're in the same boat as many employers," Tom Modica, the city's director of government affairs, told the Times. "We need to maintain the programs and service levels we have now."

More than 2 million workers at large restaurant chains, retailers and a variety of other companies that employ more than 50 people across the U.S. are facing similar consequences.

Bill Dombrowski, who heads up the California Retailers Association told the Times that the cuts represent “the only way to survive economically” under the requirements under the Affordable Care Act.

Last week, the largest U.S. movie-theater chain cut the hours of many workers below 30 hours to bypass the law. In a memo to employees, the Regal Entertainment Group, blamed the decision explicitly on the policy often referred to as “Obamacare.”

“To comply with the Affordable Care Act, Regal had to increase our health care budget to cover those newly deemed eligible based on the law's definition of a full-time employee,” the company stated in a memo. “To manage this budget, all other employees will be scheduled in accord with business needs and in a manner that will not negatively impact our health care budget.”

Darden Restaurants Inc., which owns the Olive Garden and Red Lobster chains, made similar cuts last year, too, before the company reversed course due to intense criticism.

aedelman@nydailynews.com
by on May. 2, 2013 at 11:37 PM
Replies (41-50):
turtle68
by Mahinaarangi on May. 3, 2013 at 2:46 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting Sisteract:

This practice has been in existence for the last 10 years- well before the conception of the ACA-

Screwing employees has been alive and well for many years.

they are happy to find another reason...man to blame.  Win win.

Im sure the insurance companies are enjoying it all.

BuckeyezRule
by Bronze Member on May. 3, 2013 at 4:03 AM

My reply is an example, like you said, as well. Ironically, I was disagreeing NICELY. 

I respectfully, disagree. I tried googling limits on salaried (sp?) employees. Maybe google sucks. Lol

Salaried employees wouldn't need their jobs 'made up', as they weren't fired.

I even spoke with my husband, who runs 3 warehouses here. He was worked alot, salaried. He worked his tail off and wasn't nasty to anyone who questioned him.

i tried a nice response, but, you, replied with very, obviously, all, just not nice. :( 

sadly, even if I'm kind to posters like you, you are mean. I find that sad. I'm finally jumping on 'you'. I've let so many walk over me. Lol


Quoting MissTacoBell:

Business structures are obviously very variable depending on the work involved; my scenario was just an example.

Employers couldn't make up ALL that difference working salaried people; salaried or not, they still have a limit on their hours by law. Those that COULD make up the difference by working salaried employees more aren't doing very much cutting in the first place.


Quoting BuckeyezRule:

My thought was, they wouldn't hire more, they'd just work full time salaried workers more. The company my hubby works for, part time is 32 hours, so, just shave a few hours. 

Your point makes total sense if working full time salary more wasn't an option and part time was 40 hours at a company. :)

And, I'm not surprised it's happening. Hubby and I (as I'm sure many others) thought it would. 

I wish there was a good solution.



Quoting MissTacoBell:

It will be interesting to see how this works out for these companies.



In the short term, this seems like a good business solution. However, there are other elements to consider.



For example: Say you have 100 employees that work 40 hour weeks and you are subject to this law.



You reduce all their hours to 27 to dodge the law. You now have to hire and train 49 more people to support operations.



Suddenly you are spending 50% more in training costs, hiring costs among other fringe benefits that are incurred on a per person basis. You are also subject to more administrative regulations because you increased your minimum employee count. You need more space to support the increase depending on the business.



You also now have a massive drop in morale because you had a content workforce with full paychecks and now you have 100 people who are pissed off, worried about paying their rent. And they're blaming you for being a penny pinching bastard. As such, they (and the 49 people you hired) are probably not going to be NEARLY as efficient as before due to the change leading to either not meeting your business needs or needing to hire MORE staff to compensate.



And then there's your unemployment insurance. You see, these employees can now seek unemployment for being "underemployed". The influx in claims is going to boost the cost of your UI insurance. In fact, a disgruntled workforce will boost the rest of your insurance policies too.



Then there's their PR. It makes them look bad (hence why Darden tried it and took it back when people kicked up a stink). If you can get your TV at both a place who does this to their people and a place that doesn't, who are you going to choose? That's a lost sales cost. Probably the worst one of all.



They are not saving any money in the long run; short run, sure, but long run not really.



What this law should have done is reigned in insurance companies. If they were required to charge a reasonable fee instead of an outrageous one, we wouldn't be having this problem.







NutHouseMomma
by Silver Member on May. 3, 2013 at 6:41 AM
Yes, and no one is exempt from the cuts at this point. With the increasing demand and need for mental health services, I was surprised that we are seeing employees giving up their full time positions for chump change, just to stay employed. Our company no longer offers full time positions for new hires - a change that was introduced the first of this year.

And with hot issues revolving around the Sandy Hook shooting - increasing mental health care services - we really expected a boost in our field. The boost is there, more the need, but the money isn't there as we were expecting from Obama.

But I am glad to see that his focus has remianed faithful - gun law reform and not mental health. **eyeroll for the last line**
lga1965
by on May. 3, 2013 at 6:48 AM

 Exactly. As an example, I worked at a bank starting in 1961, and a single person received health insurance FREE. Now, today, my DIL works at the same bank and the cost is almost $300. a month.

In the mid 1980's, I worked part time ( under 35 hours a week) at Sears. No Health Insurance. Then they stopped hiring full time ( except for store managers and department managers) at all Sears so that they didn't have to offer health insurance. That was in the 1980's.......but Obama wasn't President then so they can't blame THAT on him. Lets see...who was President then....ummm.....could it be...Ronnie Reagan? Yup.

Don't you just love the panicky headlines concerning the ACA which is ,of course, called "Obama care" ? Oh boy....

The owners, managers of the companies who are griping ARE greedy.

Quoting Momniscient:

Your premiums have gone up more than they go up year to year because of changes that haven't gone into effect yet?

Wow. Mine have gone up but just the normal increases. We received letters outlining cost increases as well. That haven't happened. 

I meant speculation by saying 'this will happen' and 'that will happen'

Quoting Ziva65:

 Not sure what you mean by speculation- I see the payments, and the increases... the insurance company letters are addressed to me. Pretty straighforward.

 

Quoting Momniscient:

That's a lot of 'wills' and speculation.


Quoting Ziva65:

 Wow, not here. Ours has dramatically increased, Plus, our notices from insurances (across the board, Blue Cross, Kaiser) have outlined their cost increases. If business pay 100% of the premium for employees, then they get the tax credit- got notified the tax breaks don't apply to us, so sorry. Why bother to employ really. We pay 80% of insurance, no tax credit, but we had it raise over 60% they have clearly stated it is in preparation to ensure that the ACA requirements are met, just planning, not even implemented.

If people believe it will benefit them, they need to read the fine print.

Plus, being on hospital boards, there are really panels limiting care, no kidding, they have to cut somewhere- having elderly parents I see it too.

Employers now will get a new per employee charge, and tax to help cover Obama care- separately from premiums...

I have 4 friends who owned good size companies, and two more with restaurants. All just bailed. Hundreds of people out of work. I don't blame them. I know physicians planning to leave their practice. I happen to be an NP too- it's a bit scary about restrictions for testing coming down the line.

I'd be curious how it's helped your company- how big your company is and how many people you employ. It's really the first I have heard of anyone benefitting. We employ about 50 people, soon to go just under that number for obvious reasons, and it is a multimillion dollar company. Plus, we have stopped expansion, hoping he'd be out of office...

 

Quoting Momniscient:

How have you seen astronomical increases due to Obamacare?

The only obamacare policy that has gone into effect that affects us were the preexisting conditions that were eradicated. Companies are no longer allowed to deny or max rate based on pre existings so we save over $1400 a month because our group policy is no longer allowed to be max rated based on individual pre existings. It's amazing. We also will be able to utilize small business tax breaks. In 2014 when the exchange goes into effect we may be able to get it cheaper or we will stay the same.

We don't have the amount of employees anyway that would mean we would have to pay a penalty if we chose not to provide insurance.

Also, under obamacare it is my understanding that individuals can get together to form groups which is much cheaper. Perhaps you should look into it.

How is it ruining your friends business's? My uncle was vehemently against Obamacare and still hates that 'fucking democrat' and even he admits that his business has not seen , nor will see any hit from it (and he employs far more people than I do).

Quoting DestinyHLewis:

 

I am truly interested. How has this helped you and your business? I have numerous friends who own their own business who say it is ruining them, and others like my husband and myself that have seen nothing but astronomical increases in our insurance due to this. Please tell me how this has helped your business? I am all for an open discussion on it, you are honestly the only business owner I have seen say that. 

Quoting Momniscient:

I own a business. This law has changed nothing in what I do. Except saved my money actually...

Or is it...that some employers see a really good excuse to once again cut hours?

Hundreds of employers have been doing this for a lot longer than Obamacare. Not just evil walmart and kroger... those were just two names that everyone recognizes.

I worked at Taco Time right after high school. I was never allowed to exceed 32 hours. Never.

Quoting DestinyHLewis:

Yes, that's totally the reason. It has nothing to do with the fact hundreds of employers are in the same boat due to this botched law. It's not just the EVIL Walmart and Kroger, all businesses are evil if they are honest and say they can't afford this abomination. Smh. 

Quoting Momniscient:

Guess no one told walmart or kroger to wait to do this until they could blame it on obamacare.

 

 


 

 


 

 


 

 


 

Carpy
by Ruby Member on May. 3, 2013 at 6:51 AM
1 mom liked this

Yep, and now some of the dems who supported it are trying to run from it.

Quoting DestinyHLewis:

Train wreck. But most of us already knew that before it was put in place. Smh. 


Carpy
by Ruby Member on May. 3, 2013 at 7:01 AM
1 mom liked this

There are a couple right wingers that are getting so cocky, some may begin to think they are left wingers and agree with them.

Quoting JoshRachelsMAMA:

Sorry Tally, I'm a bit slow tonight. Lol. I did think that your response was rather strange (for you lol).

Quoting talia-mom:

Sarcasm dear



So many on here think these fast food franchise owners make 100's of thousands a year off a single McDonald's




Quoting JoshRachelsMAMA:

No they don't want to pay for the clusterfuck that is Obamacare.





Quoting talia-mom:

These owners should only make 15k a year, otherwise they are greedy.


Carpy
by Ruby Member on May. 3, 2013 at 7:08 AM

And how many people do you employ?

Quoting Momniscient:

I own a business. This law has changed nothing in what I do. Except saved my money actually...

Or is it...that some employers see a really good excuse to once again cut hours?

Hundreds of employers have been doing this for a lot longer than Obamacare. Not just evil walmart and kroger... those were just two names that everyone recognizes.

I worked at Taco Time right after high school. I was never allowed to exceed 32 hours. Never.

Quoting DestinyHLewis:

Yes, that's totally the reason. It has nothing to do with the fact hundreds of employers are in the same boat due to this botched law. It's not just the EVIL Walmart and Kroger, all businesses are evil if they are honest and say they can't afford this abomination. Smh. 

Quoting Momniscient:

Guess no one told walmart or kroger to wait to do this until they could blame it on obamacare.





Carpy
by Ruby Member on May. 3, 2013 at 7:11 AM
2 moms liked this

Apparently she was the only one exempt from all the increases.

Quoting Ziva65:

 Wow, not here. Ours has dramatically increased, Plus, our notices from insurances (across the board, Blue Cross, Kaiser) have outlined their cost increases. If business pay 100% of the premium for employees, then they get the tax credit- got notified the tax breaks don't apply to us, so sorry. Why bother to employ really. We pay 80% of insurance, no tax credit, but we had it raise over 60% they have clearly stated it is in preparation to ensure that the ACA requirements are met, just planning, not even implemented.

If people believe it will benefit them, they need to read the fine print.

Plus, being on hospital boards, there are really panels limiting care, no kidding, they have to cut somewhere- having elderly parents I see it too.

Employers now will get a new per employee charge, and tax to help cover Obama care- separately from premiums...

I have 4 friends who owned good size companies, and two more with restaurants. All just bailed. Hundreds of people out of work. I don't blame them. I know physicians planning to leave their practice. I happen to be an NP too- it's a bit scary about restrictions for testing coming down the line.

I'd be curious how it's helped your company- how big your company is and how many people you employ. It's really the first I have heard of anyone benefitting. We employ about 50 people, soon to go just under that number for obvious reasons, and it is a multimillion dollar company. Plus, we have stopped expansion, hoping he'd be out of office...


Quoting Momniscient:

How have you seen astronomical increases due to Obamacare?

The only obamacare policy that has gone into effect that affects us were the preexisting conditions that were eradicated. Companies are no longer allowed to deny or max rate based on pre existings so we save over $1400 a month because our group policy is no longer allowed to be max rated based on individual pre existings. It's amazing. We also will be able to utilize small business tax breaks. In 2014 when the exchange goes into effect we may be able to get it cheaper or we will stay the same.

We don't have the amount of employees anyway that would mean we would have to pay a penalty if we chose not to provide insurance.

Also, under obamacare it is my understanding that individuals can get together to form groups which is much cheaper. Perhaps you should look into it.

How is it ruining your friends business's? My uncle was vehemently against Obamacare and still hates that 'fucking democrat' and even he admits that his business has not seen , nor will see any hit from it (and he employs far more people than I do).

Quoting DestinyHLewis:


I am truly interested. How has this helped you and your business? I have numerous friends who own their own business who say it is ruining them, and others like my husband and myself that have seen nothing but astronomical increases in our insurance due to this. Please tell me how this has helped your business? I am all for an open discussion on it, you are honestly the only business owner I have seen say that. 

Quoting Momniscient:

I own a business. This law has changed nothing in what I do. Except saved my money actually...

Or is it...that some employers see a really good excuse to once again cut hours?

Hundreds of employers have been doing this for a lot longer than Obamacare. Not just evil walmart and kroger... those were just two names that everyone recognizes.

I worked at Taco Time right after high school. I was never allowed to exceed 32 hours. Never.

Quoting DestinyHLewis:

Yes, that's totally the reason. It has nothing to do with the fact hundreds of employers are in the same boat due to this botched law. It's not just the EVIL Walmart and Kroger, all businesses are evil if they are honest and say they can't afford this abomination. Smh. 

Quoting Momniscient:

Guess no one told walmart or kroger to wait to do this until they could blame it on obamacare.










jessilin0113
by Platinum Member on May. 3, 2013 at 8:27 AM

I'm failing to see how her response to you was mean or disrespectful...did I miss something? 


Quoting BuckeyezRule:

My reply is an example, like you said, as well. Ironically, I was disagreeing NICELY. 

I respectfully, disagree. I tried googling limits on salaried (sp?) employees. Maybe google sucks. Lol

Salaried employees wouldn't need their jobs 'made up', as they weren't fired.

I even spoke with my husband, who runs 3 warehouses here. He was worked alot, salaried. He worked his tail off and wasn't nasty to anyone who questioned him.

i tried a nice response, but, you, replied with very, obviously, all, just not nice. :( 

sadly, even if I'm kind to posters like you, you are mean. I find that sad. I'm finally jumping on 'you'. I've let so many walk over me. Lol


Quoting MissTacoBell:

Business structures are obviously very variable depending on the work involved; my scenario was just an example.

Employers couldn't make up ALL that difference working salaried people; salaried or not, they still have a limit on their hours by law. Those that COULD make up the difference by working salaried employees more aren't doing very much cutting in the first place.


Quoting BuckeyezRule:

My thought was, they wouldn't hire more, they'd just work full time salaried workers more. The company my hubby works for, part time is 32 hours, so, just shave a few hours. 

Your point makes total sense if working full time salary more wasn't an option and part time was 40 hours at a company. :)

And, I'm not surprised it's happening. Hubby and I (as I'm sure many others) thought it would. 

I wish there was a good solution.



Quoting MissTacoBell:

It will be interesting to see how this works out for these companies.



In the short term, this seems like a good business solution. However, there are other elements to consider.



For example: Say you have 100 employees that work 40 hour weeks and you are subject to this law.



You reduce all their hours to 27 to dodge the law. You now have to hire and train 49 more people to support operations.



Suddenly you are spending 50% more in training costs, hiring costs among other fringe benefits that are incurred on a per person basis. You are also subject to more administrative regulations because you increased your minimum employee count. You need more space to support the increase depending on the business.



You also now have a massive drop in morale because you had a content workforce with full paychecks and now you have 100 people who are pissed off, worried about paying their rent. And they're blaming you for being a penny pinching bastard. As such, they (and the 49 people you hired) are probably not going to be NEARLY as efficient as before due to the change leading to either not meeting your business needs or needing to hire MORE staff to compensate.



And then there's your unemployment insurance. You see, these employees can now seek unemployment for being "underemployed". The influx in claims is going to boost the cost of your UI insurance. In fact, a disgruntled workforce will boost the rest of your insurance policies too.



Then there's their PR. It makes them look bad (hence why Darden tried it and took it back when people kicked up a stink). If you can get your TV at both a place who does this to their people and a place that doesn't, who are you going to choose? That's a lost sales cost. Probably the worst one of all.



They are not saving any money in the long run; short run, sure, but long run not really.



What this law should have done is reigned in insurance companies. If they were required to charge a reasonable fee instead of an outrageous one, we wouldn't be having this problem.









pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on May. 3, 2013 at 8:32 AM

 Yes, but Obama tax just took it to a new level of screwing.  Now we all need Vaseline.


Quoting Sisteract:

This practice has been in existence for the last 10 years- well before the conception of the ACA-

Screwing employees has been alive and well for many years.


 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)