Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Part-Timers To Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math

  1. #1
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Part-Timers To Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math

    la times today:

    Many part-timers are facing a double whammy from President Obama's Affordable Care Act.

    The law requires large employers offering health insurance to include part-time employees working 30 hours a week or more. But rather than provide healthcare to more workers, a growing number of employers are cutting back employee hours instead.

    The result: Not only will these workers earn less money, but they'll also miss out on health insurance at work.

    Consider the city of Long Beach. It is limiting most of its 1,600 part-time employees to fewer than 27 hours a week, on average. City officials say that without cutting payroll hours, new health benefits would cost up to $2 million more next year, and that extra expense would trigger layoffs and cutbacks in city services.

    Across the nation, hundreds of thousands of other hourly workers may also see smaller paychecks in the coming year because of this response to the federal healthcare law. The law exempts businesses with fewer than 50 full-time workers from this requirement to provide benefits.

    But big restaurant chains, retailers and movie theaters are starting to trim employee hours. Even colleges are reducing courses for part-time professors to keep their hours down and avoid paying for their health premiums.

    Overall, an estimated 2.3 million workers nationwide, including 240,000 in California, are at risk of losing hours as employers adjust to the new math of workplace benefits, according to research by UC Berkeley. All this comes at a time when part-timers are being hired in greater numbers as U.S. employers look to keep payrolls lean.
    Part-timers to lose pay amid health act's new math - latimes

    if these consequences are unintended you must be really bad at seeing moves ahead

    wapo today:

    In the closing days of their legislative sessions, lawmakers in more than a dozen states are struggling with whether to expand Medicaid under the federal health care law, with many of them leaning against participating in a program that is key to President Obama’s aim of extending coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans.

    Twenty states and the District of Columbia have signed on to the expansion, and 14 are planning to decline. But 16 remain in limbo as lawmakers clash in the final days and weeks of the legislative calendar, when many must come to a decision in time for the provision to kick in next year.
    The uncertainty comes at a moment of intense scrutiny of the way the administration has handled the rollout of the health-care law, with states at vastly different stages of implementation and the public confused about how the law will work. Obama offered reassurances this week, saying that “what we’re doing is making sure that every single day we are constantly trying to hit our marks so that it will be in place.”

    The three-year-old health-care law faces perhaps its greatest challenge this fall: enrolling millions of Americans in health insurance beginning Oct. 1.

    Much has been left up to the states, which have taken up the law with varying levels of enthusiasm. More than half have decided not to set up the online marketplaces meant to help people find insurance and financial assistance, leaving the enormous task to the federal government.

    Many states are also wary of the expense of adopting the law’s enlargement of the pool of people eligible for Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor, even though the federal government will pay the full cost of the new enrollees for three years and the bulk of the cost thereafter.
    In several states, Medicaid expansion remains in limbo as time runs short - The Washington Post

    the state to watch is, bigtime, florida---cuz of its size, its seniors and its status as swing state

    the session in tallahassee ends friday and (according to wapo) "prospects for expansion appear dim"

    THAT (the loss of florida) would be a huge defeat for obamacare, insiders would say

    in ohio, arizona and michigan, republican governors have said yes to the billions from the feds---only to face revolts in the assemblies from tea partiers, conservatives, small govt types and other assorted haters, racists and knuckle draggers

    they don't trust the feds to come thru with the cash down the road, which comes to multi trillions

    and many feel that medicaid is the ghetto of health care

    expansion would make it look even more like 3801 lancaster

    it's roberts' ruling, you recall, which makes all this possible

    the white house rightly hailed as triumph the broad interpretation of the commerce clause

    but the supremes saying that the fed could NOT coerce the 50 by cutting off their entire funding for refusing...

    constitutionalists anticipated our arrival here that very day

    reuters today:

    The nation's largest health insurers are far from leaping at the chance to join new state health insurance exchanges under President Barack Obama's reform law, making it likely that some markets will have little or no competition next year.

    These new insurance marketplaces are due to open their doors on October 1 to enroll millions of Americans who have not been able to buy coverage on their own.

    A key principle of Obama's health reform is that individuals will have a robust offering of insurance plans to choose from, and that competition for new customers in each state will help keep prices down for consumers.

    But health insurers, some of whom fought the law before it was passed and continue to lobby to reverse parts of it, are wary. In recent days, executives at the four largest U.S. health insurers say they are likely to sell insurance plans on less than a third of the exchanges, reluctant to venture out beyond the states where they already offer coverage.
    Analysis: Big insurers wary of entering new Obamacare markets | Reuters

    on april one, all the engineers could foresee the train wreck careening unavoidably over the cliff, that's the day this woebegone white house announced it would not be able to live up to the promise it pledged like gospel to each and every small business, the setting up of the shop exchanges, thriving with choice and competition, driving care up and cost down...

    Obamacare Incompetence | TIME

    all of the above and lots more are what's got baucus and his buddies bitching

    that's baucus and rockefeller and cardin and shaheen and harkin and yesterday majority leader harry reid

    why does congress itself want out?

    Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption - POLITICO

    choo choo!

    embarrassed yet?
    Last edited by The Prof; 05-02-13 at 10:45 PM.

  2. #2
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,190

    Re: Part-Timers To Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math

    This is true. I just talked to a guy today whose hours are being cut by his employer due to Obamacare provisions.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #3
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Part-Timers To Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math

    I have reduced some employee hours back from full-time to part time over the last few months. I began with giving them the option of being fired and collecting unemployment or having their work days reduced. It isn't directly related to Obamacare. I just no longer needed them and was tired of carrying them and having to come up with busywork for them to do. I still don't really need them but am hoping they will find other jobs soon because I probably still will just cut them by the end of summer if they have not left on their own.

  4. #4
    Dungeon Master
    Chicks dig the long ball

    azgreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,142

    Re: Part-Timers To Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math

    My wife is in management for a large (one of the largest) department store and they now only hire part time (30 hours or less). After 90 days they have the opportunity to earn a full time slot, but it's rare.
    I have CDO, it's like OCD but the letters are in alphabetical order like they should be.

  5. #5
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: Part-Timers To Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    I have reduced some employee hours back from full-time to part time over the last few months. I began with giving them the option of being fired and collecting unemployment or having their work days reduced. It isn't directly related to Obamacare. I just no longer needed them and was tired of carrying them and having to come up with busywork for them to do. I still don't really need them but am hoping they will find other jobs soon because I probably still will just cut them by the end of summer if they have not left on their own.
    Your commentary exemplifies what's been happening in the workforce long before ObamaCare became law. Many large corporations offer part-time employment (28-32 hrs per week) but as a way NOT to provide employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. I don't see the decision to cut the work hours of part-time employee as the fault of the health care law. I consider it a choice made by the employer to effectively weasel-out of paying the cost of health care. Nothing more. But, of course, they'll blame the health care law for the cut-back in work hours instead of owning up to their own selfishness.

    (Sidenote: Your decision to cut-back the work-hours of your part-time employees may have more to do with shiftless behavior and IMO you'd be justified if you went as far as handing out pink slips to those who continue to under-perform, but that's not the case with many large employers as those described in the OP. Just thought I'd point that out.)

    The problem here really is the fact that many part-time employees do try to get hired on as full-time employees but can't because their employer doesn't want to pay the cost of insurance. It's unfortunate because many part-time employees have health care needs same as full-time employees but can't get affordable health insurance (other than Medicaid) on their salaries. The health care law attempted to "force the issue" by mandating that all part-time employees who work more than 30 hours per week get employer-sponsored health care.

    Part-time employees may not rate the same benefits as full-time employees and, as such, they should always seek to find full-time employment, but using ObamaCare as an excuse to trim their work-hours still further is nothing more than a cop-out. Either pony-up the health care coverage or show those employees you don't want to retain full-time the door. It's just that simple.

  6. #6
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Part-Timers To Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math

    nothing more than a cop-out
    if you don't wanna work for regal get a job somewhere else

    if you can find one

    of course, 58% of the way-too-few jobs generated by the "obama recovery" earn between 8 and 12 dollars per hour

    Majority of new jobs in recovery are low-paying - Los Angeles Times

    simple

  7. #7
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Part-Timers To Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Your commentary exemplifies what's been happening in the workforce long before ObamaCare became law. Many large corporations offer part-time employment (28-32 hrs per week) but as a way NOT to provide employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. I don't see the decision to cut the work hours of part-time employee as the fault of the health care law. I consider it a choice made by the employer to effectively weasel-out of paying the cost of health care. Nothing more. But, of course, they'll blame the health care law for the cut-back in work hours instead of owning up to their own selfishness.

    (Sidenote: Your decision to cut-back the work-hours of your part-time employees may have more to do with shiftless behavior and IMO you'd be justified if you went as far as handing out pink slips to those who continue to under-perform, but that's not the case with many large employers as those described in the OP. Just thought I'd point that out.)

    The problem here really is the fact that many part-time employees do try to get hired on as full-time employees but can't because their employer doesn't want to pay the cost of insurance. It's unfortunate because many part-time employees have health care needs same as full-time employees but can't get affordable health insurance (other than Medicaid) on their salaries. The health care law attempted to "force the issue" by mandating that all part-time employees who work more than 30 hours per week get employer-sponsored health care.

    Part-time employees may not rate the same benefits as full-time employees and, as such, they should always seek to find full-time employment, but using ObamaCare as an excuse to trim their work-hours still further is nothing more than a cop-out. Either pony-up the health care coverage or show those employees you don't want to retain full-time the door. It's just that simple.

    The business environment is changing. In my case, I simply no longer need some employees full time as a lot of things that required legwork out of building can be done at a desktop. I can have office supplies shipped to my lobby as opposed to having to send someone out for them; most docs can be sent electronically instead of having to have someone run them around; most public records I need can be accessed through online subscription services instead of having to send people to locate and copy them. Even a lot of my business communications no longer need a telephone and can be done as easily at home as at work via the web. There is only 1 of them I would say is worthless as an employee and always has been, but I knew that when I hired her. She was just someone for whom I was guilted into hiring and had expected her to have moved on of her own volition by now as I made it clear when I hired her I really didn't need her and she needed to be looking for another job and she really has not even tried until now that I know of.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Part-Timers To Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math

    Despite republicans pretending this PT stuff is new it really isn't new at all. Places like retail are places that always kept their workers part time. It has always been hard to get a full time position because the companies had more programs offered to management under full time positions. I love how the idiots have pretended this is something new obama started when it has pretty much been SOP in low end jobs forever. It has been there since I have been old enough to work and i started in the 80s and i am pretty sure obama was not president way back then.

    You people are so gullible. At least now businesses have a popular excuse for not hiring full time employees in their large turnover positions. Before it was inexcusably selfish and greedy not to do it, but now they have a bad excuse that the republicans latch onto despite the fact it is still just to screw over the people who actually do the labor jobs in many of these places. Yup, this shows republican values towards labor. It is great to screw over the hard working people of america as long as you can complain about the black president. It is called taking one for the team and i am sure all the people in these jobs who have forever suffered from part time employment because the company doesn't want to pay full time benefits are happy to face those problems now that it damages Obama's reputation.

    Still, i will agree Romneycare was screwed up in MA, and now is screwed up on a national level, and obama was a complete spiness republican worm for allowing universal health care to be changed into republicon BS called obamacare. Niow let us let the system crash and either get universal healthcare or the bloody deaths of people in rich neighborhoods. Either way really works for me.

  9. #9
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: Part-Timers To Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    The business environment is changing. In my case, I simply no longer need some employees full time as a lot of things that required legwork out of building can be done at a desktop. I can have office supplies shipped to my lobby as opposed to having to send someone out for them; most docs can be sent electronically instead of having to have someone run them around; most public records I need can be accessed through online subscription services instead of having to send people to locate and copy them. Even a lot of my business communications no longer need a telephone and can be done as easily at home as at work via the web. There is only 1 of them I would say is worthless as an employee and always has been, but I knew that when I hired her. She was just someone for whom I was guilted into hiring and had expected her to have moved on of her own volition by now as I made it clear when I hired her I really didn't need her and she needed to be looking for another job and she really has not even tried until now that I know of.
    Granted, even the President has said that technology is changing how American companies do business and, as such, some jobs that were once done by men are now being done by machines. This trend started in the late 70's/early 80's and has continued to increase ever since. Nothing too surprising here except Corporate America has finally begun to fully embrace the technological shift at a time when our economy can least stand all the "right-sizing" going on everywhere. But is this "right-sizing" occurring because it's the right thing to do OR is it being done because employers don't want to conform to changes in the laws? You're a small business owner and clearly you're making adjustments to your hiring practices. But are you doing it because you're finally embracing technology or are you doing it because of changes in varies laws that affect your business operations? Something tells me it's the former rather than the latter.

    Nonetheless, as a business owner it's your decision what to do as far as hiring and firing is concerned. I'd think your employees would appreciate your honestly as you show them the door.

    "You're fired" because you're a lousy employee.

    "You're fired" because you didn't meet performance requirements.

    "You're fired" because we've had to cut back do to decreased revenue.

    I'd hate to think you'd fire someone "because ObamaCare made me".

  10. #10
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: Part-Timers To Lose Pay Amid Health Act's New Math

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Despite republicans pretending this PT stuff is new it really isn't new at all. Places like retail are places that always kept their workers part time. It has always been hard to get a full time position because the companies had more programs offered to management under full time positions. I love how the idiots have pretended this is something new obama started when it has pretty much been SOP in low end jobs forever. It has been there since I have been old enough to work and i started in the 80s and i am pretty sure obama was not president way back then.

    You people are so gullible. At least now businesses have a popular excuse for not hiring full time employees in their large turnover positions. Before it was inexcusably selfish and greedy not to do it, but now they have a bad excuse that the republicans latch onto despite the fact it is still just to screw over the people who actually do the labor jobs in many of these places. Yup, this shows republican values towards labor. It is great to screw over the hard working people of america as long as you can complain about the black president. It is called taking one for the team and i am sure all the people in these jobs who have forever suffered from part time employment because the company doesn't want to pay full time benefits are happy to face those problems now that it damages Obama's reputation.

    Still, i will agree Romneycare was screwed up in MA, and now is screwed up on a national level, and obama was a complete spiness republican worm for allowing universal health care to be changed into republicon BS called obamacare. Niow let us let the system crash and either get universal healthcare or the bloody deaths of people in rich neighborhoods. Either way really works for me.
    While I don't necessarily like the last line to your post, the rest of it was spot on!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •