Companies slashing worker hours "because of Obamacare"

[Justice]

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/101813-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm?fromcampaign=1 - list of companies and public state employers slashing hours to avoid providing healthcare to employees. Note that this list does not include Darden and many other employers.

Question --- why did they

Employer mandate postponed to 2014. Why did these employers do this now, rather than a year from now. What change will actually occur in 2013 for these companies?

[LiberalEsto]

1. Add Ruby Tuesday and similar restaurant chains

They are hiring part time waitstaff like mad, and cutting hours drastically, even for those who were already part time workers. I believe Olive Garden and other Darden restaurants are doing this too.

My daughter's part time hours have been reduced to two lunch shifts a week. Because of the furloughs (we live outside Washington DC), she is making very little in tips and is extremely upset about it.

[roamer65]

2. Yet another reason for single payor socialized medicine.

Employers need to be assessed a tax and Medicare simply provided to everyone cradle to grave.

[GusFring]

3. how can the law survive if this continue? Seems to be something nobody really wants to talk about.

[bhikkhu]

7. You miss the point - this has nothing to do with the law

as the employer mandate was pushed back to 2015. They could have everyone on full-time for the next year with absolutely no concerns about health insurance.

In my state, it is looking to be so easy and affordable to get insurance (living in a fairly low-income part of Oregon) that its pretty irrelevant anyway. People working part time make little enough that they will be on Medicare at zero cost, and if full time bumps them up into the subsidized private insurance range (where I am) its entirely affordable, with or without employee contributions.

I looked at the options for my employer - who is under the 50 employee limit but thought it would be a good thing if he could help with coverage - and advised him to not even worry about it. It should be simple and affordable for us to manage it ourselves, and I like the idea of being able to choose and deal with it individually, regardless of employment.

[Yo_Mama]

22. It has everything to do with the law

The full-time determination is made on the prior period's hours. Companies have some flexibility to pick the period, but if you are a retail company, your longer hours are in the end of the year, so you want to use the whole year. Thus companies preparing for the employer mandate in 2015 are mostly going to change staffing this year to get themselves set for 2014 (it takes time) so that they don't have to pay the fines for 2015.

All companies that work "flex hours" - higher staffing at some times of the year - generally want to use the entire year.

Since it was not until a few months ago that companies learned that the employer mandate would be set aside for 2014, many of them have already cut earlier in 2013.

This has been the result, and it will continue to accelerate the trend toward part-time employment:


There is a notable change in the usual recovery trend of expanding full-time employment:


And this now diverges from the normal trend quite sharply:


Retail average hours from the Establishment Survey:


Compared to the trend for employment:

[bhikkhu]

30. A lot of data there, but no definite trend

I know its a common meme that full-time workers are being bumped down to part-time in droves, but the charts you posted (if one actually reads them) shows that its not especially true.

The first one shows part-time worker's number more or less stable from 2009-2013, a period which added 5 million jobs or so to the total workforce.

The second chart shows the 5 million jobs added (the vast majority of which were not part-time, based on chart 1).

The fourth shows that retail work continues to be more or less part time, as it has been for a long time. Big-box stores cut the floor out from under retail first, then internet sales. Retail has been struggling for two decades, and it has little to do with the new healthcare law.

...if you read the BLS summary for August (the most recent one still), "part-time for economic reasons" declined by 334,000 in one month, while 169,000 jobs were added to the totals. Retail added 44k jobs. The average work week for all employees on private non-farm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour in August to 34.5 hours....everything consistent with a slowly improving economy, and the expected transitioning of part time workers to full time. An "accelerating trend" in the other direction is simply not supported by the facts, as much as many would like it to be.

[okaawhatever]

39. Wal Mart just announced they are going back up to 40 hours for something like 19% of those

they kept at 30. Wal Mart kept people below 30 because they didn't want to pay health coverage before ACA.

[JDPriestly]

55. If work needs to be done, employers will pay people to do it.

This is a sign that the economy is worsening again. It would not be surprising.

Providing health care for employees is not really the issue. I cannot believe that it is. If people cannot get health care from their employer, they can get it on the exchanges.

I would rather see no employer mandate, but require employers regardless of the hours of the employee to help subsidize the healthcare of every employer. It should simply be a tax on the employer per employee to help support the subsidization of healthcare for employees. If the employer provide healthcare for the employees, then it should not have to pay the subsidy charge.

We can change the law if we get Democrats elected to the House. If Obama goes along with cuts to Social Security and Medicare or with the chained CPI, we will not get enough Democrats into the House to make a real difference.

Democrats cannot afford to vote for cuts or changes to Social Security and Medicare. That would be a huge mistake. It will look like these cuts are due to the ACA. They wouldn't be but that is the way it would look. And besides, it would be a default on seniors. The US cannot afford to default on its own people. The chained CPI is a default by another name. That's all it is.

[wercal]

27. I think you are overlooking WHY the employer mandate was pushed back

Q: Why did business groups push for the delay?

A: So they could have an entire year to convert their workforce to part-time.

[Igel]

38. Let's try a bit of good will for the President, shall we?

He said that they needed the time to get all the software talking properly. The regs for the ACA were postponed and postponed and postponed.

The regs dictate how the software, employer-side and government-side, has to be implemented.

When you get confused, arcane, late regs you have a software nightmare.

The President had resources put into the politically advantageous thing instead of the politically punishing thing--the perks and goodies in the ACA. He pushed having all the exchanges well-written and set up, ready to go.

We've seen how that worked out, now haven't we? A 800% cost overrun (late, arcane regs) and spaghetti code that doesn't handshake properly.

Now imagine if the executive branch had split the resources, putting less into implementing the exchanges and more into getting the business/government connection in place. The exchanges would be in far worse shape, and two months later there'd be the disaster as businesses couldn't meet the conditions necessary to avoid fines because the government screwed up.

I don't think Obama had the authority to postpone the law. I think legally and Consitutionally it's just plain wrong. Politically, it was necessary. Some presidents think their vow to support the laws and Constitution trump politics and immediate needs. Some don't. But we humans eagerly justify and even applaud the guy in our group when he does the same thing that we vilify out-group "peers" for doing, so my view is probably very unpopular.

[JDPriestly]

56. The administration was far, far, far, far, far too slow in getting the ACA up and working.

It should have been ready to go in 2011.

This is really not the way to do things. And the glitches in the software? Those should have been ironed out a year ago. Is this Republican sabotage or just incompetence. We really need the ACA. It's sad to see the problems.

[Yo_Mama]

67. It's not sabotage

It's a botched implementation down the line, starting with late regulations, which of course led into the exchange software problem. It does seem as if there was also a contracting problem.

If they are getting serious about fixing it now, that's good, but the first couple of weeks we heard stuff that sounded non-serious.

As for the employer mandate, the requirement to report and enforce on W-2s meant that the employer mandate did not have to be suspended - sending the data on a constant basis to the exchanges was less important than telling the employers that they had to provide the insurance.

ACA's fiscal structure really does not work without the employer mandate, and as with the rest of it, the early implementation is the most important part.

[Skidmore]

11. Wrenching health care from benefit packages is a truly good development.

Companies should have no reason to avoid paying living wages by using the excuse that they have to cover benefit packages. One of the reasons that individual health insurance got so expensive was because employer based insurance restricted pools for insurance. I would hope we could see reduced costs for policies. The next bubble that needs to be pricked is that of actual health care delivery itself, which has been tied too closely to buddy deals with insurers.

[leftstreet]

14. Will wages go up?

Will employers pass these savings down the line?

[Skidmore]

21. Depends on if people sit back and shrug.

We need a push from a new labor movement. You get what you put effort toward.

[Igel]

41. Depends on the field and employer.

When we look at the average-wage trend line from the '00s we see that wages were fairly flat. That's what the data-cruncher wants us to see. He could have picked "average benefits" instead, but didn't.

If you look at the average-compensation trend line from the '00s you see that it increased fairly consistently. Compensation increased at a decent clip. It didn't increase much for low wage jobs; the compensation was mostly in stock options and other delayed benefits at the top. In between it was something more practical.

The difference for the in-between workers was health insurance and other non-tangible benefit costs. The money wasn't put into pay unless necessary; it was put into pre-tax benefits because federal tax policy drove it that way (on purpose, at least initially). If your employer can give you a $1000 pay increase and your insurance goes up by $1000 (because of increased coverage or it's just more expensive), you and your employer will pay about 15% for FICA, then you'll pay federal tax and also pay state tax on it. You'll take home perhaps $600-700 of that $1000 and your net pay will go down by $3-400 as you pay for that more expensive insurance.

If they expense it for you pre-tax, then you get $1000 worth of insurance but your pay doesn't go up.

If some companies chuck those benefits, it'll make their salaries wildly uncompetitive. They'll have to find a way of funnelling a lot of that money into pay, minus the employer-side FICA tax. Since the employee won't have to pay the same amount for health insurance, though, you can bet that the companies will save money even if the employees see a bit more money. Again, federal tax policy drives a lot of these decisions.

Tax policy drives how CEO compensation works--and by delaying and taking a lot of the CEO pay in non-cash amounts, it allowed those CEO salaries to skyrocket. Similarly, it drives how a lot of people's pay is adjusted for employer health insurance, and probably contributed to the "painless" increase in health insurance premiums for over a decade.

[Demo_Chris]

49. Why pay a "living wage" to a part time employee? nt

[NoOneMan]

52. Doncha think if someone works 8 hours between two part times jobs, they should make enough to live?

Just because an employer only offers 4 hours or so of work doesn't mean those 4 hours should be compensated at slave wages.

Yes, when people refer to "living wage" they aren't saying that someone putting in 2 hours should be able to afford a McMansion. Think about it.

[Demo_Chris]

53. I stated it poorly. WHY should an employer pay a living wage if he doesn't have to? (cont)

Forget ethics or what we both might prefer. An employer will pay no more than the minimum necessary to maximize his or her profits. Some employers feel that a higher wage reduces turnover while allowing them their pick of employees, thus ensuring a better return on investment. Other employers (most, as it happens) care only about their immediate bottom line and pay as close to the minimum as they can.

The ACA does nothing to alter this directly. Corporations won't pay more than they have to, and they won't provide insurance if they can get around it by slashing worker hours.

[uponit7771]

24. Poor preperation has nothing to do with the law...

[brush]

40. This is corporate greed, nothing more

It is not the fault of the ACA. If hours are cut on workers they save money, plain and simple

We need to state that as often as possible that corporations are making these decisions not the ACA.

And the corporations that are doing it need to be outed and shamed.

[riderinthestorm]

4. They don't have to pay health insurance costs for their employees = more $$ for them.

If you don't have to administer those plans, you also save on HR staffing as well.

Win win in their minds.

I believe that de-coupling health insurance from employment is the best thing we have going for us in order to try to get single payer so this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But it will be painful at the onset.

Once companies begin cutting mid to high level managers' insurance then we may get enough grass roots groundswell for a serious push to make the public option available on the exchanges.

But I believe its going to have to be the companies themselves who are going to have to lead the way on de-coupling health insurance (and health care) from employment. Once that movement really takes hold the public option on the exchanges is the next step. Once a public option is in place, single payer can become a reality.

[Savannahmann]

23. The time period you're talking about would not be painful initially

You're talking about a decade, or more, probably more.

We'll spend the first four or five years highlighting the success stories, and the RW will spend the same period highlighting the disasters from people who have trouble paying, or lose houses or whatever because they claim it's the fault of the ACA.

These battling meme's will go on for at least five years. The whole time the extreme RW will be proposing abolishing the law, the more moderate (I use that term to describe those who are more corporatist than radical, but still on the RW end of the spectrum) will be proposing changes to "improve" the law.

In the meantime, the more progressive elements on our side will be pushing single payer, all the while the news will keep giving stories of single payer disasters in Europe and Canada as well as other nations with the law. Stories of incompetence etc. as though this is the norm. The more moderate factions in the Democratic Party (Read the same as the Moderate definition for Rethugs except they are corporatist Democrats) will be working with their "friends" across the aisle and trying to "fix" the law. The Rethugs will want tort reform, the Democrats will want more taxes to pay for it, and more affordable coverage. They won't agree on anything substantial.

In the end, which of these factions wins depends on several factors. Public perception of the law and implementation. The nature of stories of success and failure. The ability to build public perception to suit your side. Merely screaming that the Republicans are evil bastards who want the poor to die isn't going to do it anymore than their screaming that Democrats are socialist's who want to take over every industry in the nation. But we'll keep screaming, and they'll keep screaming anyway because the base loves to hear the other side blasted like that. That it actually hurts our and their own positions doesn't matter. We volunteer and donate when our representatives are blasting the Republicans, and the RW does the same thing.

But here's a prediction. The end result will be that the law is weakened, and support for single payer diminishes to less than ten percent. My reason is simple, the news organizations may do success stories now and then, but mostly they do stories of disaster because that's what people want to watch, and ratings drives the advertising revenue, and advertising revenue is what drives the news.

[JDPriestly]

57. The ACA is tort reform.

I would like to see the figures on the amount of medical malpractice claims filed by Medicare recipients as opposed to people with other health insurance.

If you know your medicals will be paid when your doctor makes a mistake that forces you to have additional costly medical care, you will be less likely to sue.

Lawsuits are a lot of trouble, a huge emotional burden and don't always pay for the plaintiff. The ACA is the best tort reform there could be. The fear of facing huge medical bills, having a serious pre-existing condition and not being able to afford follow-up medical care are common reasons for medical malpractice lawsuits.

People will judge the ACA by their own experiences. I think doctors will like it. There will be drawbacks, but they won't have to worry about whether the insurance company will refuse to pay them on a whim. And homeless people including drug addicts will have insurance coverage in more cases than they do now. That will help hospitals.

[libdem4life]

5. When an uninsured person...low income...gets billed from an Emergency Room, how does that paid?

Or, can the ER refuse to treat? Always hear that the taxpayer pays, but maybe the hospital just writes it off?

[former9thward]

8. According to law the ER must treat illness/injuries.

How comprehensive the treatment is might be debatable but there must be some effort. The hospital will bill but if never paid will probably write it off and then that bill is paid by all others at the hospital who have insurance through higher costs and then the insurance company raises it rates to everyone to make up for that.

If it is a public hospital like Cook County Hospital in Chicago then the taxpayers are billed ultimately.

[libdem4life]

10. Thank you. Had forgotten about the County Hospitals.

[nobodyspecial]

50. They are NOT required to treat illness/injuries.

They are only required to stabilize the patient and not allow the patient to die. There is a HUGE gap there that leave many without insurance needlessly suffering and in pain.

[former9thward]

51. They ARE required to treat illness/injuries.

I said in my post how much treatment may be open to debate.

[JDPriestly]

58. Either way, the public pays for the uninsured person. That includes drug addicts, homeless people,

anyone who has no assistance with medical problems other than a free clinic (which means a very long wait and maybe no help for many medical problems) or the emergency room.

The hospital may spread the cost to it over charges it bills on other patients' accounts or bill the government depending on the situation. But you and I pay in any event. That's why it is so foolish for Republicans to complain that they don't want the ACA because they don't want to pay for other people's healthcare. They already are paying for that.

Hospitals can't just swallow the loss. They have to make up for the loss by charging to some other account. The doctors and nurses and technical staff have to be paid. The equipment has to be maintained. How do you think hospitals do that? They make other patients pay for the care they give indigents. The doctors and staff do not volunteer their time for that. No way. Why should they? The hospital has to balance its accounts. There is no other choice.

How in the world could a hospital just write it off? It may appear that way to the patient, but that is not the way it works. If the hospital orders certain medications, etc., it has to pay for them. Please.

And Reagan signed something that requires ERs to accept people. I don't know too much about it, but I know that is the law. So the ACA is a really good thing.

[TorchTheWitch]

64. The taxpayer doesn't pay

Why do you think people file bankruptcy because of medical debt and with something like half of those people actually HAVING insurance? Like I had to. They hound you to pay the bill just like any other company you owe money to, and if you don't or can't work out a payment arrangement they take you to court. They will win at court, so the only thing to do is file bankruptcy. But I did that back when you COULD file bankruptcy and discharge the debt. Since the bankruptcy law changed under Bush, you can't do that anymore.

I had to borrow money from family so I could file bankruptcy before the court date. Lucky for me though, the debt was only about the same amount as the attorney fees for the bankruptcy, but I was also struggling with other small debts at that time since I was unemployed, so it was worth it to me to discharge them all.

I never understood why people think the taxpayers pay for unpaid medical bills from uninsured and broke people. Only if you can discharge the debt through a bankruptcy does the hospital take a loss, and like every business they already have figured in the amount of money they will normally lose every year through non-payment.

By law the ER can't refuse to treat a patient.

[former9thward]

6. I am not privy to the reasons these companies are doing this but....

Their lawyers may have told them that the mandates which have been waived could be restored by the courts. If lawsuits are filed saying Obama did not have the right to waive those mandates and the courts agree with that then companies would be on the hook for not complying with the law beginning 2014. So they may just be protecting their legal position.

Also they may figure than since they will have to do it sooner or later they might as well start making adjustments sooner rather than later in order to work out kinks beforehand.

[B2G]

9. Because the employer mandate was just recently delayed by a year

They were preparing for 2014.

[Demo_Chris]

12. This was a predictable and predicted effect of this law. nt

[dairydog91]

13. It's because of the formula which determines whether or not they have to provide insurance.

That formula is based on the number of hours worked by employees. When the mandate kicks in, this formula will have to use data from previous years. Thus, companies will cut their hours months or a year in advance to ensure that when the mandate kicks in, they will be able to present the data they want in order to dodge the mandate.

[dawg]

15. I favor raising the surtax on high-incomers, in order to provide more and larger subsidies ...

and, in return, dropping the employer mandate altogether. It's time to sever the link between employment and health care. Those greedy bastards do not need to be the ones making decisions about worker health options.

[chowder66]

16. Perspective and Indiana Leading the Pack

California = 12
Florida = 15
Illinois = 14
Indiana = 66
Michigan = 20
Nebraska = 12
New Jersey = 16
Ohio = 29
Pennsylvania = 23
Tennessee = 10
Texas = 13
Utah = 11
Virginia = 35
States over 10 = 276

Alabama = 4
Arizona = 4
Arkansas = 3
Colorado = 4
Georgia - 7
Idaho = 1
Iowa = 7
Kansas = 2
Kentucky = 2
Maine = 1
Maryland = 5
Massachusetts = 1
Minnesota = 3
Missouri = 4
New Hampshire = 1
New Mexico = 1
New York = 5
North Carolina = 6
Oklahoma = 1
Oregon = 1
South Carolina = 3
Washington D.C. = 1
West Virginia = 1
Wisconsin = 7
States Under 10 = 75

California and Texas are huge so only having a dozen businesses doing this is really quite small.

[JDPriestly]

59. Yes. 12 in California is not much. Could be due to other factors.

[egold2604]

17. And all the part time workers quit

The Law of Unintended Consequences will bite these companies and school districts in the ass as they can't attract qualified help and one by one, the restaurants go out of business etc.

These will be major pushback on these policies.

[Notafraidtoo]

62. You said it best.

If they could survive with part timers alone they would already being doing it, in two years this wont even be a issue. It doesn't make business sense and part timers tend to be extremely unreliable cause they are always looking for full time work meaning very high turn over and bad service, the employees will not be invested in their job. Employers will have no choice but to bite the bullet at the end of the day and pay for insurance.

[Yo_Mama]

18. It's figured a year back!

So if the employer mandate is delayed until 2015, the hours worked in 2014 will determine whether the worker is considered full-time for purposes of the employer insurance mandate in 2015.

That's why companies started cutting hours in 2013. And when this summer the delay was announced, the companies that had already cut didn't reverse course, because they would have to do it all over again in less than half a year. The companies that hadn't yet changed their schedules are doing it now to get ready for the 2015 mandate, especially now that they have a better estimate of what their insurance costs will be under ACA.

[dawg]

19. Most of these employers are assholes, but ...

there are probably some instances of businesses that are actually doing their employees a favor by cutting their hours. If a worker is part-time already, and qualified for participation in the employer health plan, they are ineligible for a tax subsidy with which to purchase a cheaper policy on the exchange. By cutting hours just a little, a part time worker might be made eligible for a subsidy and therefore able to afford much more coverage than they would have received through the employer plan.

Not saying this is the case most of the time, or that most of these employers are not assholes. But there are probably instances where workers who have had their hours cut will still end up with more money in their pockets at the end of the day.

[B2G]

25. Most employees being cut are full time

For the most part, part-timers don't participate in employer plans. So by reducing their hours under the threshold, the employer doesn't have to contribute to their health insurance.

I don't know what planet that's good on.

[dawg]

32. Like i said ...

Most of these employers are assholes. But there are some situations whereby the employee would be better off, so we shouldn't jump to judgement about specific businesses based on such headlines. The details matter.

[B2G]

33. I doubt the employees who are seeing their wages cut

by hundreds of dollars a week think they are 'better off'.

I know my sister doesn't.

[dawg]

34. No, but ...

someone who is cut from 32 hours to 29, and now they qualify for free health insurance, might feel better off. Don't you agree?

Also, sorry about your sister. I hope you recognize that "Obamacare" isn't hurting your sister; a ruthless employer is doing so.

[B2G]

35. She went from 40 to 29 hours

Not all of her coworkers did...it appears they decided based on seniority in the company.

She's raising 3 boys by herself, who are not on her current policy...they are insured through another fed program, so she can't claim a family of 4 for ACA, only herself. She's making just over the subsidy limit for an individual.

She had a very generous plan at work which is now gone, in addition to a wage cut.

[dawg]

36. I hope what goes around comes around for your sister's employer.

Somewhere along the line, businesses (not all, but many) lost track of the fact that their employees are people and not just production inputs.

I think the employer mandate needs to be dropped, but upper-incomers need to have their profits taxed to make up the difference. Bosses have enough control over our lives as it is. They don't need to literally be able to make "life and death" decisions for us.

[B2G]

37. Well if it does, she'll be out of a job completely

and in this market, that would be worse than her current situation.

[dawg]

43. When bad businesses go out of businesses, good ones take up their slack.

Businesses are able to compete without treating their employees like refuse. I have seen it with my own eyes. Some of my most successful clients are also the ones who treat their employees the best.

I think your sister should probably start looking for a new job anyway. She might not find one right away, but her employer has already shown her how "valuable" they think she is to their company.

The mistake is believing that we can't do anything to make things better or else the precious bosses will take it out on us. Ultimately we, through our democratic government, have the power over them. We can bring them to heel if the political will is there to do so.

[JDPriestly]

60. If your sister's employer were doing well and needed your sister full-time, the ACA obligation

would not be enough to cause him to put her on part-time. There is some other problem in that situation.

[Pakhet]

20. O'Reilly Auto Parts in Arizona

dropped my nephews hours to 10 a week, blames "obamacare"

[cprompt]

26. Why? It's called ESR

Employer Shared Responsibilities and it's part of PPACA.

As far as your question of why are they doing this? Although the ESR penalties are delayed until 2015, the subject hours used for FTE testing start on 1/1/2014. The companies have to start their "measurement periods" at that time. A very common misconception is that an employer must have over 50 Full Time employees to be subject to the penalties. Not the case at all. The method to calculate a companies FTE headcount can be complex.

Each month is calculated individually then averaged at the end over the 2014 calendar year
1) Take the # of Full Time employees
2) Take all subject hours (all hours paid & non except work done outside US) to any part time employees within the month
3) Subject hours total is divided by 120 to determine FTE status (leave the decimal)
4) Add #1 to the total of #3 for each month in the year
5) Divide your grand total by 12 and you have you average FTE's per month

If you have 40 Full time employees and 20 employees that work 15 hours a week, you have 50 FTE and are subject to the law. There are allowances for seasonal employees but only if they work 4 months or less within the year. If you own multiple companies, IE: a local franchisee that maybe has 2-3 stores they all roll up under 1 umbrella to determine FTE count.

For reference, I work in an industry that sells software to midsize (30-2000) employee companies, one of the many things this software does is keep them in compliance with the 3 provisions of ESR, one of which explained above. This list of companies cutting hours is a fraction of what really is happening. For almost a decade, I've worked with private companies just over/under the 50 Full Time Employee (FTE) threshold and it is a big concern for them. Many are not hiring, many are keeping employees under the FTE. I've yet to run into any company that has said they will drop their employer provided insurance due to ACA. I have however ran into companies that have plans or have reduced and/or eliminated headcount because they would cross over the 50 FTE threshold.

Wish I had better news for you but this is something that needs to be addressed as the law continues to roll out.

[JDPriestly]

61. Fewer employees means less work done equals lower profits. Stupid employers.

[cprompt]

66. some companies are adding headcount

but it's primarily part time. It is not a good strategy as the costs of new hire process, training, turnover due to lack of hours, etc. all of which outweigh the costs of providing insurance to a full time employee.

[spanone]

28. using the ACA as an excuse.

[Brigid]

46. That's right.

They were going to do this anyway.

[lostincalifornia]

29. really? were these employers paying their full timers health

Insurance?

I suspect many weren't or giving them essentially worthless plans

Regardless, the employees should be able to get in on the exchanges, and hopefully subsidized so it will be very affodable

[Curmudgeoness]

31. It is my opinion that they are doing it as a protest

against Obamacare, hoping that the result will be more of the workers unhappy with the ACA and ready to see it dismantled. Most of the people running these companies are Republicans who are opposed to Obamacare, and they will try anything to see that it fails.

In my experience, companies that do not pay well, offer benefits, or give employees enough hours to survive will end up with huge turnover. Turnover ultimately costs the company in recruiting and training of new employees. As the economy improves, more jobs will open up, and as with more job opportunities, fewer people will be willing to work for these companies. This is something that is only possible because the job market is so shitty right now.....and maybe this is one of the reasons that the Republicans are willing to let the economy crater. The only way that their tactic works is if the workers have no other options than to stay at these jobs.

[okaawhatever]

42. Investors Business Daily is a pretty well know right wing propoganda paper. They also

write stories denying climate change. Thomas Sowell works for them and it's long been discussed that this paper doesn't make money and hasn't for almost twenty years. It's kept by the owner as a voice for right wing policies.
I read a story recently that WalMart is increasing hours back to 40 for those who were stuck at 30 so I'd take this with a big grain of salt.

[Lex]

44. I think EVERYONE should be allowed to get into ACA and

thereby avoid this.

[xmas74]

45. It's made a difference for me.

I've wanted to quit leaving the house and working in dead end jobs for years. I never did it because I was afraid of losing health insurance and other benefits. About two weeks ago my employer sent out letters from their corporate office stating that they will be reevaluating everyone's positions and that a number of people who were once full time will now be considered seasonal.

I became angry and I snapped. I cried for a few minutes at home and then regrouped. I've decided to finish out the year at the company and then quit. I've already started doing some self-publishing on Amazon, mostly frugal living and cooking, and am actually selling. I also am working on a few things that I've sold at street fairs for spending money and am opening an Etsy shop. I've also been offered a job reading tarot cards from home via phone or web cams for decent money from a reputable company that actually pays on time and better than what I was making. Along with that, my healthcare marketplace offered me a gold policy for a year for about what I was paying for one month for myself and my child.

Because the jobplace screwed me over ACA I might just finally have the guts to do what I've always wanted: work from home.

[Left2Tackle]

47. So a year from now it wouldn't look like they were doing it because of the law

Or maybe it allows the employees to sign up for ACA.

[Rex]

48. They can all go out of business for all I care.

Greedy owners do not deserve employees or an ounce of success.

[dem in texas]

54. Wait and see

These business will lose their employees and any that replacements will just stay until they can find a better job. A business can't run on a part-time staff and high turnover. Can't give good service to customers who will go somewhere else. Walmart tried the part-time and temporary worker route. They could not keep shelves stocked, made mistakes, got unhappy customers and their earning went down. They reversed their policy and have added back over 30,000 full time positions.

[LittleBlue]

63. And this, folks, is why universal government-run healthcare is the only option

You let profit enter into the equation on healthcare, and it stops being about healthcare. These major corps are now shuffling their workforces around so that the burden they should have to bear is now borne by young people.

Make them pay their fair share and take profit out of this wretched, broken scam of a system.

[IronLionZion]

65. Every time a conservative ACA opponent says this

is a great time to educate them about how single payer is pro-business since employers won't have to purchase health insurance for their employees and many international firms like the big 3 auto companies have endorsed it.

Let the conservative talk for a long time about why the ACA is killing jobs, and tell them they are making the argument in favor of single payer. Also mention how insurance doesn't add any value to healthcare the way hospitals, drug companies, and device manufacturers do. Insurance is dead loss and going nonprofit would lower costs and be more efficient. Conservatives like the word efficient.

At this point they'll either open up a bit towards single payer, or open up more towards the ACA since its not single payer, or call you a socialist which is where you embrace it as a compliment. Either way, it gets them thinking about it a different way.

Switzerland operates just like the ACA except they don't have employer based insurance. It's all individual for them. America's employer based system came about after the second world war as a way for companies to entice workers to join them.