General Discussion

GusFring

(756 posts)

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

Reply to Justice (Original post)

Sun Oct 20, 2013, 10:38 AM

Oct 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Companies slashing worker hours "because of Obamacare" [View all] Justice Oct 2013 OP

Add Ruby Tuesday and similar restaurant chains LiberalEsto Oct 2013 #1

Yet another reason for single payor socialized medicine. roamer65 Oct 2013 #2

how can the law survive if this continue? Seems to be something nobody really wants to talk about. GusFring Oct 2013 #3

You miss the point - this has nothing to do with the law bhikkhu Oct 2013 #7

It has everything to do with the law Yo_Mama Oct 2013 #22

A lot of data there, but no definite trend bhikkhu Oct 2013 #30

Wal Mart just announced they are going back up to 40 hours for something like 19% of those okaawhatever Oct 2013 #39

If work needs to be done, employers will pay people to do it. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #55

I think you are overlooking WHY the employer mandate was pushed back wercal Oct 2013 #27

Let's try a bit of good will for the President, shall we? Igel Oct 2013 #38

The administration was far, far, far, far, far too slow in getting the ACA up and working. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #56

It's not sabotage Yo_Mama Oct 2013 #67

Wrenching health care from benefit packages is a truly good development. Skidmore Oct 2013 #11

Will wages go up? leftstreet Oct 2013 #14

Depends on if people sit back and shrug. Skidmore Oct 2013 #21

Depends on the field and employer. Igel Oct 2013 #41

Why pay a "living wage" to a part time employee? nt Demo_Chris Oct 2013 #49

Doncha think if someone works 8 hours between two part times jobs, they should make enough to live? NoOneMan Oct 2013 #52

I stated it poorly. WHY should an employer pay a living wage if he doesn't have to? (cont) Demo_Chris Oct 2013 #53

Poor preperation has nothing to do with the law... uponit7771 Oct 2013 #24

This is corporate greed, nothing more brush Oct 2013 #40

They don't have to pay health insurance costs for their employees = more $$ for them. riderinthestorm Oct 2013 #4

The time period you're talking about would not be painful initially Savannahmann Oct 2013 #23

The ACA is tort reform. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #57

When an uninsured person...low income...gets billed from an Emergency Room, how does that paid? libdem4life Oct 2013 #5

According to law the ER must treat illness/injuries. former9thward Oct 2013 #8

Thank you. Had forgotten about the County Hospitals. libdem4life Oct 2013 #10

They are NOT required to treat illness/injuries. nobodyspecial Oct 2013 #50

They ARE required to treat illness/injuries. former9thward Oct 2013 #51

Either way, the public pays for the uninsured person. That includes drug addicts, homeless people, JDPriestly Oct 2013 #58

The taxpayer doesn't pay TorchTheWitch Oct 2013 #64

I am not privy to the reasons these companies are doing this but.... former9thward Oct 2013 #6

Because the employer mandate was just recently delayed by a year B2G Oct 2013 #9

This was a predictable and predicted effect of this law. nt Demo_Chris Oct 2013 #12

It's because of the formula which determines whether or not they have to provide insurance. dairydog91 Oct 2013 #13

I favor raising the surtax on high-incomers, in order to provide more and larger subsidies ... dawg Oct 2013 #15

Perspective and Indiana Leading the Pack chowder66 Oct 2013 #16

Yes. 12 in California is not much. Could be due to other factors. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #59

And all the part time workers quit egold2604 Oct 2013 #17

You said it best. Notafraidtoo Oct 2013 #62

It's figured a year back! Yo_Mama Oct 2013 #18

Most of these employers are assholes, but ... dawg Oct 2013 #19

Most employees being cut are full time B2G Oct 2013 #25

Like i said ... dawg Oct 2013 #32

I doubt the employees who are seeing their wages cut B2G Oct 2013 #33

No, but ... dawg Oct 2013 #34

She went from 40 to 29 hours B2G Oct 2013 #35

I hope what goes around comes around for your sister's employer. dawg Oct 2013 #36

Well if it does, she'll be out of a job completely B2G Oct 2013 #37

When bad businesses go out of businesses, good ones take up their slack. dawg Oct 2013 #43

If your sister's employer were doing well and needed your sister full-time, the ACA obligation JDPriestly Oct 2013 #60

O'Reilly Auto Parts in Arizona Pakhet Oct 2013 #20

Why? It's called ESR cprompt Oct 2013 #26

Fewer employees means less work done equals lower profits. Stupid employers. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #61

some companies are adding headcount cprompt Oct 2013 #66

using the ACA as an excuse. spanone Oct 2013 #28

That's right. Brigid Oct 2013 #46

really? were these employers paying their full timers health lostincalifornia Oct 2013 #29

It is my opinion that they are doing it as a protest Curmudgeoness Oct 2013 #31

Investors Business Daily is a pretty well know right wing propoganda paper. They also okaawhatever Oct 2013 #42

I think EVERYONE should be allowed to get into ACA and Lex Oct 2013 #44

It's made a difference for me. xmas74 Oct 2013 #45

So a year from now it wouldn't look like they were doing it because of the law Left2Tackle Oct 2013 #47

They can all go out of business for all I care. Rex Oct 2013 #48

Wait and see dem in texas Oct 2013 #54

And this, folks, is why universal government-run healthcare is the only option LittleBlue Oct 2013 #63

Every time a conservative ACA opponent says this IronLionZion Oct 2013 #65