Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Companies slashing worker hours "because of Obamacare" [View all]former9thward
(33,424 posts)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.
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
how can the law survive if this continue? Seems to be something nobody really wants to talk about.
GusFring
Oct 2013
#3
Wal Mart just announced they are going back up to 40 hours for something like 19% of those
okaawhatever
Oct 2013
#39
The administration was far, far, far, far, far too slow in getting the ACA up and working.
JDPriestly
Oct 2013
#56
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
They don't have to pay health insurance costs for their employees = more $$ for them.
riderinthestorm
Oct 2013
#4
When an uninsured person...low income...gets billed from an Emergency Room, how does that paid?
libdem4life
Oct 2013
#5
Either way, the public pays for the uninsured person. That includes drug addicts, homeless people,
JDPriestly
Oct 2013
#58
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
If your sister's employer were doing well and needed your sister full-time, the ACA obligation
JDPriestly
Oct 2013
#60
Fewer employees means less work done equals lower profits. Stupid employers.
JDPriestly
Oct 2013
#61
Investors Business Daily is a pretty well know right wing propoganda paper. They also
okaawhatever
Oct 2013
#42
So a year from now it wouldn't look like they were doing it because of the law
Left2Tackle
Oct 2013
#47
And this, folks, is why universal government-run healthcare is the only option
LittleBlue
Oct 2013
#63