Cubs Cut Workers' Hours To Avoid ACA Mandate, Then Disaster Struck,..

[Newell Steamer]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Citing "numerous sources with direct knowledge," the Sun-Times reported that the Cubs had sent home 10 grounds crew workers early the night of the Tuesday game that ended in disaster. And at least part of the reason, per the newspaper's sources, is that the team has been trying to keep seasonal workers under 30 hours per week as the Affordable Care Act takes effect.

The law requires large employers to offer health insurance to full-time employees (defined as those who work more than 30 hours a week) or pay a fine. The rule goes into effect in 2015.

Of course, the spokes persons denies this was the cause;

“There have been organizational changes. Every organization, whether it’s baseball or corporate, is always continuing to evaluate inefficiencies, and obviously that translates to ours," the spokesman, Julian Green said. “We’re no different than any organization trying to gain efficiencies. However, our efforts to manage costs had nothing to do with the episode on Tuesday night.”

The owner of the team, the Ricketts Family, hasn't been known to be a supporter of the President exactly,.. nor do they let him be; http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...ttack-while-gay-daughter-fundraises-for-prez/

This is just another example of a rich goon, reaping what he sowed.

Enjoy it.

 

[DrDoug]

“We’re no different than any organization trying to gain efficiencies. However, our efforts to manage costs had nothing to do with the episode on Tuesday night.”

Translated from corporate babblespeak: "We're saving some extra cash for our greedy asses and making a political statement but what you saw Tuesday night had nothing to do with that. Really!"

I think they were cutting hours to save the money for themselves and blaming the reduced hours on their having to avoid paying for Obamacare. There's nothing like a rich smug asshole screwing workers over and making a political statement against his perceived enemy at the same time. IMO if they really were cutting hours to avoid Obamacare then they could have taken those same hours and hired more people to make up the difference, all the while keeping those new workers under same hour limits to continue to avoid Obamacare.

I think the truth is that they got greedy and saw a way to rake in more cash while blaming the labor cuts on something other than their greed, so they jumped on it...

and got hammered. What a dumb, rich asshole.

 

[senseamp]

Any immoral act can be justified by Republican-Corporatists simply by calling it an "efficiency."

 

[werepossum]

This is very common, but I suspect ultimately counterproductive. To do the same amount over the long haul a company will need more employees if each works less. Yet a big part of Obamacare is empowering the bureaucracy, which is free to lower the cutoff as it pleases without legislation. A company may well end up with a lot more employees working a lot less hours and suddenly find itself bound to provide health insurance for all of them, which would be a lot more expensive than providing health insurance for the original employees.

 

[Ventanni]

I see this happen with companies who take for granted what their work force does for them. At my last apartment, we had a groundskeeper who was actually really good at his job. If something broke, it was fixed within 1-2 days tops, and he was a pretty cool guy to boot. So they fired him to bring in part time workers. If something broke, it took weeks to get fixed. I had mold issues with my apartment and it was never rectified.

You look at companies like Costco, Publix, Google, and Chik-Fil-A and they're successful. Why? Because for the most part, the people who actually work there actually want to be there. You look at a company like Wal-Mart, HP, or Dell where their financials are starting to take a hit, and there's always one thing in common; the people are treated like numbers. I fear for Microsoft, because I potentially see the same thing happening too.

As a manager, it's easy to find the right talent for the right job. That may not be the case for all industries, but it's true for a lot of service based industries. I can teach anyone the job. What is more challenging is finding someone with the right attitude. Part of that, as their manager, is on me (the #1 reason people don't show up for work is because they don't like the people they work for), but that's the one thing I can't control completely. Unfortunately I see companies all too often looking at people as "replaceable" because the talent pool is so vast. They pay their employees pennies and cut costs by trimming benefits, then wonder why their bottom line is in the red.

Companies that realize that the most valuable asset are the people that work for them more often than not turn out to be the most successful companies in the industry. Hopefully the Cubs will learn that even the grounds keepers are important.

 

[PokerGuy]

A company may well end up with a lot more employees working a lot less hours and suddenly find itself bound to provide health insurance for all of them, which would be a lot more expensive than providing health insurance for the original employees.

No, because in that scenario the company would simply boot some of the employees and get back to the original number.

Bottom line, companies are generally rational actors, they'll take the route that maximizes profit. obummercare pushes companies to take actions like lowering work hours to lower their expenses, so that's exactly what they'll do. Sometimes that works, sometimes it goes wrong and bites you in the butt.

 

[shortylickens]

I like Claire OConnor. She's not afraid to trash both parties.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, this was immoral? A disaster?

You lefty loonies are hilarious.

 

[xBiffx]

Pretty much sounds like the Bush/Katrina debate all over again.

Bush was responsible for Katrina so it only follows that the Cubs are responsible for flooding.
.
.
.
.
Was this Obama's fault? :hmm: /s

 

[nehalem256]

Any immoral act can be justified by Republican-Corporatists simply by calling it an "efficiency."

According to liberals corporations cannot have morality. And are duty bound to act only to increase shareholder value.

At least that is what they said about Hobby Lobby...

 

[werepossum]

I see this happen with companies who take for granted what their work force does for them. At my last apartment, we had a groundskeeper who was actually really good at his job. If something broke, it was fixed within 1-2 days tops, and he was a pretty cool guy to boot. So they fired him to bring in part time workers. If something broke, it took weeks to get fixed. I had mold issues with my apartment and it was never rectified.

You look at companies like Costco, Publix, Google, and Chik-Fil-A and they're successful. Why? Because for the most part, the people who actually work there actually want to be there. You look at a company like Wal-Mart, HP, or Dell where their financials are starting to take a hit, and there's always one thing in common; the people are treated like numbers. I fear for Microsoft, because I potentially see the same thing happening too.

As a manager, it's easy to find the right talent for the right job. That may not be the case for all industries, but it's true for a lot of service based industries. I can teach anyone the job. What is more challenging is finding someone with the right attitude. Part of that, as their manager, is on me (the #1 reason people don't show up for work is because they don't like the people they work for), but that's the one thing I can't control completely. Unfortunately I see companies all too often looking at people as "replaceable" because the talent pool is so vast. They pay their employees pennies and cut costs by trimming benefits, then wonder why their bottom line is in the red.

Companies that realize that the most valuable asset are the people that work for them more often than not turn out to be the most successful companies in the industry. Hopefully the Cubs will learn that even the grounds keepers are important.

Well said. Far too many companies do not understand that the person who interacts most with customers, and thus has the greatest impact on how customers view your company, is typically the lowest paid employee in that company. That may be the easiest person to replace in the whole company, yet still be the most critical to customer satisfaction and repeat business.

No, because in that scenario the company would simply boot some of the employees and get back to the original number.

Bottom line, companies are generally rational actors, they'll take the route that maximizes profit. obummercare pushes companies to take actions like lowering work hours to lower their expenses, so that's exactly what they'll do. Sometimes that works, sometimes it goes wrong and bites you in the butt.

So what's to stop the bureaucracy from changing the law to impose a fine based on last year's total head count versus this year's total head count? I don't think we're necessarily in the realm of rational once power is vested in the hands of the bureaucracy.