Work hours cut due to ObamaCare

[CrackRabbit]

What I am doing is blaming ObamaCare for forcing people to get their hours cut to stay under the full time limits.

that is the issue; not what other benefits that they might/might not have based on their work status.

It is that what ever hours that they presently are working will be reduce to allow the employer to not be required for the health insurance benefit that the ACA is requiring.

Whether it be 1, 5, 10 or 15 hours lost per week because of this fiasco is punishing the worker.

I see.
So why are you placing the blame entirely on ACA, instead of upper management at Darden?
Is the cost of providing a minimal level of heath care insurance going to eat their profits so badly that they would lose money or drop the percentage of profit they were making?
Or is this just the upper management seeing it as an excuse to be able to cut their labor costs even further by forcing people to work fewer hours and get the same amount of work done and then blaming it on 'Obamacare'?

 

[CPA]

duh. of course business owners are greedy bastards. that's why we start a business in the first place. to make money.

why would someone go through all the stress, and risk if they aren't?

For the good of society, of course!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I see.
So why are you placing the blame entirely on ACA, instead of upper management at Darden?
Is the cost of providing a minimal level of heath care insurance going to eat their profits so badly that they would lose money or drop the percentage of profit they were making?
Or is this just the upper management seeing it as an excuse to be able to cut their labor costs even further by forcing people to work fewer hours and get the same amount of work done and then blaming it on 'Obamacare'?

Did you really just say that? Neither you nor Obama and those involved expected anything else? That everyone would line up and obey and make sure everything was roses? Were the crafters and supporters so enormously stupid they couldn't see this coming? Heaven forbid they get ahold of health care proper. We'll need another forum just for the apologists.

This is like the guy who drops off black men at a drunken KKK meeting then claims he was utterly unaware of the natural consequences of his actions.

Unbelievable yet predicted.

 

[CountZero]

If the rest of the civilized world can provide health care to everyone, why can't we? Are they just better than us? Are their businessmen smarter? More successful? What?

They don't pay nearly as much per capita for health care and in addition to that they don't spend nearly as much on defense. Why should they? The US spent 41% of all defense spending in the world and that money goes off to largely help other people. While these other European countries can spend a token amount on defense and spend the rest on helping their own citizens.

Personally I'm sick of people in this country suffering so that we can act as the world's attack dog.

 

[sactoking]

I see.
So why are you placing the blame entirely on ACA, instead of upper management at Darden?
Is the cost of providing a minimal level of heath care insurance going to eat their profits so badly that they would lose money or drop the percentage of profit they were making?
Or is this just the upper management seeing it as an excuse to be able to cut their labor costs even further by forcing people to work fewer hours and get the same amount of work done and then blaming it on 'Obamacare'?

Reasonably? Yes.

Checking Darden's 2012 Annual Statement (their FY closes in May) they had a total comprehensive income of $388,000,000. That's an average comprehensive income of about $32,333,333 per month. I would estimate the average employer spends about $800 per month on employee health benefits. That means that Darden's monthly comprehensive income would pay for health benefits for about 40,417 employees before being completely wiped out.

Darden currently employs about 180,000 people. I have no idea how many of them currently receive benefits, but let's assume that it's just 25% (the amount that would be management and corporate employees). That leaves 135,000 people who don't get benefits. If 30% of them (40417/135000) were eligible for employer-provided benefits as a result of the ACA then Darden would lose 100% of their comprehensive income.

Are any of those calculations or assumptions unreasonable?

 

[Agent11]

Good luck getting Europe to spend more on defense atm though.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Did you really just say that? Neither you nor Obama and those involved expected anything else? That everyone would line up and obey and make sure everything was roses? Were the crafters and supporters so enormously stupid they couldn't see this coming? Heaven forbid they get ahold of health care proper. We'll need another forum just for the apologists.

This is like the guy who drops off black men at a drunken KKK meeting then claims he was utterly unaware of the natural consequences of his actions.

Unbelievable yet predicted.

If you really want to know my opinion on things here it is;

At a certain point in this country's past there was an unwritten social contract in place between labor and the owners of companies.
The labor was paid a wage enough to live a comfortable life and the owners, investors and upper management made enough profit from them to live in luxury.
Both were happy, for the most part and the economy thrived.

At some point though investors and upper management decided they needed more profit and that they simply weren't making enough before.
So they slowly began to squeeze labor to reduce costs.
That squeezing through many different methods has essentially broken the contract I spoke of previously.
Labor is now considered a commodity to be resented instead of a workforce building a product or service to be proud of.
They get shit on so that more money can be sent to the top.

Maybe my opinion is oversimplified, but bringing that social contract back in line would go a long way towards fixing many of the problems this country has.
Think back to how your parents, or grandparents may have talked about work. Now think of the stories you've read here or in OT, or elsewhere. Or perhaps from your own experiences and tell me why I'm wrong. I'm willing to listen.


As for ACA, I actually agree with you. The law should have had teeth put into it to prevent this situation from happening. I'll even go as far to say that ACA was not a well crafted law. But it is what it is, and until it is replaced or repealed it is what we have.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you really want to know my opinion on things here it is;

At a certain point in this country's past there was an unwritten social contract in place between labor and the owners of companies.
The labor was paid a wage enough to live a comfortable life and the owners, investors and upper management made enough profit from them to live in luxury.
Both were happy, for the most part and the economy thrived.

At some point though investors and upper management decided they needed more profit and that they simply weren't making enough before.
So they slowly began to squeeze labor to reduce costs.
That squeezing through many different methods has essentially broken the contract I spoke of previously.
Labor is now considered a commodity to be resented instead of a workforce building a product or service to be proud of.
They get shit on so that more money can be sent to the top.

Maybe my opinion is oversimplified, but bringing that social contract back in line would go a long way towards fixing many of the problems this country has.
Think back to how your parents, or grandparents may have talked about work. Now think of the stories you've read here or in OT, or elsewhere. Or perhaps from your own experiences and tell me why I'm wrong. I'm willing to listen.


As for ACA, I actually agree with you. The law should have had teeth put into it to prevent this situation from happening. I'll even go as far to say that ACA was not a well crafted law. But it is what it is, and until it is replaced or repealed it is what we have.

You may have some of my posts about a systematic approach to health care. I assume that there will be considerable opposition from factions to subvert positive or critical findings for a variety of reasons. That this wasn't taken into account is astounding to me.

I agree that we are a lesser people for erasing beneficial relationships between worker and employer, but we have been in that sorry state for too many years. This was inevitable.

A better approach is needed because the complexity of the issue is beyond legislators however well intentioned. There is not enough time in a decades worth of sessions to come to terms with whats needed. Thats yet another reason to offload the bulk of the work to those already expert who can devote the time.

 

[werepossum]

Reasonably? Yes.

Checking Darden's 2012 Annual Statement (their FY closes in May) they had a total comprehensive income of $388,000,000. That's an average comprehensive income of about $32,333,333 per month. I would estimate the average employer spends about $800 per month on employee health benefits. That means that Darden's monthly comprehensive income would pay for health benefits for about 40,417 employees before being completely wiped out.

Darden currently employs about 180,000 people. I have no idea how many of them currently receive benefits, but let's assume that it's just 25% (the amount that would be management and corporate employees). That leaves 135,000 people who don't get benefits. If 30% of them (40417/135000) were eligible for employer-provided benefits as a result of the ACA then Darden would lose 100% of their comprehensive income.

Are any of those calculations or assumptions unreasonable?

Far too many people feel that employers exist to give people money and health care, and are either unwilling or unable to recognize that employers have their own interests and don't have unlimited pockets.

On the flip side, if we had single payer this calculation becomes moot. Assuming Darden is one of the corporations profitable enough to survive the required taxes, its management would set hours based on the company's best interests in its business model rather than avoiding government penalties and requirements. Or to be more accurate, Darden would set hours based on where the company's best interests intersect with their workers' willingness to work.

 

[CrackRabbit]

You may have some of my posts about a systematic approach to health care. I assume that there will be considerable opposition from factions to subvert positive or critical findings for a variety of reasons. That this wasn't taken into account is astounding to me.

I agree that we are a lesser people for erasing beneficial relationships between worker and employer, but we have been in that sorry state for too many years. This was inevitable.

A better approach is needed because the complexity of the issue is beyond legislators however well intentioned. There is not enough time in a decades worth of sessions to come to terms with whats needed. Thats yet another reason to offload the bulk of the work to those already expert who can devote the time.

Yes, I read your post in another thread about how to properly reform healthcare. I share your belief that a national health care policy crafted as you described would be a boon to all.

 

[badb0y]

This type of shit has been happening for a while now. When I used to work at CVS they did the same thing, never let me cross 29 hours so they never have to pay me benefits or let me earn vacation hours. They did that with 95% of the people working there and I thought it was total bullshit how they can get away with that...

 

[umbrella39]

What I am doing is blaming ObamaCare for forcing people to get their hours cut to stay under the full time limits.

And what you are being shown repeatedly now is that this is bullshit. This has been going on in that industry since day one and will continue until end times. It has NOTHING to do with Obamacare. You WANT it to. We get that...