Bluegrassrivals

More from the "elections have consequences" front. If you work part time, there is a good chance that your hours will also be cut, thanks to Obamacare. If you voted for Obama, you will only have yourself to blame. Good luck finding a second job in Obama's economy.

[INDENT]

Quote:John Schnatter Papa John's CEO: Obamacare likely to raise costs, employee's hours being cut

A day after Barack Obama earned a second term in the White House, Papa John's founder and CEO John Schnatter said the president's signature health-care reform law would increase his business costs and possibly result in employees' hours being cut.

Schnatter, a part-time Naples resident, made the comments Wednesday night inside a small auditorium at Edison State College's Collier County campus. In August, he made national headlines after telling shareholders the Affordable Care Act — commonly known as Obamacare — would result in a 10- to 14-cent increase for customers buying a pizza.

"I got in a bunch of trouble for this," he told the students. "That's what you do, is you pass on costs. Unfortunately, I don't think people know what they're going to pay for this."

[/INDENT]

That figures. A lot of these people, probably did vote for Obama LOL.

As we all know "there is no free lunches" somebody has to pay. And ObamaCare going to cost a plenty. This will cost Business alot of of money & where do company's cut cost first? Employees

doubledown Wrote:As we all know "there is no free lunches" somebody has to pay. And ObamaCare going to cost a plenty. This will cost Business alot of of money & where do company's cut cost first? Employees

There will be many companies that will be cutting the hours of part time employees to reduce costs related to Obamacare. The only good thing is that most of the young people who will suffer voted for Obama, but it is unfortunate that all part time workers will suffer.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:There will be many companies that will be cutting the hours of part time employees to reduce costs related to Obamacare. The only good thing is that most of the young people who will suffer voted for Obama, but it is unfortunate that all part time workers will suffer.

I didn't think part time employees were affecting the employers?

TheRealVille Wrote:I didn't think part time employees were affecting the employers?

Obamacare redefines full time employment. Part time workers who currently work 30 hours a week or more for businesses employing 50 or more employees may see their hours cut so that their employers do not have to provide healthcare coverage for them. I expect that companies who employ slightly over 50 employees will probably be cutting their staffs. Alternatively, they could reorganize into two corporations and divvy up the employees among them. Laws always have unintended consequences, especially when neither Congress nor the President read them before they become law.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Obamacare redefines full time employment. Part time workers who currently work 30 hours a week or more for businesses employing 50 or more employees may see their hours cut so that their employers do not have to provide healthcare coverage for them. I expect that companies who employ slightly over 50 employees will probably be cutting their staffs. Alternatively, they could reorganize into two corporations and divvy up the employees among them. Laws always have unintended consequences, especially when neither Congress nor the President read them before they become law.

Care to prove your words?



http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx

TheRealVille Wrote:Care to prove your words?



http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx

Read the law yourself.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Read the law yourself.

That's what I thought. You always asked for prove when others say something.

TheRealVille Wrote:That's what I thought. You always asked for prove when others say something.

The proof is in the corporations who have announced cuts to employee hours in response to Obamacare. You know the truth, you are just not honest enough to admit it.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:The proof is in the corporations who have announced cuts to employee hours in response to Obamacare. You know the truth, you are just not honest enough to admit it.

Just show us where you got your 30 hour part time numbers. I was under the understanding that employers didn't have to provide insurance for part time employees.

TheRealVille Wrote:Just show us where you got your 30 hour part time numbers. I was under the understanding that employers didn't have to provide insurance for part time employees.

What was your understanding of what constitutes a part time employee? Why do you think that many companies are planning to cut the hours of temporary employees?

Hoot Gibson Wrote:What was your understanding of what constitutes a part time employee? Why do you think that many companies are planning to cut the hours of temporary employees?

Full time employees get 40 hours. Anything less is part time, and employers don't have to provide for insurance for part time employees. You don't want to show your proof, I understand. LOL. It's ok Hoot, you talk out of your ass, and we all know. It's fine.

TheRealVille Wrote:Full time employees get 40 hours. Anything less is part time, and employers don't have to provide for insurance for part time employees. You don't want to show your proof, I understand. LOL. It's ok Hoot, you talk out of your ass, and we all know. It's fine.

Thank you for proving that you do not know what you are talking about again. nicker:

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Thank you for proving that you do not know what you are talking about again. nicker:

Meaning? What do you know? Full time employees are 40 hours a week. By wiki, the employer can state what full time is. Maybe they should just state part time and go with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-time

TheRealVille Wrote:Meaning? What do you know? Full time employees are 40 hours a week. By wiki, the employer can state what full time is. Maybe they should just state part time and go with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-time

We are not talking about Wikipedia, Michael Scott. We are talking about Obamacare and why many employers of part time workers are planning, or considering restricting their weekly hours. If you are right, then there is no need for them to change a thing. Yet, those companies, with large legal staffs actually reading the law, do plan on cutting part time workers' hours. Maybe you should contact them and tell them to just "don't worry, be happy." :biglmao:

Hoot Gibson Wrote:We are not talking about Wikipedia, Michael Scott. We are talking about Obamacare and why many employers of part time workers are planning, or considering restricting their weekly hours. If you are right, then there is no need for them to change a thing. Yet, those companies, with large legal staffs actually reading the law, do plan on cutting part time workers' hours. Maybe you should contact them and tell them to just "don't worry, be happy." :biglmao:

At least show in the ACA where they are getting it. Or, do you just take the word of conservative companies that might have an ulterior motive? You can't show it, or you would have already. nicker:

TheRealVille Wrote:At least show in the ACA where they are getting it. Or, do you just take the word of conservative companies that might have an ulterior motive? You can't show it, or you would have already. nicker:

Prove where the ACA says that anybody working less than 40 hours is considered part time, for the purposes of the law.

I work 36, full time, 3 12's.

Pretty common in the healthcare field

Beetle01 Wrote:I work 36, full time, 3 12's.

Pretty common in the healthcare field

it depend's when you work week start my wife works in hospital 12 hour shifts off evert other weekend

Beetle01 Wrote:I work 36, full time, 3 12's.

Pretty common in the healthcare field

For many purposes, 32 hours/week qualified as full time three years ago. When the recession hit, my employer was forced to cut everybody's hours to temporarily avoid layoffs while allowing us to continue qualifying for full time benefits. We were required to keep busy for 32 hours a week, despite having no billable work.

Beetle01 Wrote:I work 36, full time, 3 12's.

Pretty common in the healthcare field

RV says that you are not a full time employee because Wikipedia says so. :biggrin:

Hoot Gibson Wrote:For many purposes, 32 hours/week qualified as full time three years ago. When the recession hit, my employer was forced to cut everybody's hours to temporarily avoid layoffs while allowing us to continue qualifying for full time benefits. We were required to keep busy for 32 hours a week, despite having no billable work.

in the hospitals it's 36 hours 1 week then 48 hours the next week so it average's out to 40 a week

vector Wrote:in the hospitals it's 36 hours 1 week then 48 hours the next week so it average's out to 40 a week

Thanks for that bit of information, Fraudster. Beetle works in the healthcare field, says that he is full time working 3 x 12 hour shifts a week, he only posts under one account, and he respects other members enough to write coherent posts. I don't always agree with him, but Beetle is trustworthy. You, on the other hand...not so much.

It would be interesting to see the numbers being broke down for Papa John's, and how much is just for political BS. Let' keep in mind this is a company with sales revenue alone exceeding 1 billion dollars.

According to their site they employ about 16,500 employees. So it's tough to tell without knowing how many are already insured, how many would even meet the requirements to be offered insurance currently.

Average cost per employee is around 10k, but a little lower for companies that employ that many individuals (for health care).

This is where it starts getting tricky and I will be interested to see what happens. Insurance companies profits have increased right along with the increase in health care costs. Now that hospitals will be able to stop charging the insured so much more (and it is very substantial), the cost to insurance companies should decrease. Will those savings be passed on? Under Obamacare they will have to be from my understanding as 85% of their revenue must be spent on providing health care.


This is one aspect where I tend to differ from many of my conservative counterparts. Like them, I believe in a free market, however, I no longer believe a free market exists in the health insurance field. It is regionally dived out to each of the biggest providers, and they have full control over their regions to offer coverage without interference or competition from other strong providers. As a group they have effectively squashed any up and comers who were a threat to their profit line, to ensure their futures, and since having accomplished that, the American people and companies have seen health care costs skyrocket, while insurance companies profits have matched that growth.

This is the one aspect of Obamacare I am on board with. If we are going to allow these companies to operate in the manner in which they do, then there has to be a form of profit limitation to protect the American people.

First and foremost, it is about what is best for the citizens of America, not what is best for the billion+ profit margins of corporations.

So don't spew some BS about free market at me, because you are either in denial or ignorant of how these insurance companies operate. There is no free market in this case.

This reminds me of the interesting graph I saw on the banks, and how the politicians have been to busy stuffing their coffers with donations to protect the American people, and now the banks are so large that they hold the entire economy in their hands.




Image doesn't show up well, here is the link for a better view. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010...er-history

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Thanks for that bit of information, Fraudster. Beetle works in the healthcare field, says that he is full time working 3 x 12 hour shifts a week, he only posts under one account, and he respects other members enough to write coherent posts. I don't always agree with him, but Beetle is trustworthy. You, on the other hand...not so much.

3 12's including overtime is above 40 hrs /week, at least in my trade. I think it is equal to 46 hours. Most companies pay overtime for everything over 10 hours.

Don't receive OT unless I break 40 hours just like everyone else, doesn't matter if I work a 16,12, and an 8, which I have done before.

Now I could work 4 10's, or 5 8's if I wanted, but I like the 6 straight 12's followed by 8 days off, and I can pick up a couple extra days if I want during my days off, and make some pretty good money.

But I do not receive any OT for anything less than 40 hours, doesn't matter how long the shift is.

TheRealVille Wrote:3 12's including overtime is above 40 hrs /week, at least in my trade. I think it is equal to 46 hours. Most companies pay overtime for everything over 10 hours.

Do you work in a hospital?

I'll also add, that we do that because the company allows us to be full time at 36 hours, they could mandate that we work a full 40 hours, but most nurses, especially younger ones like myself prefer the extra days off (104 extra days off a year when compared to a 5 day work week) Also, due to the sheer amount of staffing (there were more than 100 in the ED when I was there), it is much easier for them to get people to cover shifts when there are call ins or multiple vacations. If I've already worked 5 days that week, the odds of me picking up an extra day are less than 1% haha

But sadly, I'll be trading all those days once I move away for some extra schooling and come out with a much better degree, of course my pay will also more than double.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Do you work in a hospital?

No, but I have worked 3/12's. We got 12 hours straight, 12 time and a half, and 12 double. Or 24 straight, and 12 double. it's been 20 years, I can't remember.