DiscussMormonism.com

....12 employees, 3 managers. Managers, one full time two part time. Employees, six full and six part. That was before the election cemented Obamacare.

Now, after the election: Two managers, both part time. Eight employees. All part time. No insurance benefits. Must purchase on own with reduced salary or no salary for those (a full third of the workforce) who were fired.

That is the plan, to make everyone rely on the government (go on welfare, the government insurance plans, etc.) in order to control them and buy their vote.

Assuming a 40 hour workweek for full time and 20 for part time, you're saying the bank went from 440 man-hours per week to 200.

Seriously?

cinepro wrote:Assuming a 40 hour workweek for full time and 20 for part time, you're saying the bank went from 440 man-hours per week to 200.

Seriously?

As if bcspace was ever serious...

cinepro wrote:Assuming a 40 hour workweek for full time and 20 for part time, you're saying the bank went from 440 man-hours per week to 200.

Seriously?

Extrapolating those numbers, we can expect that 70 million people lost their job in the last week.
But don't expect to read about it in the liberal media.

See, I can be as irrational as BC Space.

cinepro wrote:Assuming a 40 hour workweek for full time and 20 for part time, you're saying the bank went from 440 man-hours per week to 200.

Seriously?

Seriously? do you often make such uninformed rebuttals? why claim 20 hours? - because it makes your rebuttal seem more valid and less ridiculous? not likely...

35 hours or more per week = full time
1 to 34 hours per week = part time

You should have landed on 1 hour per week, that would have made you seem much smarter....because using 34 hours per week would just make you seem like another uninformed entitlement hungry pot-head.

so, now that we are aware of more "facts"...why not just assume that the full time employees before were working 35 hours per week (this accounts for an unpaid lunch break)...and now they are working 34 hours per week...see how that works? and it likely fits with how a bank would think about it.
So, total staff available hours before = 517
and, total staff available hours after = 340

seems like the bank may have been overstaffed to begin with. besides, the employees that were let go are getting checks from Obama now.

A massive double-dip recession is just around the corner, children, and you will suffer with the conservatives, conservative Christians, Latter day Saints, and Austrian economists you so despise. Obamacare will - and according to the laws of economics - must produce substantial job losses, less new hiring, and limitations on work hours. This is coming and it has been predicted for a very long time by those who actually care to understand what's going on around them and who don't believe in Santa Claus.

Socialism has never worked before in all the long and torturous annals of human economic and social history. Why then do you believe that these modes of governance can be somehow made to generate positive results now, by an act of naked will?

Howl, wail, and gnash your teeth as your Great and Spacious Building doesn't have enough money to cut the grass or to buy the government subsidized bongs to smoke the grass you grow (after which you'll be using contraceptives at Sandra Fluke levels in the tiny backseat of your earth and rainforest-saving electric car).

The economic destruction looming just over the horizon is going to affect you just as its going to affect me. No, Warren Buffet, George Soros, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone etc., won't feel much effect. They have enough money to ride out even the catastrophic collapse of the American economy (which, so long as they can ride it out, is exactly what they and many people like them on the Left would and have long dreamed of producing).

The moonbats at the intellectual and grassroots foundation of the Democrat party will soon be barking and throwing foam this way and that when it dawns on them that they have voted, not only their cultural enemies, but themselves as well, misery and woe. At some point as well, a critical mass of Americans, in looking around and trying to figure out who to blame for the hell that's been created around them, are going to finally figure out where on the blame really lies.

It may not matter that much, at that point, however. Liberty, to any really salient extent, will by then be essentially a matter of rhetorical formality and an artifact of America's social and political history.

At that point, the Constitution will have to be pulled back from the abyss and defended with unflinching intellectual and moral courage. According to the prophet Joseph, the latter-day priesthood will be key in accomplishing this feat against what will without doubt be overwhelming political and cultural odds, gnashing of teeth, Satanic "ranting upon the ground," bitter, ideological hatred, and uninhibited power madness.

Forward!

subgenius wrote:

cinepro wrote:Assuming a 40 hour workweek for full time and 20 for part time, you're saying the bank went from 440 man-hours per week to 200.

Seriously?

Seriously? do you often make such uninformed rebuttals? why claim 20 hours? - because it makes your rebuttal seem more valid and less ridiculous? not likely...

35 hours or more per week = full time
1 to 34 hours per week = part time

You should have landed on 1 hour per week, that would have made you seem much smarter....because using 34 hours per week would just make you seem like another uninformed entitlement hungry pot-head.

so, now that we are aware of more "facts"...why not just assume that the full time employees before were working 35 hours per week (this accounts for an unpaid lunch break)...and now they are working 34 hours per week...see how that works? and it likely fits with how a bank would think about it.
So, total staff available hours before = 517
and, total staff available hours after = 340

seems like the bank may have been overstaffed to begin with. besides, the employees that were let go are getting checks from Obama now.

Obviously BCSpace will have to explain how the bank (and he) define "part time", but in my 10+ years of hiring people, whenever I've said "part time" it's been understood to be around 20 hours a week, and "full time" to be around 40. Legally, I believe the dividing line is usually 32 hours a week.

But as I mentioned in another thread, when it comes to Obamacare, two part timers are counted as one full timer, so if you have 40 hours of work to be done, there isn't much benefit to going to part-time workers apart in that regard.

But the actual number of hours isn't the point. If you're saying the bank is using 177 fewer man-hours each week, what could that possibly have to do with Obamacare?

As I've explained elsewhere, business owners need to figure out how to do the same amount of work while absorbing any additional costs associated with Obamacare. That's the trick. And laying people off, or converting full-time employees into an equivalent number of part-time employees does nothing to address the issue.

subgenius wrote:

cinepro wrote:Assuming a 40 hour workweek for full time and 20 for part time, you're saying the bank went from 440 man-hours per week to 200.

Seriously?

Seriously? do you often make such uninformed rebuttals? why claim 20 hours? - because it makes your rebuttal seem more valid and less ridiculous? not likely...

35 hours or more per week = full time
1 to 34 hours per week = part time

You should have landed on 1 hour per week, that would have made you seem much smarter....because using 34 hours per week would just make you seem like another uninformed entitlement hungry pot-head.

so, now that we are aware of more "facts"...why not just assume that the full time employees before were working 35 hours per week (this accounts for an unpaid lunch break)...and now they are working 34 hours per week...see how that works? and it likely fits with how a bank would think about it.
So, total staff available hours before = 517
and, total staff available hours after = 340

seems like the bank may have been overstaffed to begin with. besides, the employees that were let go are getting checks from Obama now.

The really strange thing about all the continuing arguments such as this is that the country is already broke, and has been for many years. That entire new $6 trillion worth of fiat money creation over the last 4 years stands as a clear testament to that fact. The nation has been spending phantom money beyond its actual tax receipts at catastrophically irrational levels for so long now that I think the attitude among much of the Ruling Class has become, "Well, we already struck the iceberg, so let's party as hard as we can until the ship goes down."

Obviously BCSpace will have to explain how the bank (and he) define "part time", but in my 10+ years of hiring people, whenever I've said "part time" it's been understood to be around 20 hours a week, and "full time" to be around 40. Legally, I believe the dividing line is usually 32 hours a week.

But as I mentioned in another thread, when it comes to Obamacare, two part timers are counted as one full timer, so if you have 40 hours of work to be done, there isn't much benefit to going to part-time workers apart in that regard.

Perhaps so, perhaps not, but the text of the Obamacare legislation itself makes 30 hours per week the magic number. This is all about cattallactics - the core, motive principles underlying human action and human economic behavior. Indeed, that's really all economics is about at its nucleus. Businesses, faced with Obamacare's regulations, plethora of tax increases, and incentive structure, will do everything they can to find ways around compliance and remain economically viable. That means, in the end, less hiring, less hours, and a continual shrinkage of job opportunity.

Droopy wrote:Perhaps so, perhaps not, but the text of the Obamacare legislation itself makes 30 hours per week the magic number. This is all about cattallactics - the core, motive principles underlying human action and human economic behavior. Indeed, that's really all economics is about at its nucleus. Businesses, faced with Obamacare's regulations, plethora of tax increases, and incentive structure, will do everything they can to find ways around compliance and remain economically viable. That means, in the end, less hiring, less hours, and a continual shrinkage of job opportunity.

CFR. Which part of Obamacare gives specifies "30 hours" as a number that works to the benefit of employers?