Obamacare: Reducing jobs to part time

[_bcspace]

There are already 8 million Americans working part time who want to work full time. It seems likely that number will skyrocket once Obamacare is implemented.

An Obamacare supporter is as stupid as the Democrats who passed the legislation in the first place:

When my better half told me that her boss was thinking about cutting all full-time employees to part time in order to avoid the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act insurance requirements (for full-time employees), my initial response was, "Surely the federal government wouldn't have allowed such a blatantly obvious way of getting out of the requirement." But that turned out to be false.

In fact, major names in the service/hospitality industry (e.g., Denny's, Olive Garden, Red Lobster and Longhorn Steakhouse) are already in the process of going to a part-time employee schedule for all employees. Thus, as a very possible consequence of the short-sightedness of the Affordable Care Act legislators, more people will be working two jobs to make ends meet.

Yet acquiring a second part-time job may be an impossibility for a large number of service/hospitality employees. Most part-time employees in this industry do not work full eight-hour shifts in a day. Rather, they work five to six days a week for four to six hours at a time during the busiest hours. Thus, it may not be possible for part-time workers to work more than one job, because the days they will be available to work will have been constrained by the part-time job they are trying to supplement.

The problems, however, may not end there. Because more people will be forced into part-time positions and into working multiple jobs, then less people will have the time to go to college, have benefits like vacation and sick days, and will have little time for rest, relaxation and spending time with family.

The Affordable Care Act was designed to benefit, not burden, millions of Americans without health care. It is mind-boggling that the legislators who worked on this act allowed such a loophole, and equally as mind-boggling that this issue isn't at the forefront of the news.

Just what does this guy think the government can do to prevent businesses from taking actions that will keep them profitable? I will bet that there are millions of Obama supporters like this fellow who will be calling on Congress to force businesses to keep employees working full time even if it means they will bankrupt themselves.

Of course, this course of action by businesses was predicted by opponents of Obamacare - its just that this guy wasn't paying any attention.

Neither were Democrats.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/obamacare_will_make_us_a_part_time_nation.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=Facebook

Tongue-in-cheek of course that government should force companies to keep everyone full time even if they go out of business.

[_cinepro]

As I've mentioned before, I'm looking at this as an employer, and the best information I have is that any combination of workers that work 120 hours a month counts as "one employee". It's called an "FTE" (Full-Time Equivalent).

The dearth of reliable, easy to understand information on Obamacare is astounding.

[_ajax18]

"We need to pass the bill, so we can tell you what's in it."

[_schreech]

[_Jaybear]

The dearth of reliable, easy to understand information on Obamacare is astounding.

It must be true, because I have heard the same criticism from pundits working for Fox news.

But seriously next time you use Google to find reliable easy to understand information, type in "Affordable Care Act" rather than Obamacare.

[_beastie]

I have my doubts. If businesses switch to part-timers, they'll lose in terms of efficiency, dedication, and productivity. So sounds like a bad idea for the business.

Even aside from that logic, just the fact that bcspace is predicting this is reason enough to doubt it will come to pass. His track record is dismal.

[_ajax18]

If businesses switch to part-timers, they'll lose in terms of efficiency, dedication, and productivity. So sounds like a bad idea for the business.

You'd think wouldn't you. But in so many fields, business decisions are made by accountants alone. Companies can be very short sighted in their decision making. It seems to me that companies have been choosing higher turnover if it means lower immediate costs for some time now. Keeping people at part time or hiring through temp agencies are what companies have been doing to avoid paying benefits for some time. It will be interesting to see what effects we get when the healthcare law is implemented. I can imagine almost anything happening except businesses actually paying for peoples healthcare.

[_Jaybear]

If businesses switch to part-timers, they'll lose in terms of efficiency, dedication, and productivity. So sounds like a bad idea for the business.

You'd think wouldn't you. But in so many fields, business decisions are made by accountants alone. Companies can be very short sighted in their decision making. It seems to me that companies have been choosing higher turnover if it means lower immediate costs for some time now. Keeping people at part time or hiring through temp agencies are what companies have been doing to avoid paying benefits for some time. It will be interesting to see what effects we get when the healthcare law is implemented. I can imagine almost anything happening except businesses actually paying for peoples healthcare.

Can you wrap your mind around this fact:
"In 2005, just 70% of the state’s employers offered health insurance. After “RomneyCare”, it went up to 77%."

[_Analytics]

As I've mentioned before, I'm looking at this as an employer, and the best information I have is that any combination of workers that work 120 hours a month counts as "one employee". It's called an "FTE" (Full-Time Equivalent).

Exactly. As will come as a surprise to absolutely nobody, BCSpace's blog was factually wrong; you can't cut " full-time employees to part time in order to avoid the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act insurance requirements (for full-time employees)." When determining whether an employer is a "large employeer" who thereby has the responsibility to help his employees have health-insurance, your total number of "full-time employees" is the number of actual full-time employees plus any combination of workers who works 120 hours a month.

In terms of dodging the classification of being a large employer, the law is an incentive to have more full-time employees, not fewer. For example, if a widget factory needs 6,000 hours of work done in a month, it could get that done with 38 full-time employees. If it goes that route, it is considered an exempt small employer and isn't required to provide insurance. But if instead it hires 75 part-time workers to do the job, it would have 50 full-time equivalents (6,000 / 120 = 50), and thus would be considered a large employer.

That said, there can be an incentive for certain employers to shift their workforce to part-timers. Specifically, if an employer is classified as a large employer and decides that it would rather pay the penalty than provide its employees with insurance, the assessment is based upon the number of actual full-time employees.

For example, say that cinepro has 100 employees, all full time. That qualifies him as a large employer who must offer insurance or be subject to the assessment. If he substituted his 100 full-time people for 40 full-time and 120 part-time, it wouldn’t help—he’d still be considered a large employer. Let’s say he decides not to offer insurance. If he doesn’t change the composition of his workforce, the penalty would be (100 – 30) * $2,000, or $140,000 a year. If he reduced his full-time staff to 40 people and increased his part-time staff to 120, then the penalty would only be (40 – 30) * $2,000 = $20,000.

So the only companies who have an incentive to shift people from full-time to part-time are large employers who chose to pay the assessment. That is fewer than 2% of large employers. This just isn’t going to affect very many people. And who is to say that one crappy job at Denny’s that doesn’t pay benefits is much better than a part-time jobs at Denny’s and a second part-time job at Olive Garden? The principle benefit of having a full-time job is supposed to be that it provides benefits. If it doesn’t provide benefits, why worry about protecting it?

The dearth of reliable, easy to understand information on Obamacare is astounding.

Have you looked at HealthCare.gov? It is authoritative, and I find it quite easy to understand.

[_ajax18]

And who is to say that one crappy job at Denny’s that doesn’t pay benefits is much better than a part-time jobs at Denny’s and a second part-time job at Olive Garden?

So what's going to happen to the people who are working two part time jobs now? Will they still not have health insurance after Obamacare is implemented?

And if the employer finds a way to classify himself as a small employer, the people who work for him don't get health insurance either right?