Obamacare: Walked into my local bank branch today and....

[_bcspace]

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. Except your 20 hour assumption should really be a 29.99 hour assumption in terms of max possible hours. We were talking about it and they now have one manager and three tellers each 4.5 hour shift (morning and afternoon shifts 9 to 6) on average. Since there are eight tellers, they rotate the schedule and have backup in case someone calls in. If one is out, the other one goes most of the day. There are two senior tellers and each can run the branch if both managers are out. The managers and senior tellers are capable of handling the other aspects of the business such as loans and credit cards. There are some days and times of day that are busier and for that, there are more than three tellers scheduled. So each teller is looking at an average of 22.5 hours a week plus busy time hours. The lines during the busy time at the bank are a little bit longer these days......

Not all the tellers were full time but now they are all part time and the full timers have lost their insurance (expires end of the year). They have to go out on their own to buy it. I recommended mine which is not insurance but health sharing and is much cheaper. That's something I myself will have to worry about in a year. Will health sharing be considered a qualified insurance plan under Obamacare? Usually, if the IRS doesn't specify, we take the risk and do it..........

If the bank had a cafeteria plan, they could set up a PRA (Premium Reimbursement Account) and have their outside premiums come from pre-tax salary. Most Cafeteria Plans, to reduce company risk, offer benefits to full time long term ee's. But a PRA carries no risk for a company so they could re-write their plan document to allow part timers to have a PRA. I believe that bank has a Cafeteria plan, but usually companies aren't aware of all the options (the local tellers sure weren't) because Cafeteria Plans minimize insurance needs and therefore if an insurance company is handling the benefits, Cafeteria plans are a loss leader at best.

[Guest]

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

That's the employee mandate, cinepro, a mojor provision of the legistlation, but a little known (and buried) aspect of it.

You can see it here (section 4, paragraph A):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4980H

Its also here in new IRS rules (which have been very cleverly written to trap employers by taking an average of hours worked over a 3 - 12 month period (the "look-back" period):

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-12-58.pdf

As you will notice, the only way to stay within the "safe harbor" is to keep one's employees at 29 hours per week, and not let him/her gather any hours over that maximum in any given week.

[_subgenius]

http://archrecord.construction.com/news ... -Firms.asp

even in my field we see layoffs that are directly related to Obamacare.

Not to mention how Obamacare is going to deal with the quality of care issue while we transition to a lot more patients with the same amount of doctors and nurses.

[_Droopy]

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/11/121126-Health-Care-Industry-Changes-Cited-in-Layoffs-at-Two-Longtime-Firms.asp

even in my field we see layoffs that are directly related to Obamacare.

Not to mention how Obamacare is going to deal with the quality of care issue while we transition to a lot more patients with the same amount of doctors and nurses.

Or much less. Doctors have been threatening publicly (in polls and questionnaires) since Obamacare became a real possibility to leave the profession in numbers substantial enough that it should create a sense of alarm in the population. I fear though, that a clear majority of the population can no longer be alarmed by anything save the threat of even the slightest cuts in their "benefits."

[_subgenius]

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.

believe what you want, i was simply quoting what the law states it as - and reference provided.

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.

CFR

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?

if your expenses go up and your revenue has not changed, then cuts must be made...obviously Obama does not subscribe to this, he thinks the bank should just go out into the street and take money from people's wallets and tell them that they now have to bank here.
If you impose another expense on a business that is running thin ,then someone has to go...think of it as sacrificing one for the god of the many...yea, people got fired, but those who did not get fired get to enjoy Obamacare - worth it to you is it not?

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.

sure it does...we just laid off a perfectly good employee because we could not afford her anymore...unfortunately, us telling the market to dump more money in our laps did not help....and cutting off the power and water did not save enough either...
Your assumption that there is some magic bullet is correct...the magic bullet is a reduction in workforce - the same amount of work being done by fewer employees...that is how it is "figured out" because that is typically the only solution left.

[_subgenius]

Or much less. Doctors have been threatening publicly (in polls and questionnaires) since Obamacare became a real possibility to leave the profession in numbers substantial enough that it should create a sense of alarm in the population. I fear though, that a clear majority of the population can no longer be alarmed by anything save the threat of even the slightest cuts in their "benefits."

well, i think the opportunity to expand the work force in health care is presenting itself...however, that was already a large demand and with this debacle of Obamacare we are going to see more professional abuse of the system as people are treated more like cattle due to the overwhelming demand. Training will be shortened, less opportunity for actual Doctor care, more 2nd tier treatments and more "creativity" in order to get hands on a grossly mismanaged system of healthcare - the government will waste an incredible amount of money on Obamacare and system abuse will increase while care decreases. Yes, we will adjust and works the kinks out, but the price paid for this ill-conceived approach is likely going to be dire.
Bad in equals bad out

[_bcspace]

As you will notice, the only way to stay within the "safe harbor" is to keep one's employees at 29 hours per week, and not let him/her gather any hours over that maximum in any given week.

That is correct. There is no way to know for sure what one is talking about when one says "part time" unless you ask for clarification, but in this particular area, employee benefits, one is often referring to a 30 hours demarcation.

Its also here in new IRS rules (which have been very cleverly written to trap employers by taking an average of hours worked over a 3 - 12 month period (the "look-back" period):

That is why employers are going to be extra stingy with the hours. Even limiting to well below 30 (say 25) to avoid problems. You'll see the remaining full time staff and managers filling in near the end of the week as the part timers are sent home. If there is an "accident" one week, you can be sure your hours will be drastically reduced the next week to make up for it.

i think the opportunity to expand the work force in health care is presenting itself

Except that as the government applies more price controls, there will be less incentive to work in that industry. But generally yes, it is one area of the economy that's still experiencing some growth. Insurance companies for sure with the Obamacare notion that everyone must buy insurance. But it's a false hope as the plan to continue to overburden healthcare so that the government will be called on to take over.

[_Jaybear]

Lets bring some reality to this thread.

99% of large companies (over 200 employees) provide insurance coverage for their employees.
If this was a local branch of a larger bank, then in all likelihood the bank already provided insurance coverage for it employees.

BC Space's belief that the bank reduced its workstaff to offset the additional costs of Obamacare, has no basis in reality.

[_Analytics]

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/11/121126-Health-Care-Industry-Changes-Cited-in-Layoffs-at-Two-Longtime-Firms.asp

even in my field we see layoffs that are directly related to Obamacare.

Not to mention how Obamacare is going to deal with the quality of care issue while we transition to a lot more patients with the same amount of doctors and nurses.

In case anybody is interested, the link says that a handful of architects who specialize in the design of hospitals have been laid off. Why, might you ask? Because hospitals have been postponing their expansion plans. Why, might you ask? Because the hospitals have been uncertain whether or not the Affordable Care Act would be repealed.

These layoffs weren’t caused by the ACA. They were caused by the uncertainty generated by those who have been trying to repeal it or have it stricken down in the courts.

As the ACA goes into effect and the uncertainty surrounding it resulves, hospitals will expand and this subfield of architecture will boom.

[_cinepro]

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.

CFR

(E) Full-time equivalents treated as full-time employees
Solely for purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer under this paragraph, an employer shall, in addition to the number of full-time employees for any month otherwise determined, include for such month a number of full-time employees determined by dividing the aggregate number of hours of service of employees who are not full-time employees for the month by 120.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4980H