Political & Elections

longprime · Guru

RE: Employers using the loopholes for Obamacare

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I wonder if they made Carter ay back HIS Naval Academy tuition?

longprime · Guru

Pima="I have said it before my Mom's friend's 4 grandchildren graduated from Yale, Harvard and Brown last spring. Luckily for them the folks paid so they have no debt. However, one of them is working at DC Cupcakes (yes, the TLC show) behind the counter selling cupcakes. Two are still unemployed. One is employed in China using a family connection to get the job, and didn't want to go to China, but a job is a job. These are Ivy league grads that can afford to wait for a job because they are affluent."

I read many things from this. A J.O.B. can be filled by anyone. An IVY league degree is only a piece of paper unless one puts it to use-ie Romney, Obama, Clinton, BushHW, BushW, Carter(Navy Acad-never graduated because of family responsibilities). Maybe if the parents didn't support these kids as much as they did, and the kids shouldn't have depended on the parents, the kids would have more initiative. They have health insurance till 26, because of ObamaCare. And maybe it is the children's 2 years of the Mission? IOW, just more maternal (Socialist) care.

longprime · Guru

The Libertarian in me would just rather say, we should do away with benefits. Builds character, makes people be aware that one should do everything possible to take care of one's health and family, aka LDS. I also see benefits as a way to stifle individual initiative and creativity. In many aspects of LDS's tenent for doing 2 year missions for young people, is to help the young better understand this and to see how the otherside functions or not. If anything, those people who work for companies that use loopholes oughta come to a fast understanding that it is better to be in the business/wealthy class than to be wage slave.

Caught a glimpse of Frontline this which profiled the basis of both Romney and Obama 2012 campaigns. Romney saw that MA was going broke from Medicare/Medicaid. He discovered a white paper from the Heritage Foudation that advocated the "individual mandate" (google it). Who would've known ?!!

pima · Guru

You are correct it is the new reality, and people need to realize that those who supported the Obamacare program will now have to adjust to it very soon and it will appear in the form of companies moving from FT to PT.

What is scary SLS is the fact that it has been talked about the next big bubble bursting will be student loans. Your DS is not alone. I have said it before my Mom's friend's 4 grandchildren graduated from Yale, Harvard and Brown last spring. Luckily for them the folks paid so they have no debt. However, one of them is working at DC Cupcakes (yes, the TLC show) behind the counter selling cupcakes. Two are still unemployed. One is employed in China using a family connection to get the job, and didn't want to go to China, but a job is a job. These are Ivy league grads that can afford to wait for a job because they are affluent. There are more people like your DS SLS that can't wait, and a job is a job.

When we were home a month ago, we were discussing this with the kids, and they had this pipe dream of how much they would get paid, and would get it because of her college degree, experience, etc. My SIL is a sr. executive and she stated, to even her DD she was fooling herself. That this is an employers market, not an employee market. You don't want it at the salary/hrs/bennies being offered there are 100 college grads behind you who will take it at what is offered.

That is the same here regarding the loophole. They know that they may lose some applicants, but not a lot to make them change their position when the unemployment rate is as high as it is. Maybe when we get it back to 5% they will change their minds, but right now they don't have to do that.

So I hope everyone who thought Obamacare might not impact them because they are employed, be ready to be in the Obamacare system.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Part time, no benefits is a scary place to be. One of my kids was offered a temp project at his old job at his now alma mater. He was excited at prospect of 3 months of full time work. As he signed the new paperwork, he found out he was limited to 19.5 hours per work, spread over 6 months. If he worked more per week he would have t get benefits. So now his commute 3 days a week is eaten up by gas costs and it isn't paying his bills. His student loans are coming up out of grace period, and he isn't banking enough. Fortunately he can live at home, but I know he wouldn't have said yes to this gig if he knew he was limited on hours. It is the new reality.

pima · Guru

For all those of you who truly believed that the opposition's concern regarding companies would work the system to get them out of paying for health insurance, here you go.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-darden-part-time-workers-20121007,0,1505128.story

Analysts say many other companies, including the White Castle hamburger chain, are considering employing fewer full-timers because of key features of the Affordable Care Act scheduled to go into effect in 2014. Under that law, large companies must provide affordable health insurance to employees working an average of at least 30 hours per week.

Darden, the world's largest casual-dining company and one of the nation's 30 largest employers, said it offers health insurance to all its approximately 185,000 employees. Many are offered a limited-benefit plan. That type of coverage is being phased out under health-care changes, which will ban annual limits for most plans.

About 25 percent of Darden workers are full time, meaning they work more than 30 hours a week. Though employees say Darden already offers traditional health insurance to full-timers, Janney Capital Markets analyst Mark Kalinowski said the cost of providing that could become higher for Darden under the Affordable Care Act. Because that law requires everyone to have health insurance, more workers will likely choose its coverage, Kalinowski said.

"Even a modest jump up in the amount of employees that decide they want the insurance you're offering could have a meaningful impact on your bottom line," he said.

Under the system Darden is testing, employees are to be scheduled for no more than 28 hours each week. They can run over that if things get busy, but Darden acknowledged they are not supposed to exceed 30 hours.

I understand these are low wage companies, but the fact is a job is a job, and 10 hrs more a week means a lot to them financially.

This is just the start of it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/09/ceo-threatens-fire-employees-if-obama-reelected-and-raises-taxes#ixzz28qF4kybK

I know this is a blog, I am only linking it for the letter portion.

To: [All employees]

To All My Valued Employees,

As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best. [...]

Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel

These are just 2 articles I have seen this a.m., and if you do the count, it is 5 companies that will change their employment position to the negative for hundreds of thousands of American employees. They aren't going to change their bottom line regarding profits, instead they are going to find a way to keep their bottom line and that idealistic belief that there won't be more people than predicted will only occur in the United States of Utopia.

That is also before we find out the fall out from sequestration. Companies like Lockheed, Rand, Raytheon, Boeing, L3 Comm might follow Darden's philosophy to save jobs by reducing hrs to keep their bottom line. The thing is with those companies, they can easily get college students to intern and do the menial things that take up hrs in the week for an employee. I.E. xeroxing papers, delivering inter-office mail, answering phones, etc. They don't have to pay them, and college kids will do it in a heart beat for the hopes that it will give them a shot of being hired full time upon graduation.

Or they could also take a page from the Microsoft playbook, hiring them through a temp employment agency on a week to week basis. Employment agencies wouldn't have to pay health insurance either since they are not employing these people.

Welcome to reality of what Obamacare will really look like in 2014 from an employee perspective. In other words many of us who have private insurance may be forced to go into that system because we lost the option to not join.