Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[Newtons Bit]

Good.

Also expect the cost of retail goods to go up when retailers are forced to pay a greater percentage of employee healthcare (not to mention the change over from full time jobs to part time). No one really thinks they are just going to suck it up?

No, of course not! They're going to drop their employees to 29 hours a week

 

[DGM]

No, of course not! They're going to drop their employees to 29 hours a week

Already happening. In retail, 29 is the magic number, few new hires work more than that.

 

[plague311]

Already happening. In retail, 29 is the magic number, few new hires work more than that.

********, I work for the largest online retailer in the entire world and we are hiring all of our people at 40+ (Lots of over time).

Unless you can provide any evidence. However, considering I am registering and training the employees that we are bringing in, I am going to say that you're just guessing or maybe have a specific example. Broad sweeping generalizations are bogus though, and your statement is a lie.

ETA: Which just goes to show that it's not the ACA causing people to decrease their hours, it's the employers that are more concerned about their bottom line. I am lucky enough where I work for a company that doesn't engage in such stupid and childish behavior. It must be a real bitch to work for a company that acts like that. My wife, also, runs a tech support desk for McDonalds nationwide. They also are hiring people at full 40 hour weeks. In fact, I can't think of a place off the top of my head that ISN'T hiring at full time, at least in my area.

 

[remirol]

Already happening. In retail, 29 is the magic number, few new hires work more than that.

Wal-Mart, darling of conservatives, tried to go that route. Didn't work out.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rs-obamacare-not-such-a-job-killer-after-all/

For anyone who has not been following the Wal-Mart saga, sales have been sinking dramatically at the retailer as the company has turned to hiring mostly temporary workers (those who must reapply for a job every 180 days) to staff their stores while cutting full-time employees’ hours down to part-time status in order to avoid providing workers with healthcare benefits.

The result?

Empty shelves, ridiculously long check-out lines, helpless customers wandering through the electronics section and general disorganization at Wal-Mart store locations.

Of course, there's always Costco's example if you want to see how having employees who are at least "OK"* with coming to work each day is beneficial to a company...



* It's a bit much to expect everyone to be "happy" to come to work; that's why it's called work.

 

[elbe]

********, I work for the largest online retailer in the entire world and we are hiring all of our people at 40+ (Lots of over time).

Unless you can provide any evidence. However, considering I am registering and training the employees that we are bringing in, I am going to say that you're just guessing or maybe have a specific example. Broad sweeping generalizations are bogus though, and your statement is a lie.

ETA: Which just goes to show that it's not the ACA causing people to decrease their hours, it's the employers that are more concerned about their bottom line. I am lucky enough where I work for a company that doesn't engage in such stupid and childish behavior. It must be a real bitch to work for a company that acts like that. My wife, also, runs a tech support desk for McDonalds nationwide. They also are hiring people at full 40 hour weeks. In fact, I can't think of a place off the top of my head that ISN'T hiring at full time, at least in my area.

I think there are some companies decreasing their hours because of the ACA, but they appeared to have been doing it for political purposes (well ahead of any regulatory changes and making a lot of press over it).

 

[Kestrel]

I think there are some companies decreasing their hours because of the ACA, but they appeared to have been doing it for political purposes (well ahead of any regulatory changes and making a lot of press over it).

Companies that did so paid a horrendous price in public perception.

Papa John’s had good reason for concern as the pizza chain’s brand identity has plummeted from a high of 32 on election day, to a remarkably low score of 4 among adults who have eaten at causal dining restaurants during the past month.

 

[plague311]

Companies that did so paid a horrendous price in public perception.

I am absolutely the same way, not that my family and I were really huge on Papa Johns anyway. When I read the article about his actions over Obamacare I straight up refuse to eat\order his pizza. It's just a pathetic way of doing business. Especially since he's giving away 2 million pizzas for the football season.

I think there are some companies decreasing their hours because of the ACA, but they appeared to have been doing it for political purposes (well ahead of any regulatory changes and making a lot of press over it).

Right, but even with that they're not doing it because of ACA. There is no provision in the law that says you have to decrease the hours of your employees. They are actively doing it on their own to line their pockets.

 

[Drysdale]

No cronyism here.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/m...tive-at-company-that-built-obamacare-website/

Hope and change and out with the old ways huh?

 

[plague311]

No cronyism here.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/m...tive-at-company-that-built-obamacare-website/

Hope and change and out with the old ways huh?

Is there a point here? It doesn't look like Michelle or her classmate had anything to do with the decision making process. It doesn't even say they're friends, have met before, or know each other.

So...again, who cares? They went to Princeton and graduated together. It openly states in the article that the company worked for Bush. Is this some long term conspiracy?

 

[DGM]

********, I work for the largest online retailer in the entire world and we are hiring all of our people at 40+ (Lots of over time).

Unless you can provide any evidence. However, considering I am registering and training the employees that we are bringing in, I am going to say that you're just guessing or maybe have a specific example. Broad sweeping generalizations are bogus though, and your statement is a lie.

ETA: Which just goes to show that it's not the ACA causing people to decrease their hours, it's the employers that are more concerned about their bottom line. I am lucky enough where I work for a company that doesn't engage in such stupid and childish behavior. It must be a real bitch to work for a company that acts like that. My wife, also, runs a tech support desk for McDonalds nationwide. They also are hiring people at full 40 hour weeks. In fact, I can't think of a place off the top of my head that ISN'T hiring at full time, at least in my area.

You want me to provide an example but in the same post you concede it is going on?

HomeDepot. Apply for a full time local job and see what happens. I work part time for them (I don't need it but, their 401K is good and I'm a workaholic). Up until last year they had no problem with me working as many hours as I wanted. Now it's 29 or less although we appreciate the effort. Not one full time person that has left has been replaced with another full timer. I have seen the two PT for one FT sale in every case to date. This is not news to people that work in the local stores.

Challenge: Walk into any retail store after 6 PM and ask if the number 29 means anything to them. You'll be surprised.

 

[tyr_13]

Wal-Mart, darling of conservatives, tried to go that route. Didn't work out.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rs-obamacare-not-such-a-job-killer-after-all/




Of course, there's always Costco's example if you want to see how having employees who are at least "OK"* with coming to work each day is beneficial to a company...



* It's a bit much to expect everyone to be "happy" to come to work; that's why it's called work.

The article forgot about the increase in injuries, payouts because of those injuries, and the lost lawsuit because workloads absolutely precluded taking legally mandated breaks.

Not that they'll learn.

 

[DGM]

Wal-Mart, darling of conservatives, tried to go that route. Didn't work out.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rs-obamacare-not-such-a-job-killer-after-all/




Of course, there's always Costco's example if you want to see how having employees who are at least "OK"* with coming to work each day is beneficial to a company...



* It's a bit much to expect everyone to be "happy" to come to work; that's why it's called work.

Part time is not temp. This has nothing to do with the 29 hour argument.

 

[plague311]

You want me to provide an example but in the same post you concede it is going on?

No, read my post again. I said it isn't Obamacare that is making it happen, it is the choice of the employer.

HomeDepot. Apply for a full time local job and see what happens. I work part time for them (I don't need it but, their 401K is good and I'm a workaholic). Up until last year they had no problem with me working as many hours as I wanted. Now it's 29 or less although we appreciate the effort. Not one full time person that has left has been replaced with another full timer. I have seen the two PT for one FT sale in every case to date. This is not news to people that work in the local stores.

Ok, so like I said, you have one isolated incident that you're applying to the masses of retail stores. I gave two examples of exactly what I was referring too, and you give a personal experience. You were HIRED AS PART TIME. You said it in your post. Part time isn't over 29 hours a week. You said it's something they just started, but that makes no sense. Unless your hired as full time they don't need to provide you with benefits anyway, YOU'RE AN ADMITTED PART TIME EMPLOYEE.

Challenge: Walk into any retail store after 6 PM and ask if the number 29 means anything to them. You'll be surprised.

I dismiss your challenge. Like I said, I work for a retail company. I don't work past 6 because I don't want too. Since I was apart of the hiring I have the ability to speak for them, and I know they're being hired for 40 hours a week. If I said, "29" to them, they'd probably correct me with their age.

Your statement is at best aimed at specific situations.

 

[Unabogie]

The rules for large businesses were delayed for one year, which means that no company will face any penalty whatsoever for not providing insurance until 2015. So anyone saying that they are cutting back hours in 2013, in advance of rule changes that don't start for 15 months, even though they need those workers, is just full of crap. Isn't that obvious on its face?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The rules for large businesses were delayed for one year, which means that no company will face any penalty whatsoever for not providing insurance until 2015. So anyone saying that they are cutting back hours in 2013, in advance of rule changes that don't start for 15 months, even though they need those workers, is just full of crap. Isn't that obvious on its face?

Any excuse to blame Obama.

 

[DGM]

The rules for large businesses were delayed for one year, which means that no company will face any penalty whatsoever for not providing insurance until 2015. So anyone saying that they are cutting back hours in 2013, in advance of rule changes that don't start for 15 months, even though they need those workers, is just full of crap. Isn't that obvious on its face?

Anything you say.

Accept the challenge and see for yourself.

 

[DGM]

You were HIRED AS PART TIME. You said it in your post. Part time isn't over 29 hours a week. You said it's something they just started, but that makes no sense. Unless your hired as full time they don't need to provide you with benefits anyway, YOU'RE AN ADMITTED PART TIME EMPLOYEE.

No argument here. I don't want over 20 hours. During the busy season we have been told flat out, "do not go over 29".

I also know we are redesigning the freight receiving system to do it all with part time help. No more over-night.

Two years ago there was 7 FT(40 hours) and 9 PT (working 32 hours plus). Now 3 FT(40+hours) and 18 PT(working 20 max).

 

[DGM]

The rules for large businesses were delayed for one year, which means that no company will face any penalty whatsoever for not providing insurance until 2015. So anyone saying that they are cutting back hours in 2013, in advance of rule changes that don't start for 15 months, even though they need those workers, is just full of crap. Isn't that obvious on its face?

When these rules kick in. Who do you think will take the hit on the bottom line, the consumer or the company?

You do agree that consumer prices are going to go up?

 

[Unabogie]

Anything you say.

Accept the challenge and see for yourself.

When these rules kick in. Who do you think will take the hit on the bottom line, the consumer or the company?

You do agree that consumer prices are going to go up?

You answered me twice and in neither post did you address my point. There is ZERO reason for any company to change their hiring practices now, even if they thought they wanted to in order to avoid treating their employees well. None. Zip. Nada. The rules don't kick in for 15 months, so any company claiming to be scaling back hours NOW is doing it for other reasons and lying about it in order to smear Obamacare or cover up the real reasons.

Also, there's a thing called data.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/...or-pay-obamacare-mandate-in-the-data-yet.html

So far, there's absolutely no evidence that a shift has started.

 

[DGM]

You answered me twice and in neither post did you address my point. There is ZERO reason for any company to change their hiring practices now, even if they thought they wanted to in order to avoid treating their employees well. None. Zip. Nada. The rules don't kick in for 15 months, so any company claiming to be scaling back hours NOW is doing it for other reasons and lying about it in order to smear Obamacare or cover up the real reasons.

Also, there's a thing called data.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/...or-pay-obamacare-mandate-in-the-data-yet.html

So far, there's absolutely no evidence that a shift has started.

We'll see.

When they do. can you answer the question as to who will pick up the cost? You do know most large retailers don't actually pay much into an employees health benefit? They offer an option to buy into a bulk plan. It's slightly better than market but it does not come out of the bottom line. Consumer prices will rise, do you agree?