Hello Obamacare, Goodbye Full Time Job

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Oct 9, 2012.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    As the date for the actual implementation of many of the provisions of Obamacare looms ever nearer, many employers are responding to the requirement that all full time employees get insurance coverage by cutting their employee's hours so that they don't have any (or very few) full time employees:


    So that should really help improve the quality of life for these employees. Instead of one full time job, now they get to work multiple part time jobs or take a pay cut as a result of working fewer hours. Thanks, Obamacare!

    This may be an "unintended consequence" of the law, but it was as predictable as the sun rising.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    What it is, is an anecdote.

    But, you do have a point: single-payer universal healthcare would have been much simpler and more effective. Too bad your team blocked that sensible option and left us with this Heritage Foundation plan that Mitt Romney pioneered in Massachussetts.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Consider decades of evidence of other countries achieving far less costly and yet equal or better health outcomes with socialized medicine I simply can't understand how American politicians can be so in denial of that option. Sure Free Market Capitalism works very well for many things, but huge amounts of evidence shows that providing cheap high quality medical coverage is not one of those things, why do we have politicians that believe in grossly simplistic ideologies like "private market is always better"? Is it because it's idiotically simple minded and thus easy to conceive? Is it because it favours the rich to believe in such ideas? Is it a combination of these things?

    Back on topic, verse continuing with the previous system of no insurance and insurance that can and did rip-off thousands of dieing people, Federal Romneycare (aka "Obamacare") is still a better options despite its obvious problems. Of course adding a single payer option would have been better still, despite complaints from insurance companies that said they could not be able to compete with government insurances (yet somehow private markets are always cheaper?)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Why don't they just make a Federal law saying that all businesses must pay for their own employees insurances? That way they could get huge group discounts and savings on policies that they buy.:shrug:
     
  8. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Easy question to answer. It's too simple to do that. Congress cannot pass ANY law that takes less than 300 pages to describe and MUST contain a lot of convoluted speech that can be interpreted 10 different ways by lawyers and the courts.

    Why? Another easy question: because most members of congress ARE lawyers and want job security when they fail to be re-elected.
     
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    That is basically what they did. The business in the OP is trying to skirt the requirements by reducing his full-time workforce in favor of part-time workers (the mandate only applies to businesses with more than a certain number of full-time employees).
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Because corporations are, apparently, perfect?

    When did 29.5 hours constitute a full-time job? When I worked food-service, the magic number was thirty-five hours; the company didn't want you accidentally treading onto thirty-seven. When the hell did we cut seven to eight hours from our expectation of full-time employment? (No, really, that's not sarcasm—I missed the transition.) And according to the article you provided, they're trying to avoid hitting thirty hours a week. Really? That is full time? I wish I could have had that standard when I was working retail.

    And one thing I would like to know is how you can honestly push this stuff and never stop to consider the companies themselves? As we've seen over and over again, when executives make bad decisions, the consequences are often laid on the workers. DRI's stock is doing better under Obama than it did under Bush.

    It's always easy to blame politicians, but one has to be incredibly naïve to take company executives at face value.

    Furthermore, the article you provided also notes that a company statement explained that they "simply do not have enough information to make any decisions at this time". Furthermore, the article notes that Darden "has been aggressively keeping labor costs down". This makes perfect sense to me; I worked for a couple chain restaurants once upon a time. A drop in labor costs from 33.1% to 30.8%? Okay. When I was with Pizza Hut, our franchise owner pitched a fit if you approached 30%; our target was 25%.

    And when I worked for Hollywood Video—you know, one of those chains that absolutely did not see the internet coming, and thus had no backup plan?—was opening four hundred stores a year in '95 and '96. They got into a labor fight with the state of Washington, saying the requirement to compensate employees for mandatory uniforms was an unfair financial burden. Really? I mean, is a business model that revolves entirely around expansion, and not product and service delivery, exempt from criticism?

    Once upon a time, the general capitalist business model was to find a need in the marketplace, fulfill that need, and make a profit while doing so. These days it seems more and more like fulfilling the needs, delivering products and services, is just an annoying burden that companies must suffer in order to collect revenue. (This was a huge problem among the dotcoms, who tried to create a need; the business model up here in the Pacific northwest tech corridor was to devise a gimmick, pitch for investment capital, and hold out long enough to be bought out, so that whatever problems profitability faced became the new parent company's headache.)

    But in your view, it seems, the problem is a policy plan devised by conservatives, advocated by Republicans, and implemented by a Republican. Now that a Democrat has followed that route, everything is his fault. You know, because a company's business model can't possibly be problematic.

    And while Darden may be the world's largest casual dining outfit, I think it would probably help profitability if their restaurants didn't absolutely suck. No, really. I don't think I know anyone who has eaten at a Red Lobster or Olive Garden in the last five years without being dragged there for some other reason, like a company lunch. If we want casual seafood in this area, you don't go to Red Lobster. You go to McGrath's, where the food isn't downright horrible. If you want casual Italian food, you don't go to Olive Garden. I mean, sure, there's the Old Spaghetti Factory, but it doesn't really matter—Olive Garden is terrible. Perhaps the best thing that can be said about Darden is that there are only about thirty Bahama Breeze restaurants.

    But, hey, when they want to pinch labor costs in order to boost their bottom line, it's fair to blame politicians, but their business model and execution are off limits?

    Horsepucky. The reality is that Darden is just being another stupid, greedy corporation. We see this all the time. When the economy is good, corporations pinch labor in order to "stay competitive". When the economy is rough, corporations pinch labor because the politicians are so unfair. You know, for all we hear about American exceptionalism, it astounds me how fragile our American businesses are—how much help they need from the government in order to (ahem!) stand on their own two feet. It's kind of like gun owners in that respect; it's striking to me how frightened firearms advocates are of the world.

    And, you know, if you don't like employer-based healthcare, or the Heritage Foundation plan, then get out of the way so we can build a responsible single-payer plan. I know, I know. Trillions on a war we didn't need to fight is all well and fine because Iraq is sitting on an ocean of oil. But a healthy society? Oh, God help us!

    And, hey, that reminds me of another point. I mean, I recognize that you're not a Christian or anything like that, but as a conservative, can you help me understand this weird relationship between evangelical Christianity and the absolute lack of compassion about the Republican economic agenda? Honestly, I can't figure it out. It's never made sense to me, and all these years later I still can't figure it out.

    Well, of course it was predictable. Companies large and small routinely blame the government for their own failures. That's one of those points that is filed under, "Duh".
     
  11. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    you know i'd be a lot more impressed if your article didn't focus on an industry known for refusing to comply with basic labor law.


    and thanks for blaimng obamacare on something that already happened.

    but than again we all know what kind of paragon of honesty and nondistortions you are

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Conservative American Christianity decisively ceased to have anything to do with the major teachings of Christ by the 1950's when it went into Cold War anti-Commie mode (if not before that). Since then, it's been all about sanctifying capitalism, militarism and Christian nationalism. It's become like a neo-Pagan or Norse belief system (wherein personal and national allegiance to the "right" God results in wealth, battlefield victory and Earthly power) with the face of Jesus pasted on the top - and the Viking belief in heroic sacrifice replaced with some limp-wristed crap about accepting Jesus as your personal savior.
     
  13. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
  14. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    Yes, companies until now haven't been transitioning full time positions into part time ones.

    Oh wait, yes they have. But hey, it's probably because they anticipated Obamacare decades ago.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Still is. Place I work weekend nights holds all weekend part-timers under 37. The reason is to avoid triggering benefit expenses - the policy dates back more than three years, to a bankruptcy reorganization that cut wages and replaced full time jobs with a slew of part time employees.

    If the owners can retroactively blame their employees's hardships on the President who wasn't involved, rather than the one they supported (W) who was, they will.

    The whole situation is a mess made by the rightwing fringe who demanded employer-paid health insurance - to avoid having to provide the jobless, especially black people, with health care. As long as they are willing to pony up the double price, endure the substandard care delivery, and suffer the job loss etc from the employer burden, there's little the rest of us can do but hope they all get sick and lose their houses, so the rest of us can maybe afford a place to live.
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    What's the alternative, Mad? Let them die?
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    This and That

    Checking the Math

    I suppose I should also make sure I'm reading both the article and the commentary correctly. Is it me, or is our topic poster trying to make a big deal out of a company that already schemes to keep its employees below a benefit threshold cutting one and a half hours out of the work week?

    Can you double-check me here, please?

    • "Darden said its goal at the test restaurants is to keep employees at 28 hours a week."

    • "At a new Olive Garden in Stillwater, Okla., former busboy Keaton Hasty said employees were routinely limited to 29 1/2 hours."​

    So, first of all, just to make certain I haven't lost it:

    .29.5
    -28.0
    ..1.5

    Am I missing something here? Did I botch my math?

    • "So that should really help improve the quality of life for these employees. Instead of one full time job, now they get to work multiple part time jobs or take a pay cut as a result of working fewer hours. Thanks, Obamacare!"​

    Because if I didn't botch the math, I'm left thinking:

    (1) Really?
    (2) One and a half hours?
    (3) From a company that already deliberately scheduled employees below a benefit threshold?
    (4) No ... really?​

    I mean, I know our Republican neighbors are desperate to slam their own plan as evil socialism that will destroy America and is all Barack Obama's fault, but ... well ... could you check my logic here, as well?

    • DRI, the largest casual dining chain in the world, routinely limits work hours according to a benefit threshold.

    • In order for the largest casual dining chain in the world to continue to routinely limit work hours according to a benefit threshold, they are considering lowering that threshold by one and a half hours a week.

    • The only thing that seems to have changed here is that the employees get one and a half hours a week less.

    • Because, apparently, the largest casual dining chain in the world cannot survive if their employees have decent benefits.

    • And this is apparently some hideously evil outcome that is all Barack Obama's fault.​

    I don't know, maybe I'm missing something in all that.

    But if I've got that part right, you're welcome to check me here, as well: Why does that argument look so anemic?

    • • •​

    Meanwhile, Somewhere in Time

    Here's a fun one.

    Okay, so the social conservatives, for decades, fretted about the immorality of premarital sex and cohabitation.

    Meanwhile, the economic conservatives argued for policies and ran companies in such a manner that people who worked full time could not get by.

    The result of this, of course, was that couples who weren't ready to get married went ahead and moved in together. I mean, they're working full time, and they can't cover their basic needs on their own, or if they can they have no sense of luxury or reward, so they consolidate in order to live in better prosperity than hand to mouth.

    The irony is beyond silly.

    And, you know, I still, to this day, adore Styx. I mention this because people who don't understand the big deal about cohabitation should at least understand that, yes, this was controversial in its day:

    [video=youtube;7fvPeoT2z00]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fvPeoT2z00[/video]​

    I mean, really, this kind of "living in sin" sentiment persisted through the '80s, and even managed to pop up every once in a while in the early and mid-'90s.

    And it still just blows my mind. The evangelicals vote for economic policies devoid of any compassion, and then scream about people living in sin in order to get by and not lose their mind over being treated like spent condoms in the gutter.

    And, well, hey, the economic conservatives? Sure, the social conservatives annoy them from time to time, but come on. For the economic conservatives the only thing that matters is profit. And so many of Christ's little sheep are happy to play along. Is it any wonder that we've arrived at neo-Calvinism in prosperity gospel? It may not be logical, but it is the easy way to assuage the obvious neurotic conflict of someone who identifies as a Christian constantly supporting political policies that Christ would reject.

    Now, in the twenty-first century, there are plenty of evangelicals who would argue that the health and wellbeing of their neighbors is not their concern. It's almost enough to make me wish there was a God in Heaven to judge us all. It would very nearly be worth it just to see the look on these apostate's faces when they found out they blew their ticket to paradise.
     
  18. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    Seriously though, why stop there? What about all of the "unintended consequences" of mandated Minimum Wage, OSHA restrictions, and Child Labor laws?

    Corporations would undoubtedly retain more employees, and give more hours, if only they could pay people three bucks an hour; without all that "safety in the workplace" bullshit, imagine how productivity--and executive bonuses--would soar; and were toddlers and adolescents gainfully employed, all that hooliganism wrought by latch-key kids and the like would radically abate.

    Thanks, labor activists!
     
  19. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Thirty hours is now full time because ObamaCare decreed that it must be so.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/feds-...me-for-obamacare/article/2507528#.UHTe55G9KK0
    Christianity is about personal morality. When you, personally, give to the poor or help your fellow man, you are following Christ. But when you pawn off charity and goodwill towards men on the government, you are removing choice from the equation. You are imposing by the force of government that which should be a matter of personal responsibility. You are removing morality from the equation altogether and substituting a government edict for the will of God.

    This fosters dependency among the poor and immorality and a loss of any sense of responsibility for our fellow men among the general public.

    If God only cared about tangible results, he could have ensured that we all always did what was right and only what was right by the simple expedient of not giving us free will. But an action is not correct in a moral sense unless that action was freely chosen. Thus a world of perfect automatons would be a world completely free of morality. There can be no right or wrong unless we are free to choose which path to take

    Freedom is our God given right, and our most profound responsibility. What is laudable and Christian when done by personal choice, is tyrannical and immoral when imposed by government force.

    Yes, you are missing the fact that the 30 hours as the definition of full time was part of ObamaCare. As you correctly pointed out earlier, that was never the case before. All the hours limitations being discussed (28, 29.5, etc) are designed to fall below the new ObamaCare threshold.
     
  20. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    um I'm pretty sure federal law requires full time to be all employees who work at least 32 hours.


    please note I'm not saying your wrong about their policy. I've worked in the restaurant industry and know just how shady it is. not am i saying that I believe with out a shadow of a doubt that the 32 hour number is hard.
     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    For starters, Obama didn’t decree it.

    So it is not ok to use government to help out your neighbor and exercise charity. But it is ok and a God given mandate to use government power to enforce other aspects of the Christian moral code (e.g. a woman’s right to choose or marriage law or the right to die, sexual morals, alcohol use, etc.); its’ kind of strange that charity and helping one’s neighbor and Christ’s teachings about wealth get a get out of jail free pass by people such as yourself when all other Christian moral teachings do not. An unbiased observer would call that a hypocrisy.
     
  22. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    so to reiterate your blaming a long and time honored tradition among businesses that pay people low wage jobs to fuck them out out of full time employee status on Obama?



    wow your your'll hard ass too bad your full of shit.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Please. That kind of reasoning would get you and your "religion" to quit politics altogether - something we liberals can't get you to do with a crowbar.

    We aren't pawning off charity and goodwill on the government. We're using our government, a very serviceable tool for the task, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, and tend the sick, as cannot fend for themselves. We don't think of it as charity, but responsibility, obligation,a matter of competence. If this activity aligns with your opinion on what some Deity's will is, it's coincidence - and it's much easier and cheaper for us to do stuff like that when you and your God are not involved.
     

Share This Page