Interesting ACA side effect
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() My son works at Jimmy John's and he came home from work last night laughing. He said all he11 was breaking out at work tonight because everyone there is hourly and have always been capped at 40 hrs. per week. They just announced that all employees are capped at 30 hours per week from now on due to Obamacare. He said most of the people there currently work 40 hours per week and are not too happy about the 10% pay cut. With the new ACA law any company that has more than 50 employees has to provide healthcare for full time employees (or pay a fine). They also state that anyone working over 30 hours per week is considered a full time employee. The guy who owns his franchise has a company that owns close to 60 stores nationwide. The last I talked to him he had around 1000 employees. I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of weird things like this in the year to come. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() that's a 25% pay cut, not 10%. he's working for a guy that caps their hours at 40 for the same reason - not obligated to provide OT or benefits - i'm not so surprised he's capping them at 30 now. this is going to happen to a lot of part-time type jobs. silver lining (maybe?) is those 10 hours per employee still need to be worked...this will create som part-time jobs for people that need them. Edited by mehaner 2012-11-16 11:01 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mehaner - 2012-11-16 10:59 AM that's a 25% pay cut, not 10%. he's working for a guy that caps their hours at 40 for the same reason - not obligated to provide OT or benefits - i'm not so surprised he's capping them at 30 now. this is going to happen to a lot of part-time type jobs. silver lining (maybe?) is those 10 hours per employee still need to be worked...this will create som part-time jobs for people that need them. oh, haha, my brain's not working yet today. somehow I made 10 hours less into 10%. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Yes, but when you create part-time jobs for which it takes two to replace the income of the previous one, it's not helping the economy at all. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() briderdt - 2012-11-16 12:05 PM Yes, but when you create part-time jobs for which it takes two to replace the income of the previous one, it's not helping the economy at all. i know it's not helping the overall economy but it is helping the 8% of the country that has no job right now that would be glad for a little cash flow. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() mehaner - 2012-11-16 12:09 PM briderdt - 2012-11-16 12:05 PM Yes, but when you create part-time jobs for which it takes two to replace the income of the previous one, it's not helping the economy at all. i know it's not helping the overall economy but it is helping the 8% of the country that has no job right now that would be glad for a little cash flow. Instead of spreading the wealth, you're spreading the borderline poverty... Seems like it just turns more people from "unemployed" to "underemployed". I almost want to order JJs today to ask my local delivery guy if they have the same story. Their subs are so fast you freak! |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mehaner - 2012-11-16 11:09 AM briderdt - 2012-11-16 12:05 PM Yes, but when you create part-time jobs for which it takes two to replace the income of the previous one, it's not helping the economy at all. i know it's not helping the overall economy but it is helping the 8% of the country that has no job right now that would be glad for a little cash flow. If you take a step back it's almost like the whole redistribution thing for minimum wage workers. taking 25% (dam, almost typed 10% again) away from one group to give it to another group who is currently unemployed. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Do you honestly think 95% of those 8% unemployed are going to take a part time job at or just above minimum wage? Come on! We all know that there are jobs out there, but most people are unwilling to work many of them. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2012-11-16 11:12 AM mehaner - 2012-11-16 12:09 PM briderdt - 2012-11-16 12:05 PM Yes, but when you create part-time jobs for which it takes two to replace the income of the previous one, it's not helping the economy at all. i know it's not helping the overall economy but it is helping the 8% of the country that has no job right now that would be glad for a little cash flow. Instead of spreading the wealth, you're spreading the borderline poverty... Seems like it just turns more people from "unemployed" to "underemployed". I almost want to order JJs today to ask my local delivery guy if they have the same story. Their subs are so fast you freak! They are freaky fast. Putting my business hat on I would think they'd almost have to do this, or else significantly increase their prices. If you're entire business model has a fixed employee cost of $8/hr. you're basically spending $1280/mo. for each FTE employee. With ACA assuming you went the fine route which would probably be cheaper than purchasing actual insurance it would be $2000 per year or roughly $1/hr. of additional expense. That would be a 12.5% increase in your employee costs in a business that likely makes a gross profit of around 8%-10% of revenues. Something has to give. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() borsenik9 - 2012-11-16 11:16 AM Do you honestly think 95% of those 8% unemployed are going to take a part time job at or just above minimum wage? Come on! We all know that there are jobs out there, but most people are unwilling to work many of them. Because Uncle Barack is giving them indefinite unemployment that's more than minimum wage. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mehaner - 2012-11-16 9:09 AM briderdt - 2012-11-16 12:05 PM Yes, but when you create part-time jobs for which it takes two to replace the income of the previous one, it's not helping the economy at all. i know it's not helping the overall economy but it is helping the 8% of the country that has no job right now that would be glad for a little cash flow. The only person it's helping is the politician who points to the false number and trumpets on about how many jobs are being created. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2012-11-16 12:20 PM GomesBolt - 2012-11-16 11:12 AM mehaner - 2012-11-16 12:09 PM briderdt - 2012-11-16 12:05 PM Yes, but when you create part-time jobs for which it takes two to replace the income of the previous one, it's not helping the economy at all. i know it's not helping the overall economy but it is helping the 8% of the country that has no job right now that would be glad for a little cash flow. Instead of spreading the wealth, you're spreading the borderline poverty... Seems like it just turns more people from "unemployed" to "underemployed". I almost want to order JJs today to ask my local delivery guy if they have the same story. Their subs are so fast you freak! They are freaky fast. Putting my business hat on I would think they'd almost have to do this, or else significantly increase their prices. If you're entire business model has a fixed employee cost of $8/hr. you're basically spending $1280/mo. for each FTE employee. With ACA assuming you went the fine route which would probably be cheaper than purchasing actual insurance it would be $2000 per year or roughly $1/hr. of additional expense. That would be a 12.5% increase in your employee costs in a business that likely makes a gross profit of around 8%-10% of revenues. Something has to give. I highly doubt they make that much. Then again, your son works for them. Does he really make $8/hr? Here they ride a bike to deliver and they charge like $0.07 to deliver a Beach Club with sprouts.
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2012-11-16 11:21 AM tuwood - 2012-11-16 12:20 PM GomesBolt - 2012-11-16 11:12 AM mehaner - 2012-11-16 12:09 PM briderdt - 2012-11-16 12:05 PM Yes, but when you create part-time jobs for which it takes two to replace the income of the previous one, it's not helping the economy at all. i know it's not helping the overall economy but it is helping the 8% of the country that has no job right now that would be glad for a little cash flow. Instead of spreading the wealth, you're spreading the borderline poverty... Seems like it just turns more people from "unemployed" to "underemployed". I almost want to order JJs today to ask my local delivery guy if they have the same story. Their subs are so fast you freak! They are freaky fast. Putting my business hat on I would think they'd almost have to do this, or else significantly increase their prices. If you're entire business model has a fixed employee cost of $8/hr. you're basically spending $1280/mo. for each FTE employee. With ACA assuming you went the fine route which would probably be cheaper than purchasing actual insurance it would be $2000 per year or roughly $1/hr. of additional expense. That would be a 12.5% increase in your employee costs in a business that likely makes a gross profit of around 8%-10% of revenues. Something has to give. I highly doubt they make that much. Then again, your son works for them. Does he really make $8/hr? Here they ride a bike to deliver and they charge like $0.07 to deliver a Beach Club with sprouts.
I was rounding up for easy ciphering. Current minimum wage is $7.25/hr. They start their employees at $7.25 and give them a raise to $7.50 after 90 days or something like that. Drivers get some kind of per delivery fee to cover gas money. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]()
The problem now is those people who are cut to 30 hours a week still have to have insurance due to the mandate. Their employer can't afford it and we all know they won't be able to afford it, especially after their 25% pay cut, so guess what, Johnny tax payer gets to pay for it through the subsidized insurance exchanges. Wonderful ain't it? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Aarondb4 - 2012-11-16 12:33 PM
The problem now is those people who are cut to 30 hours a week still have to have insurance due to the mandate. Their employer can't afford it and we all know they won't be able to afford it, especially after their 25% pay cut, so guess what, Johnny tax payer gets to pay for it through the subsidized insurance exchanges. Wonderful ain't it? they already don't have health insurance, so we are already paying it through CHIP/medicare/medicaid/price inflation for our medical services to cover non-paying patients. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() mehaner - 2012-11-16 12:48 PM Aarondb4 - 2012-11-16 12:33 PM
The problem now is those people who are cut to 30 hours a week still have to have insurance due to the mandate. Their employer can't afford it and we all know they won't be able to afford it, especially after their 25% pay cut, so guess what, Johnny tax payer gets to pay for it through the subsidized insurance exchanges. Wonderful ain't it? they already don't have health insurance, so we are already paying it through CHIP/medicare/medicaid/price inflation for our medical services to cover non-paying patients. True. So did Obamacare change anything? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2012-11-16 12:52 PM mehaner - 2012-11-16 12:48 PM Aarondb4 - 2012-11-16 12:33 PM
The problem now is those people who are cut to 30 hours a week still have to have insurance due to the mandate. Their employer can't afford it and we all know they won't be able to afford it, especially after their 25% pay cut, so guess what, Johnny tax payer gets to pay for it through the subsidized insurance exchanges. Wonderful ain't it? they already don't have health insurance, so we are already paying it through CHIP/medicare/medicaid/price inflation for our medical services to cover non-paying patients. True. So did Obamacare change anything? i'm not sure. possibly costs of services will come down when providers know that everyone coming to them has coverage and they will be paid? i know that part of the theory behind ACA was that they are more likely to get preventative care and therefore not require expensive emergency care, but i don't really buy that argument. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I am afraid it will just lead to more abuse of the system. Right now we have people going into the ER for a hangnail, they know they don't have coverage but figure it'll be paid for. Now everyone is covered so why not go in. Oh the doctor is a 3 week wait? Forget it, I have Obamacare I'll go to the ER too. In my mind it removes the shame of abusing a resource as everyone is now "covered" but who knows how it will really shake out. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() If you have been scanning the news, this has been going on in most restaurant chains. Olive Garden/Red Lobster parent company has already implemented this. If you look, you can see most any franchise is doing it. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I worked at McDonald's as a kid. There was a guy there everyone there was like Wow your taking a week off. Why? He worked there 40 hours a week for 5 years not missing 1 day and he was part time. Not sure why they are cutting the hours unless they say its 40 hours and not full time. Side note: I was threatened to be suspend or fired once because I got OT one week. Basicly told me next time punch out and work off the clock to avoid it. yeah papa johns guy said can not afford .14 per pizza for his guys. Funny though he can give away 2 million pizzas but not health care. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2012-11-16 11:52 AM mehaner - 2012-11-16 12:48 PM Aarondb4 - 2012-11-16 12:33 PM
The problem now is those people who are cut to 30 hours a week still have to have insurance due to the mandate. Their employer can't afford it and we all know they won't be able to afford it, especially after their 25% pay cut, so guess what, Johnny tax payer gets to pay for it through the subsidized insurance exchanges. Wonderful ain't it? they already don't have health insurance, so we are already paying it through CHIP/medicare/medicaid/price inflation for our medical services to cover non-paying patients. True. So did Obamacare change anything? I'm not 100% sure how Obamacare works with the poor, but in my example above the Jimmy John's people will be required to have insurance now which they have to buy on the exchange. I'm sure they will get subsidized (probably 100%) because of their income level. They never had insurance before and demographically they are younger people who rarely use medical services. So I know we talk about the ACA getting more people on the insurance providers to offset the costs of the people who actually use their insurance, but I don't see it working that way because all of the people are going to be funded by the Govt. I just see the government footing the bill to put a bunch of people on Obamacare for a paltry $70/mo. (or whatever it is) and they will now start going to the doctor for sniffles where they never did before driving the demand for healthcare through the roof and prices are going to soar. (increase demand increases costs without increased supply) I'm obviously not a big fan of Obamacare, but I'm genuinely trying to understand it. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() chirunner134 - 2012-11-16 12:08 PM I worked at McDonald's as a kid. There was a guy there everyone there was like Wow your taking a week off. Why? He worked there 40 hours a week for 5 years not missing 1 day and he was part time. Not sure why they are cutting the hours unless they say its 40 hours and not full time. Side note: I was threatened to be suspend or fired once because I got OT one week. Basicly told me next time punch out and work off the clock to avoid it. yeah papa johns guy said can not afford .14 per pizza for his guys. Funny though he can give away 2 million pizzas but not health care. Every business has expenses and any increase in those expenses is felt and the owners have to decide what to do. They can choose to eat the expense, pass it on to their customers, or take it out on their employees. I have no idea what Papa Johns makes profit wise per pizza, but if they're only making .10 per pizza of profit then .14 per pizza is a massive expense. Even if it's .50 a pizza an almost 30% drop in the bottom line is HUGE. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() mehaner - 2012-11-16 8:59 AM that's a 25% pay cut, not 10%. he's working for a guy that caps their hours at 40 for the same reason - not obligated to provide OT or benefits - i'm not so surprised he's capping them at 30 now. this is going to happen to a lot of part-time type jobs. silver lining (maybe?) is those 10 hours per employee still need to be worked...this will create som part-time jobs for people that need them. Cheers to you for seeing the glass half full,,,,,,,,, I'm just not sure what the glass has in it though. I've not read past your post but I'm guessing the greedy business owner bashing will begin in 3,,,,, 2,,,,, |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mehaner - 2012-11-16 11:59 AM that's a 25% pay cut, not 10%. he's working for a guy that caps their hours at 40 for the same reason - not obligated to provide OT or benefits - i'm not so surprised he's capping them at 30 now. this is going to happen to a lot of part-time type jobs. silver lining (maybe?) is those 10 hours per employee still need to be worked...this will create som part-time jobs for people that need them. This is one of the reasons we NEED something like the ACA. People can work full time and not get health care coverage. So small problems will get neglected and turn into big problems. Big problems get poorly managed due to the costs of medicines or follow up and become catastrophic problems. Catastrophic problems wipe families out, leaving no one better off. I'm not saying every cold ends up costing people their homes. I'm saying in a first world country, a person who is willing and able to work full time ought to receive wages that allow them to live and to not be wiped out by chance medical occurences. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() gearboy - 2012-11-16 10:22 AM mehaner - 2012-11-16 11:59 AM that's a 25% pay cut, not 10%. he's working for a guy that caps their hours at 40 for the same reason - not obligated to provide OT or benefits - i'm not so surprised he's capping them at 30 now. this is going to happen to a lot of part-time type jobs. silver lining (maybe?) is those 10 hours per employee still need to be worked...this will create som part-time jobs for people that need them. This is one of the reasons we NEED something like the ACA. People can work full time and not get health care coverage. So small problems will get neglected and turn into big problems. Big problems get poorly managed due to the costs of medicines or follow up and become catastrophic problems. Catastrophic problems wipe families out, leaving no one better off. I'm not saying every cold ends up costing people their homes. I'm saying in a first world country, a person who is willing and able to work full time ought to receive wages that allow them to live and to not be wiped out by chance medical occurences.
And the mental health field will have a bigger customer base. |
|