Skip to main content

View Diary: My hours are cut and I'm told to "thank Obama" (68 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This was clearly a predictable result of the ACA (15+ / 0-)

    It doesn't take much to figure out that, if you have an employee that works over 30 hours, each hour that employee works costs the employer more (because you add the cost of health insurance to each hour worked).

    Anyone could have predicted that, if you have to provide health insurance for every employee with more than 30 hours (increasing the cost of each hour worked), then the financial incentive for employers would be to hire more employees at less than 30 hours each over fewer employees at over 30 hours each.   It costs the employer less per hour worked that way.  It's simple math. This is not a big surprise.

    The surprise is that no one in Congress  acknowledged the clear financial incentives for employers written into the ACA.  

    •  The increased number of employees will send (6+ / 0-)

      the cost of disability insurance much higher.  Your company should compare that expense and the value of having happy healthy employees who do not want to leave at first opportunity, thus saving hiring and training expenses.

      If love could have saved you, you would have lived forever. & http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Okiciyap

      by weck on Sat Jun 15, 2013 at 05:47:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stop, you're killing me. (4+ / 0-)
        Your company should compare that expense and the value of having happy healthy employees who do not want to leave at first opportunity, thus saving hiring and training expenses.
      •  This is a simple economic calculation (8+ / 0-)

        Businesses don't hire employees to make people happy. They hire employees if, and only if, the employees make the business more profitable.  When you increase the cost per hour of that employee, you decrease the profitability of that employee.  

        When you have such a stark increase in the cost of a employee when he/she works over 30 hours, the clear financial incentive, for anyone who can work a calculator, is to have employee work under 30 hours.  Anyone with half a brain who read the ACA could see this incentive in the bill.  I agree that it's a bad and stupid incentive. But that's the financial incentive that was written into the ACA.  It makes no sense to blame a business for doing the exact thing that the ACA makes financially more attractive -- hiring more part time employees over fewer full time employees. Really, does anyone seriously expect business to take the path that is LESS financially attractive?

      •  you would think, but... (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weck, akeitz, True North, BusyinCA, Eyesbright

        it is too easy to find a replacement.  The company pays the highest in the region, (normal pay is $11.50 to $13.50, we start at $14 with 1% annual increases for the next three years) so the management likes to claim the high ground that "we pay better than anyone else here" and that we should be happy to have what job we have.

        The cost of more workers should not be that much vs increased cost from the new insurance rules.  Part time workers cost less for workers comp, and if they are hurt, there is no requirement to give them light duty.

        They get hurt, you pay the medical bills and when they get cleared for duty, put them back to work.  Full timers have to get light duty so they can keep the pay checks going.  (sprained my ankle moving an obese person, the company paid all the medical bills and covered the physical therapy, but I could not work for three months. I was lucky my other part time jobs would let me work.)

        Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

        by DrillSgtK on Sat Jun 15, 2013 at 05:59:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Each situation is unique, but anyone who could (5+ / 0-)

          get a better job would leave wouldn't they?  High turnover is detrimental to the company; the Costco model works! The Wegman's model works!  Treat your employees well and they will treat the customers well.

          If love could have saved you, you would have lived forever. & http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Okiciyap

          by weck on Sat Jun 15, 2013 at 06:08:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not necessarily true. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward, Gooserock

            High turnover is sometimes built into certain businesses. I have a friend who owns a restaurant and even when he offers good wages and benefits compared to his competition, there's a big turnover.Offering something just a little bit better than his competition (you can't offer a HUGE difference from your competition without making your prices not competitive) often doesn't make a difference in your turnover rate.  Businesses can track and measure that.      

            If this were a tight job market, where losing an employee meant you couldn't find someone else, you might be right.  But in today's job market, for jobs that don't require highly technically skilled workers, it's just not true that turnover costs you a lot of money.  Turnover only costs a lot of money when the employer has to invest a significant training cost in an employee. If the job does not require a lot of training time and cost on the part of the employer, then turnover doesn't cost all that much and is simply a part of the business model.  

            •  Can we agree that ^ is a poor business model to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FiredUpInCA

              strive for?  

              If love could have saved you, you would have lived forever. & http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Okiciyap

              by weck on Sat Jun 15, 2013 at 06:37:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, we cannot. It depends. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                johnny wurster

                If turnover in certain positions does not cost the business very much, then it is a better "business model" to have each employee cost less and have higher turnover than it does to have each employee cost more and have less turnover.  

                Businesses actually measure the cost of a new employee.  (I know we do.)  In some positions, turnover costs more than in other positions.  Whether planning for a certain amount of turnover is a "poor business model" or a good business model depends on a number of things, including the costs associated with turnover.  

                In other words, it depends on the business and the position the employee holds.  Any successful business can actually calculate those things.  

            •  I was told by my father that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eyesbright

              offering a slight premium made it important for employees to care about doing a good job.

    •  The affordable Care Act will bring many more jobs (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eyesbright

      Its going to add 50 million people who hadn't been covered before. That will require new infrastructure; at a minimum more community health centers with primary care but also more hospital facilities with diagnostics. That means jobs for contractors and building material suppliers.

      That will also require more providers and staff, more equipment, more medical supplies. It will also require more education and training facilities to train the staff.

      In the interim I would expect the existing personnel to have to put in a lot of overtime to cover until new people can be hired and wages will have to go up to attract the skilled workers with the experience to optimize the patient flow so it can be covered at all.

      Even after 2014 there is more in the pipeline especially as regards Medicaid making healthcare both more universal and more comprehensive and since the Federal government is paying 100% to set up the mandates its also going to be single payer.

      Once people get used to the difference between affordable healthcare and what they have now they will be about as eager to get rid of it as they are to dump Social Security and Medicare

      Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

      by rktect on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 05:06:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  From what i'm seeing, there will be more jobs, ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rktect

        for part timers.  Working in the health care field, we are seeing a lot more 28 hour hires.  We are not seeing more full time jobs.

        Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

        by DrillSgtK on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 05:39:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It hasn't even begun yet (0+ / 0-)

          Staffing is a function of several different components, the business plan, the feasibility analysis, the marketing analysis, the catchment, the space plan, identifying the funding and efficiency.

          Both part time workers and overtime workers are less efficient, more difficult to schedule, less reliable, somewhat undependable. A good business plan anticipates keeping employees as fully employed as possible through cycles of growth because it reduces unknowns and unknowns are seen as risk.

          If the marketing analysis shows that the catchment is not being fully appreciated there is risk in that as well due to providing an available niche for the company's competition to expand into.

          The catchment grows like the economy in response to population pressures; the ability to take full advantage of it is constrained both by the feasibility analysis and the space plan as well as the results of identifying potential funding and efficiency.

          No corporate entity can afford to view its employees as anything other than its most important asset, its means of production and in effect the difference between its profit and loss. Investing in good employees, happy in their jobs, healthy people that don't have financial difficulties causing them stress are the equivalent of obtaining a corner on the market.

          People potentially funding the operation are going to take the strength of a corporations human resources into account the same as they would its infrastructure, location, equipment, efficiency and business plan.

          Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

          by rktect on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 06:15:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site