Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 70

Thread: What happens when you make 30 hrs "full time" for health benefits?

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    What happens when you make 30 hrs "full time" for health benefits?

    Obviously, part-timers currently working between 30 and 40 hours get employer coverage. What else could possibly happen?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...re_740994.html

    Wait, what?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,482
    Post Thanks / Like
    It doesn't pay to have a healthy workforce.

    Sick people are much more productive than a healthy employee.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,876
    Post Thanks / Like
    You have to implement it to find out how really bad it is.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    It doesn't pay to have a healthy workforce.

    Sick people are much more productive than a healthy employee.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
    Screw those subsistence wage workers! They should get a second job if they don't like their hours cut. Supreme leader Barry says Obamacare is good so it must be so.

    A reminder:

    Obamacare: Raises the cost of insurance when it was sold as a plan to lower the cost. Only adds 10Million of the 30 or so million uninsured that it was supposed to cover. That 10M number doesn't account for all the people that will drop coverage and take the tax penalty due to the pre-existing clause which guarantees that you can simply pay the penalty and purchase insurance after you get sick. Costs 2 Trillion to tax payers in the 1st 10 years. Removes trillions more from consumers pockets due to the massively higher premiums. And screws millions of low income workers by forcing employers to reduce them to part time in order to avoid the mandate.

    Buy hey at least your $5 birth control pill co-pay will be waived so it all balances out.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,482
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Screw those subsistence wage workers! They should get a second job if they don't like their hours cut. Supreme leader Barry says Obamacare is good so it must be so.

    A reminder:

    Obamacare: Raises the cost of insurance when it was sold as a plan to lower the cost. Only adds 10Million of the 30 or so million uninsured that it was supposed to cover. That 10M number doesn't account for all the people that will drop coverage and take the tax penalty due to the pre-existing clause which guarantees that you can simply pay the penalty and purchase insurance after you get sick. Costs 2 Trillion to tax payers in the 1st 10 years. Removes trillions more from consumers pockets due to the massively higher premiums. And screws millions of low income workers by forcing employers to reduce them to part time in order to avoid the mandate.

    Buy hey at least your $5 birth control pill co-pay will be waived so it all balances out.
    My insurance rates went up faster before ObummerCare.

    Can't make this stuff up.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,480
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    It doesn't pay to have a healthy workforce.

    Sick people are much more productive than a healthy employee.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
    PK - adding 10 or 15% to an employer's employee cost (which is what you're doing when you mandate health coverage for a 30hr a week minimum wage or near it worker) isn't sustainable. It throws entire business models out of whack, and as the Trig's person in the linked video said, would have put them out of business in a year. White Castle's doing something similar - moving a small group of employees to full time, and all other part timers will be held below 30hrs.

    The fact of the matter is, for low skilled jobs (flipping burgers, bagging groceries) the supply of available workers is too big to make significantly increasing the costs of employment a viable business decision.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,783
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    PK - adding 10 or 15% to an employer's employee cost (which is what you're doing when you mandate health coverage for a 30hr a week minimum wage or near it worker) isn't sustainable. It throws entire business models out of whack, and as the Trig's person in the linked video said, would have put them out of business in a year. White Castle's doing something similar - moving a small group of employees to full time, and all other part timers will be held below 30hrs.

    The fact of the matter is, for low skilled jobs (flipping burgers, bagging groceries) the supply of available workers is too big to make significantly increasing the costs of employment a viable business decision.
    Trig's was just bought by T.A Solberg and see below the company isn't some small mom and pop operation. They have over 550 employees. I wonder if their customers will go somewhere else because of what ownership chose to do with their employees hours.

    T.A. Solberg is now a company with a broad spectrum of formats, including seven grocery stores, five gasoline stations with convenience stores, one gasoline station, a smokehouse, an events resort, a hardware store, salon, trucking company, central bakery and two recycling centers.
    http://www.retail-merchandiser.com/i...solberg-co-inc

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Obviously, part-timers currently working between 30 and 40 hours get employer coverage. What else could possibly happen?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...re_740994.html

    Wait, what?
    WalMart perfected this years ago.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    On a larger issue, I love how the overwhelming narrative from the media is how unfair it is to compel employers to offer decent health benefits to full-time employees.

    How about the narrative that businesses have, in many cases, looked for any way to not provide decent health care benefits to full-time workers?

    The narrative has been framed to make the focus on the little mom and pop businesses who are struggling to make ends meet. Of course, little attention is given to the corporations who are turning a profit, giving their CEOs millions in bonuses and yet can't.....seem....to.....find....the extra money to offer health benefits to their employees.

    But the focus of our mouth piece media will be on the hardships of management being forced to offer decent benefits to those greedy workers.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 07-31-2013 at 08:57 AM.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,783
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm shocked!!! GOP! GOP! GOP!


    Several wealthy Wisconsin donors exceed campaign contribution limits
    Trygve A. Solberg,. Minocqua, TA Solberg Co., $13,600.
    Http://www.biztimes.com/article/2011...S02/311169997/

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    My insurance rates went up faster before ObummerCare.

    Can't make this stuff up.
    Really? Wow tell that to the folks in California and Ohio and most of the cities in America. Rate jumps from this year to next are reported at 50-70%. Thanks for the insight though . Here in New York the jump isn't as dramatic because State Regulations for coverage already complied with most of the Obamacare rules before hand.

    Here in NY State our insurance is up approximately 50% since the announcement of the law but the jump next year won't be as dramatic. The individual (non group) insurance market in NYS was basically wiped out when the pre-existing conditions clause was introduced. I had an individual plan at that time. My rate was $1400 per month for a family plan. I got a call from my agent that the next years rate (I believe this was 2010) had risen to $4500 per month. That's when I jumped on my company plan. I remember telling the agent "so in other words there is no insurance for individual plans". She was like uh well.. you can buy it but er um. I was pissed. As a result (I read recently) there are only 7500 people in the entire state of NY covered under "Individual" Plans. One good thing about Barrycare is that those 7500 people will have their rates go down by 50% next year. Thats because the concept of an individual plan is eliminated with Obamacare. Thats great for those 7500 people. The rest of us got screwed.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    PK - adding 10 or 15% to an employer's employee cost (which is what you're doing when you mandate health coverage for a 30hr a week minimum wage or near it worker) isn't sustainable. It throws entire business models out of whack, and as the Trig's person in the linked video said, would have put them out of business in a year. White Castle's doing something similar - moving a small group of employees to full time, and all other part timers will be held below 30hrs.

    The fact of the matter is, for low skilled jobs (flipping burgers, bagging groceries) the supply of available workers is too big to make significantly increasing the costs of employment a viable business decision.
    Doggin, if this was 10 or 15% to employee cost it is one thing. For service industry workers in many instances its 30-40% cost increases.

  13. #13
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    On a larger issue, I love how the overwhelming narrative from the media is how unfair it is to compel employers to offer decent health benefits to full-time employees.

    How about the narrative that businesses have, in many cases, looked for any way to not provide decent health care benefits to full-time workers?
    And?

    My employer doesn't offer me food or housing or clothing either you know. Nor are they required to, nor should they be required to.

    The problem is not that they don't, the problem is that society seems to have this expectation that they should, when no other product or service in the marketplace is tied to employment in that way.

    How about we be rational, and understand that health insurance is a product, just like any other life-vital product like food, water, power, clothing and housing, and understand that this product should not be tied to employment (even if some employers choose to offer it as a part of compensation) and instead educate the populace about it, and let them choose their insurance on their own in a private transaction, just like food, clothing, housing and every other neccessity is handled today?

    little attention is given to the corporations who are turning a profit, giving their CEOs millions in bonuses and yet can't.....seem....to.....find....the extra money to offer health benefits to their employees.
    See, here we have the REAL issue. It's not about healthcare at all. It's about the percieved evils of profit (how dare they make profit!), and the evils of CEO's making more money than floor workers (how dare they!). I.e. Wealth Distribution.

    But the focus of our mouth piece media will be on the hardships of management being forced to offer decent benefits to those greedy workers.
    Perhaps the focus should be, beyond what I wrote at the top above, that if you (and individual) do not like your workplace compensation, the best answer is to find a different workplace, rather than demand the Government force your workplace to compensate you beyond what you labor is worth to the business? Craytalk in progressive Merxist land, I know. Apparently the only solution is state mandated wealth-distribution-equallity in some minds....

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    On a larger issue, I love how the overwhelming narrative from the media is how unfair it is to compel employers to offer decent health benefits to full-time employees.

    How about the narrative that businesses have, in many cases, looked for any way to not provide decent health care benefits to full-time workers?

    The narrative has been framed to make the focus on the little mom and pop businesses who are struggling to make ends meet. Of course, little attention is given to the corporations who are turning a profit, giving their CEOs millions in bonuses and yet can't.....seem....to.....find....the extra money to offer health benefits to their employees.

    But the focus of our mouth piece media will be on the hardships of management being forced to offer decent benefits to those greedy workers.
    The vast majority of large corporations offer insurance to their employees. You are repeating a false narrative here IJF and quite honestly I wonder if you know this and are acting as the useful idiot or maybe you weren't aware. The best way to compel more small businesses to offering coverage would have been to find ways to reduce the massive costs. Unfortunately under Obamacare most of the country will see large rates increases in some cases over 50%. If you were less intelligent and had more common sense you would know instinctively that hiking rates as much as 50% or more is not the best way to compel companies to offer coverage. I don't get the disconnect here. Even liberal democrats, Senators and Congressmen, that are in the know understand what a debacle they have created.

    In addition, I find it gloriously ironic that the phony left wingers always claim to want to help the middle class and working poor while in reality all they do is screw those people over. People are getting their hours cut all around the country. People that live on subsistence wages working at restaurants and retailers. They are going to have a harder time paying their rent and living independently because of the phony liberals that promised to look out for them.
    Last edited by chiefst2000; 07-31-2013 at 09:48 AM.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maybe the idiots can protest Trigs after they're done at McDonalds.







  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Trig's was just bought by T.A Solberg and see below the company isn't some small mom and pop operation. They have over 550 employees. I wonder if their customers will go somewhere else because of what ownership chose to do with their employees hours.



    http://www.retail-merchandiser.com/i...solberg-co-inc
    I'd guess that, no matter what customers may SAY, they'll keep buying there if the price and quality remain the same or similar.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,905
    Post Thanks / Like
    Let's face it, an employment based health care system sucks.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,783
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Jet View Post
    I'd guess that, no matter what customers may SAY, they'll keep buying there if the price and quality remain the same or similar.
    If the service lacks so will sales.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,480
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    WalMart perfected this years ago.
    Of course. Which is why I've always been of the opinion that redefining "full-time" to require fewer hours would simply mean that part-time employees would be held to fewer hours. I'm not sure why people would have expected anything different

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,783
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Of course. Which is why I've always been of the opinion that redefining "full-time" to require fewer hours would simply mean that part-time employees would be held to fewer hours. I'm not sure why people would have expected anything different
    Wal-Mart broke the law numerous amounts times when dealing with their employees as well. If the owners have over 500 employees why bother making this obvious political stunt?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us