Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 71, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


CORP/BIZ The NEW 29 Hour Work Week
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts
    5,547

    The NEW 29 Hour Work Week

    http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.fr...coming-as.html

    Businesses with 50 or more employees who average at least 30 hours of work a week will be subject to the Obamacare insurance coverage mandate.

    Companies are reportedly planning large layoffs due to the implementation of Obamacare.
    But, companies can potentially avoid being subject to Obamacare's insurance requirements by limiting employees’ weekly hours to less than the 30 hour level defined by Obamacare as “full-time.”
    A little-known section in the ObamaCare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the ObamaCare rule that says businesses with 50 or more full-time workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

    “The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week,” section 1513 of the law reads. (Scroll down to section 4, paragraph A.)

    That section, known as the employer mandate, requires any business with 50 or more full-time employees to provide at least the minimum level of government-defined health coverage to those employees. In other words, a business must provide insurance if it has 50 or more employees working an average of just 30 hours per week, which is 10 hours per week fewer than the traditional 40-hour work week.

    Thus, by cutting employees’ hours to ensure they average less than the 30 per week, employers could potentially avoid the cost of providing the minimum insurance levels mandated by Obamacare.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Williamsburg County, S.C.
    Posts
    4,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Army Girl View Post
    http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.fr...coming-as.html

    Businesses with 50 or more employees who average at least 30 hours of work a week will be subject to the Obamacare insurance coverage mandate.

    Companies are reportedly planning large layoffs due to the implementation of Obamacare.
    But, companies can potentially avoid being subject to Obamacare's insurance requirements by limiting employees’ weekly hours to less than the 30 hour level defined by Obamacare as “full-time.”
    A little-known section in the ObamaCare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the ObamaCare rule that says businesses with 50 or more full-time workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

    “The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week,” section 1513 of the law reads. (Scroll down to section 4, paragraph A.)

    That section, known as the employer mandate, requires any business with 50 or more full-time employees to provide at least the minimum level of government-defined health coverage to those employees. In other words, a business must provide insurance if it has 50 or more employees working an average of just 30 hours per week, which is 10 hours per week fewer than the traditional 40-hour work week.

    Thus, by cutting employees’ hours to ensure they average less than the 30 per week, employers could potentially avoid the cost of providing the minimum insurance levels mandated by Obamacare.
    Good for them businesses! Anyway to throw a monkey wrench into the system........
    "America is at that awkward stage, to late to work within the system, but to early to shoot the bastards"-- Claire Wolfe

  3. #3
    I keep saying this, but based on my past experience as a government worker I am pretty sure this will only be a "monkey wrench" for a short period of time. Since Obama has won and has a majority in the Senate and the Republicans have only a slim majority in the house, my guess is this will be modified pretty quickly.

    The usual intent of these sort of limits is to protect small business owners from a sudden, drastic upswing in costs. If major corporations (including those who pretend that they are just a bunch of private businesses aka franchises) simply cut back thousands (or millions) of people to 29 hours (or shops with less that 50) the law will quickly be revised to either include the part-timers and/or deliver harsh penalties on employers who appear to be limiting hours in order to "abuse" the system.

    Based on what happened with the Federal Government Employees health care system, my bet is going to be on expanding benefits to part timers (along with a lowering of the level of employees to something like 25 and exempting national franchises from being considered "independent" businesses for health care tax purposes).

    That would mean that Burger King as a whole would be included in the employee head count, not just that of Joe Blow who is the local owner - that's really unfair to Joe Blow because he actually does have to pay and maintain his franchise but the wholesale sacking of people and reduction of hours may bring this about in any case.

    Actually, I know that Burger King (in some areas) used to close their eyes to similar practices in the late 1970's when I worked there. Back then full time employees (30 hours and over) got benefits including health care and a raise after six months. Of course the result was that only managers worked full time (and maybe one team leader per shift) and every six months almost all the regular workers laid off and more hired (this was when there were 40 applications for every food service job in my area).

    Companies may dislike this legislation, but if the Powers that Be are determined to try and sort out America's health care crises with a German Style employer/employee/public/private insurance policy system - forcing all but the smaller family businesses to comply is the only way forward. Eventually (as in Germany) they will have to do so as well, though hopefully with "small employer insurance pools" that could even be lightly subsidized by tax payers to lower the costs of plans (aka 20,000 small businesses can get better Private plans if they are all pooled together than if each one has to negotiate a health plan on their own).

    I'm not saying I think this system is the best way to go, but is is the only way it has a hope of going forward - companies playing this sort of in your face game during a Depression also risk a consumer backlash for cutting hours of people just to make a political point (I mean large companies now, not smaller factories etc).
    expatriate Californian living in rural Ireland with husband, dogs, horses. garden and many, many cats

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Cow Hampshire
    Posts
    11,253
    France for a while has had a 35 hour work week. This covered in some detail at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek

    Specifically...
    The 35-hour working week is controversial in France. Generally speaking, left wing parties and trade unions support it, while conservative parties and the MEDEF employers' union oppose it. Critics of the 35-hour working week have argued that it has failed to serve its purpose because an increase in recruitment has not occurred; in their view, the reluctance of firms to take on new workers has instead simply increased per-hour production quotas. According to right-wing parties and economic commentators, the main reason why French firms avoid hiring new workers is that French employment regulations make it difficult to lay off workers during a poor economic period.
    Of course during the Great Depression (the first one) Roosevelt instituted a 44 hour work week as a remedy to unemployment in the French Model (or perhaps the French model in imitation of Roosevelt?) Before Roosevelt 50 hours was considered normal with 5-10 hours days. Over time this 44 has been reduced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

    Now as to a hue and cry to a 30 hour "full time worker" status and consideration for ObamaCare, if it's possible for an employer to shave costs by modifying employee need, then one has to assume it will happen. A "29 hours" employee WILL become the norm if it is allowed. Hence so many workers today work less than the present cut point (varies by state) - and complain bitterly that they're not eligible for mandated benefits. If business HAS the opportunity to cut costs then business will TAKE opportunity. They're not foolish either.

    And to advocate otherwise implies further coercion on the part of government, coercion that HAS to make business less competitive, more liable to be undercut by foreign producers, and will if applied put MORE economic control in the hands of bureaucrats who know neither business, health, or economics - and would be smart not to dabble in any of these.

    But alas...

    Dobbin
    I hinnire propter hoc ecce ego

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    19,075
    Does anyone know any details of obamacare? I won't be getting it BUT I know those that may get it /or not.

    This one family takes their kids to the doctor's office constantly. Every cough, sneeze, sometimes low fever, a stomach ache (and usually due to a ton of sugar or carbs they ate). Do you know if they will still allow this?

    My gosh! Parents may have to start feeding their kids nutritional food and vitamins!
    .
    "The karma café has no menu......You get served what you deserve!"

    ".Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in, broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, WOW, What a ride!"

    Personal Responsibility..The one thing no one can take away from you

    ."The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still, small voice within me."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Posts
    9,531
    The end goal is a single payer system. That means thousands of workers will be out of work and the leading health care companies will have to either re-invent themselves or go away.

    The end-goal is ultimate reliance on the Government for all your needs including Health Care. Unfortunately we have seen how inefficient the government run programs are so pretty much the unintended consequences are going to sink this nation.
    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The Second Coming by WB Yeats


  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by dstraito View Post
    The end goal is a single payer system. That means thousands of workers will be out of work and the leading health care companies will have to either re-invent themselves or go away.

    The end-goal is ultimate reliance on the Government for all your needs including Health Care. Unfortunately we have seen how inefficient the government run programs are so pretty much the unintended consequences are going to sink this nation.
    Single payer health care systems do not equal the "government for all your needs including Health Care." I have lived in the UK and Sweden which are both single payer systems and while both suffer some of the same welfare problems as the US; I can assure you that most people have jobs and work for a living.

    The difference is they have a different social contract, one that allows for taxes to be used to cover health care in the same way that taxes are used to cover policing, jails, courts and often garbage pick up in the US. In the UK it is very direct as the tax is even mandated for the NHS, where as Sweden does (or did when we lived there) just take it out of a higher tax base.

    Of course, people under single payer systems pay more taxes up front, but then employers don't have to worry about basic health care packages either. In the UK, the upper level companies often do offer top up insurance so you can "go-private" if you want, Sweden doesn't have this option but some of the best health care I have ever experience took place there. It wasn't perfect, no system is, but it was easy to access and affordable with very low co-pays at point of access and quick service in emergencies (or why I still have a living husband).

    The goal may be a single-payer system for the US, I almost said that in my previous post; but I can assure you that people living in Western Democratic-Republics where citizens have voted for an support single-payer health care systems are not totally dependent on the government for everything. For something like that you have to go back to Soviet Russia of Former East Germany both of which have since collapsed as systems of government and healthcare.
    expatriate Californian living in rural Ireland with husband, dogs, horses. garden and many, many cats

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    41,228
    A few years ago, I spoke to a Swede about their health system. And this is what I think I heard.

    1. Medical school is free.

    2. Doctors start out at 10% above the average wage.

    3. By retirement, they will be earning about twice the annual wage.

    4. Because of low salaries, they have to produce about twice as many docs as they need because half move to some other place.

    She thought the health system was OK and could not imagine living under ours.

    My only comment on this that the Swedish system more than meets the first goal of all NH systems;

    Cut the incomes of the doctors.

    Poll I once read said that 92% of the Canadians are satisfied with they NHS system, while 78% of Americans are supposedly satisfied with ours. If true,we are going to spend a guh-zillion $ to make that 14% (92-78) happy. Sure seems that there should be an easier way.
    "The misfortune of many is the consolation of fools" Ancient proverb

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    FEMA Region II
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Troke View Post
    A few years ago, I spoke to a Swede about their health system. And this is what I think I heard.

    1. Medical school is free.

    2. Doctors start out at 10% above the average wage.

    3. By retirement, they will be earning about twice the annual wage.

    4. Because of low salaries, they have to produce about twice as many docs as they need because half move to some other place.

    She thought the health system was OK and could not imagine living under ours.

    My only comment on this that the Swedish system more than meets the first goal of all NH systems;

    Cut the incomes of the doctors.

    Poll I once read said that 92% of the Canadians are satisfied with they NHS system, while 78% of Americans are supposedly satisfied with ours. If true,we are going to spend a guh-zillion $ to make that 14% (92-78) happy. Sure seems that there should be an easier way.
    We're pretty quickly getting to this model as Medical practices get consolidated with non partner doctors earning a wage and incentives. The owners of the clinic are more handsomely rewarded. The single practitioner office is pretty well extinct near me. I have a relative who managed a multi-office neurology practice in a major market. He was hiring a new doctor and I asked what the pay was. 10K a month plus bonus for productivity which I think kicked in at about 30 patient calls a day. I could be wrong about the number but the salary was right.

    OK, so 10K seems good, right? 4 years of college maintaining an A average. Then medical school, internship, residency. When do you start earning money? around 30 I guess. You then have 2-400K in student debt. A mediocre lifestyle at best during the best years of your life.

    I don't know. I think I would rather be an investment banker... or federal employee. LOL

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


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.