Obamacare Mandate

[JohnR! 5,495]

All of the anti-business sentiment in this thread is astounding.

"oh this is a good thing"

Your comment is ignorant of the fact that most business owners will disagree with you.

It is also ignorant that most 50+ strong business already offer benefits to their employees and for them this will continue to be so.

For those who undercut their competition by offering nothing to their employees the playing field will be level. The benefits are twofold:

For the rest of us who actually pay health insurance for ourselves and our employees, we will not only be playing on a level field but also we will stop subsidizing the health care cost of those who can't or won't pay.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I don't see it being anti-business at all, I see it as being pro-business. On a whole happy employees are much more productive and less likely to steal from theior employers than ones that feel cheated.

It's 2012, any company that tries to skirt around giving their employees health insurance, should not be in business, in my opinion.

part-time employees serve a purpose. They're there to fill holes when needed, not to be concerned about for other reasons. It's simple. All major companies need 'disposable' part-time employees of some sort. They're supposed to be cheap labor at the end of the day.

It's naive to think that companies won't be able to get around this either. It's easy to have a staffing agency send temp workers in where the companies don't have to deal with the BS and still only give them 29 hours per week to skirt the system.

The funny part about your last comment being is some companies won't be in business because they tried to comply with the system.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Red Lobster and Olive Garden are testing the waters.

And last year, the company also put workers on a "tip sharing" program, meaning waiters and waitresses share their tips with other employees such as busboys and bartenders. That allows Darden to pay more workers a far lower "tip credit wage" of $2.13, rather than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

Ironic isn't it that the workers are forced to share their earnings with others.... Why isn't anyone calling these business owners for the communists they are?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Your comment is ignorant of the fact that most business owners will disagree with you.

It is also ignorant that most 50+ strong business already offer benefits to their employees and for them this will continue to be so.

For those who undercut their competition by offering nothing to their employees the playing field will be level. The benefits are twofold:

For the rest of us who actually pay health insurance for ourselves and our employees, we will not only be playing on a level field but also we will stop subsidizing the health care cost of those who can't or won't pay.

It depends on the industry. Most small 50-100 employee businesses don't have huge profit margins and rely on spending a lot of money to make money. They give enough benefits to keep employees happy for the most part, but also need a couple of part-time employees to not strain their health care and benefit costs at the same time.

You're not helping a company by forcing them to spend more of their money, you're actually causing them to cut jobs and pass the workload onto someone else without additional pay for those who get stuck with the extra work.

It may sound ilke this utopian everyone gets health care world, but it's really not at the end of the day.

And last year, the company also put workers on a "tip sharing" program, meaning waiters and waitresses share their tips with other employees such as busboys and bartenders. That allows Darden to pay more workers a far lower "tip credit wage" of $2.13, rather than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

Ironic isn't it that the workers are forced to share their earnings with others.... Why isn't anyone calling these business owners for the communists they are?

Tip well, it will help them out. I don't go sit down at a restaurant unless I'm willing to pay that employee for their time/service.

[JohnR! 5,495]

part-time employees serve a purpose. They're there to fill holes when needed, not to be concerned about for other reasons. It's simple. All major companies need 'disposable' part-time employees of some sort. They're supposed to be cheap labor at the end of the day.

It's naive to think that companies won't be able to get around this either. It's easy to have a staffing agency send temp workers in where the companies don't have to deal with the BS and still only give them 29 hours per week to skirt the system.

The funny part about your last comment being is some companies won't be in business because they tried to comply with the system.

Consider reading the entire chapter of the law, where it outlines the parameters of who are considered part-time workers.

It is naive to think that some companies are not already resorting to the antics you describe in order to save money... The HCR mandate will not change that.

[SMR 368]

Why would they do that?

Reduce everyone's hours to 29 and hire a couple extra people to fill the gaps. You still don't have any 'full-time employees' and don't have to give anyone health insurance.

[Karee 4,191]

Reduce everyone's hours to 29 and hire a couple extra people to fill the gaps. You still don't have any 'full-time employees' and don't have to give anyone health insurance.

Or make them 1099. Then the "employees" can pay double social security as well.

[JohnR! 5,495]

It depends on the industry. Most small 50-100 employee businesses don't have huge profit margins and rely on spending a lot of money to make money. They give enough benefits to keep employees happy for the most part, but also need a couple of part-time employees to not strain their health care and benefit costs at the same time.

You're not helping a company by forcing them to spend more of their money, you're actually causing them to cut jobs and pass the workload onto someone else without additional pay for those who get stuck with the extra work.

Tip well, it will help them out. I don't go sit down at a restaurant unless I'm willing to pay that employee for their time/service.

Another misinformed comment. Part-time employees will not count towards health care benefits. The article outlines which employees fall under that category. It may sound utopian that everyone should get health care for free, but in the end of the day, it is people like us who pay their premiums who end up picking the tab for the health care cost of others.

Funny one should defend the notion that it is OK for the employer to dictate how your tip will be distributed and amongst whom...

Isn't that the principle of communism?

[Teddy B 17,252]

part-time employees serve a purpose. They're there to fill holes when needed, not to be concerned about for other reasons. It's simple. All major companies need 'disposable' part-time employees of some sort. They're supposed to be cheap labor at the end of the day.

It's naive to think that companies won't be able to get around this either. It's easy to have a staffing agency send temp workers in where the companies don't have to deal with the BS and still only give them 29 hours per week to skirt the system.

The funny part about your last comment being is some companies won't be in business because they tried to comply with the system.

So you honestly believe that a company that gives their "part time" employees 37 hours a week are doing so simply because they can't afoord to pay them the full 40? You should know better than that. They're doing it to skirt around paying their employees full time benefits, and in turn putting more money in their pockets. Too many companies are too greedy and operate at their employees expense while raking in the cash. They need to comply and treat their employees to the current standards. I'm not a fan of the modern day unions, but this is the type of thing that made them as powerful as they are.

If a company cannot make money and comply with the system, then maybe that company shouldn't be in business to begin with.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Reduce everyone's hours to 29 and hire a couple extra people to fill the gaps. You still don't have any 'full-time employees' and don't have to give anyone health insurance.

There you go. Problem solved.

[Dakine10 5,452]

part-time employees serve a purpose. They're there to fill holes when needed, not to be concerned about for other reasons. It's simple. All major companies need 'disposable' part-time employees of some sort. They're supposed to be cheap labor at the end of the day.

It's naive to think that companies won't be able to get around this either. It's easy to have a staffing agency send temp workers in where the companies don't have to deal with the BS and still only give them 29 hours per week to skirt the system.

The funny part about your last comment being is some companies won't be in business because they tried to comply with the system.

It's only easy to the extent that there is no where better to go (to work). If the economy turns around and job's pick up, it's pretty risky for employers who pull that kind of #######.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Or make them 1099. Then the "employees" can pay double social security as well.

Isn't that done already? It seems that all these ideas people keep putting out to get around the HCR really could work on the current model and have been working so far... It is almost as though the HCR will in fact not change much from what is already done today.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Or make them 1099. Then the "employees" can pay double social security as well.

You can't 1099 an hourly employee.

[Karee 4,191]

You can't 1099 an hourly employee.

Hence the quotes around employee. You can definitely pay someone a rate per hour for their services and then give them a 1099 quarterly/yearly.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Another misinformed comment. Part-time employees will not count towards health care benefits. The article outlines which employees fall under that category. It may sound utopian that everyone should get health care for free, but in the end of the day, it is people like us who pay their premiums who end up picking the tab for the health care cost of others.

Funny one should defend the notion that it is OK for the employer to dictate how your tip will be distributed and amongst whom...

Isn't that the principle of communism?

Nope. It's a priciple of knowing the rules of a company when you are hired. You can try and find alternate employment if you wish to.

and "people like us" don't pick up the tab. People who pay cash on the other hand do. If you have health insurance, you're not paying for the non-payers at the hospital. It doesn't work that way. The insurance companies don't allow it. A hospital can bill what they want, but insurance companies pay negotiated rates. It's the cash customers who get screwed over and the hospitals who have to write-off the dollars at the end of the year.