...are going to fail regardless of where they try to lay the blame.

for employees working 29 hours or more? If that is the case I thought that requirement was postponed to 2015 by the president. If I have run into that many people at random that have had their hours cut won't that be a huge problem come November? Two employees at the mall said all the maintenance people were cut to 28 hours. The third person works at a carry-out chain. The fourth works at a grocery store chain.

they were offering their healthcare fix. One of the big items is to make the thirty hour limit a forty hour limit. It would not surprise me if employers are doing this to generate support for that plan. Workers who will benefit by getting extra hours would gladly back the increase. The question is, will they really get more hours or is this just another carrot big biz is putting out?
I also don't think any of that is taking effect right now so the timing is even more curious.

Those are all the types of businesses that are affected strongly - large numbers of employees, so the employer mandate will apply, lower paid employees, so it will cost them a lot per employee to provide insurance at 9.5% of wage or less, and so this is what you get.

ESR is a provision of PPACA that speaks to the employer side of this. I work in a software industry that literally every day I am working with employers in the mid sized range that have to deal with this provision, my software directly addresses ACA and it's something I've had to study for over a year as it directly impacts my client base. The subject hours they use to calculate full time equivalents started 1/1/14 for 2015 benefits.

I can 100% tell you first hand that YES some employers are hiring part time and reducing hours on current full time to avoid having to offer insurance to this employee group. The way the ESR provision is currently written is confusing and does require a good deal of administration on employers. It's not as simple as just saying you have 50 employees. There are many scenarios where an employer that averages 30 full time employees actually has 50 full time equivalents due to how the subject hours work and the high turnover of some industries just by their nature.

Retail, Convenience Stores, Restaurants, Non-Profit, and Construction are a few industries that seem the most "scared" of the new legislation and are changing hiring or current staffing levels to adjust for it. One of the major issues with the way the ESR provision is written is that let's say an employee works for 2 months and quits. Up to the first 120 hours of each month that employee worked there count for the companies overall total of subject hours for FTE count. So if I am high turnover, those people can make it look like I have far more employees than what I really do. It doesn't take a huge outfit to have 50 FT equivalents nor is it some billionaire CEO running the outfit hence I agree you will have some backlash. You can own two franchise restaurants and have 50+ employees very easily. Are you well off? Sure. Are you a fat cat CEO? Hell no, you are in all likelihood still elbow deep in the day to day work.

The best short answer I can give is 1/3rd of employers are cutting current full time hours down and/or hiring part time staff, 1/3rd of employers are doing nothing because they either don't know what to do or aren't sure where they fall, and 1/3rd already offer benefits and know they are subject to ESR so are eager to help them determine the other 2 provisions regarding eligibility and affordability for the employee base.

From a political standpoint, the question is going to be who do the employees of those companies that are reducing hours blame for this. You would think the employees would realize the law was crafted in an effort to help them obtain affordable healthcare however some will view it as the reason they have less in their paycheck or are now working a 2nd job.

How long before business owners start saying that universal health care is better for business because it unties the employer from health care paid for by progressive taxes on everyone? Wouldn't this be what we progressives really want?

The vast majority of CEO, CFO, and HR staff dislike ACA mainly due to the ESR provisions. To be fair, I've not heard a single one say it's a bad law or they don't want employees to have benefits, etc. it's because the administration or analysis they are now required to do as a result of the ESR provision of the law is cumbersome to say the least and the penalties are stiff. I know 50+ employees sounds like large company but it's really not. The odds are very high that there's 1 person at that company that does so many job titles, they don't have an HR department, compliance department, payroll department, benefits department, etc. that huge companies have therefore you are taking that 1 person and adding a huge task to their plate.

Again, it's going to come down to who the employee ends up blaming as far as where this goes from a political standpoint.

for him on health care for all. The right wing in this country has so vilified "socialized medicine" and brainwashed so many Americans, we are stuck with a health care policy no other industrialized modern country has. And most AMericans don't know it. And republicans play on that ignorance and further it. So Obama figures he should take a page from Romneycare, thinking that republicans wouldn't vilify a program of one of their own. But look what happened.

I guess it is up to US progressives to inform the people we know who are uninformed on the political reality going on here...

The company I work for has mandated that part-timers cannot work more than 30 hours a week.
The reason: Obamacare

and part-timers were not eligible for any of the full time perks.

Cutting full timers to part timers in order to avoid paying bennies, that is a different, and not nice behavior.

problem giving "part timers" 30+ hours a week before this with no bennies...

You know the dictionary definition of part time employment, however real world is most times different (and usually not better for the worker).

to buy their shitty "health care" plan, which covers basically nothing. No meds, no hospitalization, no tests, nothing but office visits. You can go to the doctor, but anything beyond entering the door you pay for out of pocket.

a valid ACA policy...

for example wellness checks are free with no deductible....you should be at least getting those.

They don't have to be ACA compliant until 2015 now...

But of course all the employers were free to set up their own systems, and none had a mandate to provide insurance before, much less at a cost of 9.5% of wage to employee.

The part-time to avoid paying benefits is a very old and very harmful practice, but employers were not facing fines before, and before employers were free (mostly) to set their own standards for benefit eligibility.

at 65 hours per week. Until they have a nervous breakdown and quit for medical reasons.

the employer will make out like the bandit he is.

Employers have long wanted to get out from under supplying health insurance even if the employee is bearing most of the cost. They just don't want to do the group insurance paperwork.

Since this is a buyer's job market, they no longer have to compete with each other to attract the best and brightest. That group has now become a dime a dozen since high unemployment and huge student debt will force them to take what they can get.

Some of this hour cutting is temporary since the same amount of work will have to be done whether the employees are there or not. However, I'm not a bit surprised.

This is the kind of abuse that will eventually disconnect health insurance from employment (where it never belonged in the first place) and propel us along to an eventual single payer system.

that were complaining about having their hours cut because of Obamacare, nationwide
there are going to be millions that will vote for Republicans this fall.

My daughter was told when she was hired for a retail job at a BS company (hey, work is work when you have a car payment to make!) that should would not be ALLOWED to work more than 25 hours because of Obamacare.

That just makes her hate her job and her employer. It most certainly will NOT make her vote for a Republican EVER IN HER LIFE.

In fact, it's people like this, playing games with her young life that will CEMENT HER SUPPORT OF DEMOCRATS.

This bullshit is making more, better young DEMS for life while they watch Republican shenanigans live and in person.

The only thing these companies are doing is pushing these kids right into the arms of the Democrats. I say they should keep it up.

Obamacare. I have heard a few good stories about Obamacare but the bad ones far out number the good. We will loose the Senate
this year and probably more seats in the house because of Obamacare in my opinion. It may feal good thinking opinions will change before
November but it sure doesn't look like it.

Do you read anything before you go around posting about it?

What that CBO report said is that more people will choose not to take SHIT JOBS which will cause them to lose their medicaid based health care and just keep looking.

It said less people will accept GARBAGE JOBS to keep health insurance for their kids since they can now get affordable insurance somewhere else, aka healthcare.gov.

In fact, it's the exact same people who you say above will now be voting republican who will be freed up to provide affordable, extensive health insurance for the families without being treated like slaves.

You really should read a bit before you open mouth, insert foot.

DailyKos has made it easy for you to understand here:

Right there in the report on page 117 (yes, that's a lot of pages for conservatives to read) it says:

"The estimated reduction [in CBO's projections of hours worked] stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply rather than a net drop in businesses demand for labor. [...]"

The CBO is not assuming that the law will lead employers to eliminate jobs or reduce hours, and actually says that there is "no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA." It also says this:

The ACA's subsidies for health insurance will both stimulate demand for health care services and allow low-income households to redirect some of the funds that they would have spent on that care toward the purchase of other goods and services—thereby increasing overall demand. That increase in overall demand while the economy remains somewhat weak will induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase the hours of current employees during that period.

http://www.dailykos.com/

You obviously don't understand why people vote the way they do.
Obamacare is your boogie man not theirs!

We should not be stuck in a system where we are at the mercy of Big Insurance and employers for basic healthcare coverage.

Frankly, some employers are likely to exploit it. But many are honestly scared and/or unable to afford the mandated coverage.

Whether or not employers are legitimately cutting people back, Obamacare did not fix the rot at the heart of the system -- Which the false premise that for profit insurance companies are going to play ball and provide affordable coverage.

In fact it just made it worse with the mandate.

The ONLY reasonable way to fix it is to offer public social insurance, whether it be by a "public option" or through universal coverage of individuals.

1. Obamacare is based on a lie.

2. "We should not be stuck in a system where we are at the mercy of Big Insurance and employers for basic healthcare coverage."

3. "Obamacare did not fix the rot at the heart of the system -- Which {is} the false premise that for profit insurance companies are going to play ball and provide affordable coverage" <emphasis mine>


* *

Not that most Democrats would be willing to admit the above, because they would see it as an attempt to bash Obama just for the heck of it. The facts, as you've laid them out, speak for themselves.

Already, every chain who had a lot of low-income workers here in MA was already hiring people under 30 hours. It may have been the case in other places, but it is not surprising that you see that happen with firms who did not have healthcare until ACA.

It is hard to believe that nobody saw that happen. By the way, the GOP bill "aimed" at solving the problem solves it by getting rid of the employer mandate under 40 hours. What a solution!

divvy up the take.

All of this and much more were predicted when this bad republican idea was being pushed out on Kos and I'm sure it was here as well. Everything from companies finagling the rules to get out from under the expense, the huge premium increases, the tiered health care systems that will determine you life expectancy, the constant shifting of expenses and billing, the constant rise in so-called so-pays, and on and on...

At least according to the usual suspects...

Obama's policies you are are a trool. It doesn't due any good to bury your head in
the sand, the ACA is going to bring us down this year.

I hope to hell that we're wrong, but I know we're not.

Wal Mart moving 35k workers to full time. Some of their part time workers may go from 32 hourse per week down to 28-29 but those workers will offset the difference by being able to buy insurance on the exchange.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/09/25/wal-mart-returning-to-full-time-workers-obamacare-not-such-a-job-killer-after-all/

Interestingly there were probably 20 articles that stated Wal-Mart would be cutting part timers hours to avoid Obamacare in June of 2013. Every right wing website plus a few main stream media. Interestingly when they announced in September that in fact they would be moving workers to full time as a result of ACA only a few articles. It appears the PTB don't want folks to know the truth.

And get to enjoy more time off.

Sounds like a double-win to me.

around the Country every day, and unfortunately, this is a VERY common story.
I think that sometimes lofty ideals sound good, but the reality is what is happening
at the grass roots level.
I wish I knew the solution.

created a single payer system. It is a short bill, about 30 pages, that you should look at. I covered everybody for less than we're currently paying to sort of cover most people and even provides for the workers that would be displaced from the insurance companies.

But, nobody would get rich with it, so it had to be buried.

HR. 676

and she blocked it why ????????

It was first drafted under shrub, so it was no surprise it couldn't get through the committee blockade, but we won in 2006 and that's when it started. In the end she went so far as to block the budget scoring which was the last hurdle before it could be brought to the floor.

As for the why?

For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: "It might have been!" - John Greenleaf Whittier

Was anybody screaming about it here on DU ? (when she blocked it)

And then point their fingers at Dems/Libs.


A CEO, a Teabagger, and a Union worker are all sitting at a table when a plate with a dozen freshly baked cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the CEO reaches out to rake in eleven of the cookies. When the other two look at him in speechless surprise, the CEO locks eyes with the Teabagger. “You better watch that guy,” the executive says with a scornful nod toward the Union worker. “He wants a piece of your cookie.”

... eligibility for full time benefits. The first time I met such a person was over 30 years ago.

This is nothing new. So the questions are:

1. Why are you now encountering so many more such people?
2. Why are you only now encountering such people?


There are two very possible answers to #1. The kindest answer is that these people were employed by idiots who just now realized what they were doing. This is a very valid possibility. I used to joke with an apartment building owner that he needed a new tax lawyer if he was paying as much as he claimed to pay in taxes. Then I bought an apartment building and decided to use his lawyer that first year. After repeated arguments, the lawyer agreed with everything on which I corrected him. My joke turned out to be no joke after all. Lots of businesses are run by lots of not so bright people.

The other very strong possibility is that a very large number of the conservative rank-and-file feel it is their duty to perpetuate the propaganda. In short, they lie. The other night I witnessed an argument in which the conservative voter claimed to know what he was talking about because "I was a member of that union for 27 years!" Not 30 seconds later he shouted, "I've never been a !@#$%^%&*() union member in my life!" While I always suspected the apartment building owner I mentioned above would stretch the truth to make a point, nowadays just about every other word out of his mouth is a blatant lie. This is becoming increasingly common.

In this situation it could be either the employer lying to their employees, or the employees lying to you.


As to #2 ... I dunno. I guess you just never knew any of the working poor before this year?

who do you blame...

That's a tough one.

There is no reason to keep companies doing this secret... If they are doing this across the board and you don't work there, it cannot be tied back to anyone.... Name names.

They don't say that the limited hours are because of "Obamacare", and its not a new policy. Its been that way for a long while according to older workers they've spoken to. Its just a way to keep from having to offer benefits to their employees.

Here's an article that lists Trader Joe's, Seaworld, Walmart, Regal Theaters, Land's End and many others...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2013/09/11/with-eye-on-obamacare-companies-move-to-cut-workers-hours/

Me and many others here on DU predicted this. We were slammed as Obama haters

the plight of those on the bottom is often ignored on this very board.

I know for a fact that Bi-lo stores (eg. Winn Dixie), Sweetbay (soon to be acquired by Bi-lo) all mandate that part time workers not be given more than 25 hours in a week is due to the ACA. I have heard rumors that Publix and Wal mart are doing the same but a lot of grocers nation wide are cutting part time workers that used to average 30+ hours down to under 25 hours.

I have several family member who currently work at Walmart or did in the past.

I know it is true

Employees will be classified as "full-time" in 2015 for the purposes of the employer mandate based on the hours that they worked for some specified period in 2014. If total hours worked adds up to 30 per week, then the employer would either have to provide insurance costing no more than 9.5% of the employee's wage or pay a fine in 2015.

The employer can pick the period, and it does not have to be the full year, but it must be the same period for all employees. Many employers will find it advantageous to use the full year, and so these adjustments are being made now at a lot of businesses (and many businesses made them last year, because the employer mandate was supposed to start in 2014).

So I find this very credible.

And they should find new ones (if they can).

In all likelihood, it's just an excuse to do what they wanted to do in the first place. Now they can blame it on Obama.

A painful one for sure.

But sooner or later every company will cease to offer health insurance and either everyone will be in the marketplace or we will be on the road to single payer. Bank on it.

The next big pushback is going to be when executives aren't able to get premium policies offered by the company and are forced to take what everyone else gets. The companies got a delay in implementing that for a year by the Obama Admin but the squalling that's going to erupt from the executives will be loud imho.

There's going to be some painful years ahead until this country comes to its senses about health care.

a fact, that the major pizza chains have no problem with raising their prices for any reason or no reason, so if they're really that hard pressed (which they aren't), why don't they just raise their prices by 25 cents or whatever? seems like an especially nasty, spiteful move on their part to cut hours in order to avoid providing health care to their employees.

batshit crazy, hard-reich-wing assholes.

Hmmm, you don't suppose there's some bigger plot unfolding here, do you?

I had a fellow worker tell me his wives health insurance went up, in January 2012 and it was all Obama's fault. Which is to say impossible, just another drone listening to Foxnews lie to him.

His wives employer is a RWinger and very anti-labor, he cut their hours and blamed it on a political party. Just to raise his profits.

This looks like a BS post to me

based on the numbers from 2014. So the employers are incentivized to cut everyone this year so when Jan 1 2015 comes around and they have to report whose a FT employee that they are mandated to cover, they have the substantiated evidence that the rest are really under 30 hours/week.

Letting the employer mandate slide for a year just means more time for more companies to continue changing their coverage in time.

Very conveeeeenient eh?

Divided by 40 hrs a week times 52 weeks. If they cut hours per individual but add more individuals to make up the time they still have the same FTE's so cutting hours in that case gets them nowhere.
FTE = full time equivalent.
Two people working 20 hours each in one week equals 1 FTE
One person working 40 in one week equals 1 FTE

Companies have already proven they can get the work done with 4 part time workers @ 120 hours/week vs 3 full time workers at 40 hours/week.

That people are being stretched to cover more tasks because of missing workers is now the "new" norm.

The hours are referred to as subject hours and they include everything, Regular, OT, Sick, Vacation, Bereavement, etc. Salaried or definite full time employees count on one line. For the hourly employees all employees count for the month current/new hire/terminated. Regardless of how many hours these employees work in the month you only count up to the first 120 hours then total all the subject hours and divide the total by 120. You keep all the decimals/fractions and at the end of your measurement period take the average over the period you selected.

To illustrate this, let's say I have 27 salaried employees and let's say 10 hourly employees worked 120 hours in the month each, you had 8 terminated employees that worked 100 hours in the month each, and 8 new hires that worked 100 hours each. I have 10x120, 8x100, and 8x100 or 2800 total subject hours, I divide by 120 and I get 23.33. Add the 23.33 to the 27 salaried and viola you are now considered a large employer. You have to do this every month on a rolling basis.

I don't blame Obamacare though; I blame unethical employers

regardless of what anyone says, there is still a competition for workers. Make it competitive. Shop for other employer who treats workers better.

I do not believe there's competition for workers. At least not yet...

The US employment picture is skewing more towards a service economy. That means trouble for most people (many of them young with college degrees working at Boston Market as hourly workers). They can only shift between Boston Market, Barnes and Noble, Home Depot to earn pennies per hour more as " shift supervisors", or "crew trainers.

From my direct anecdotal evidence backed by empirical evidence, the trend is to keep workers below 30 hours indefinitely as more and more employers adopt this business model