Cut backs

txcoastal1

So my step son finds out 2 days ago that his hours will be cut to 4 day 7 hour shifts (28 hr per wk) because even public jobs are cutting back due to the new health care bill.

He works for City Public Service. He starts calling around to the other 5 CPS in the towns around us and they are hiring, but they too are only filling 28 hour work schedules. He now is looking for a job in the private sector, hoping he can find full time employment.

This isn't a good trend, as it looks like full time employment is going to be hard to find.

Msabot1

All part of the Master Plan...I will bite my tongue on the other comments I was going to make!

GlennDog

Msabot1 wrote: »

All part of the Master Plan . . .

I totally agree.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for him to turn a hobby into career? or more schooling?
Just a thought

G

Msabot1

School is great...take out one of those whopper Govt.loans...another scam! Not against learning at all...just the way the system is set up to put all the kids into unmanageable debt from the gitgo....

cnh

I feel sorry for those who will have to experience the full brunt of corporate greed--the inability to give up "any" profit in order to provide an employee with a little something! And I'll leave it at that. When billion dollar companies are screaming bloody murder, "who" can take them "seriously"? Only "ideologues" who refuse to consider a more constrained, less than "anything" goes economy? One that crashes every 5-8 years!

Enough said. I am personally disgusted by the lack of social and moral responsibility in this land of the free. This is exactly what is wrong with the current plan. It actually allows loopholes for the BIG BOYS so they can shirk their obligation to give back a little of what they made, that they actually made from the "work" of those whom they employ. lol

And now we open up the floor for all the naysayers; the boys and girls who like to "shrug" and enjoy the "virtue of selfishness". As for me I'm done here because there is nothing more to talk about!

cnh

charley95

Msabot1 wrote: »

All part of the Master Plan...I will bite my tongue on the other comments I was going to make!

Couldn't agree more with you on this!

txcoastal1

cnh wrote: »

I feel sorry for those who will have to experience the full brunt of corporate greed
cnh

The problem is cnh, this case isn't corporate greed, these are city jobs, and the cities are broke too.

There are more job listings with full benefits in corporate world than public service jobs in our area, but you must have an education.

Seems like the cities are cutting back on City Maintenance jobs to keep up with the full-time teachers, police, and upper management positions.....robbing Peter to pay Paul

rooftop59

Sorry to hear about your son man. That sucks, and I hope he is able to find full-time work soon.

To say anymore is to go beyond the proper sphere of an audio forum.

gimpod

Why is this news, it's been going on for years in the private sector. I'm just surprised it took the government this long to catch on.

As far as I understand it you don't have supply benefits to part time workers i.e anyone who works less than 40 hrs a pay period, It's also a good way to not have to pay overtime.

EndersShadow

gimpod wrote: »

Why is this news, it's been going on for years in the private sector. I'm just surprised it took the government this long to catch on.

As far as I understand it you don't have supply benefits to part time workers i.e anyone who works less than 40 hrs a pay period, It's also a good way to not have to pay overtime.

Glad to see you post again Gimpod! Hope all is well!.

OP, I too fear this will become the norm. The new 9-5 under 30 hour "full-time" employee standard....

EndersShadow

DSkip wrote: »

I guess I don't understand how reducing them to part time is a result of this bill? Every benefit of a part-timer stands prior to the bill, so why do it now? I'm sincerely hoping someone can clue me in.

I believe it is because every employer with 50 employee's or more must offer health coverage to their employees. The caveat is that its 50 full time employees, so 2 part timers only count as 1 full time employee if I am right here. It may be that part time employee's dont even count, but its got specifically to do with the requirements on the number of employees a company has to have in order to be required to offer health insurance.

codyc1ark

cnh wrote: »

I feel sorry for those who will have to experience the full brunt of corporate greed--the inability to give up "any" profit in order to provide an employee with a little something! And I'll leave it at that. When billion dollar companies are screaming bloody murder, "who" can take them "seriously"? Only "ideologues" who refuse to consider a more constrained, less than "anything" goes economy? One that crashes every 5-8 years!

Enough said. I am personally disgusted by the lack of social and moral responsibility in this land of the free. This is exactly what is wrong with the current plan. It actually allows loopholes for the BIG BOYS so they can shirk their obligation to give back a little of what they made, that they actually made from the "work" of those whom they employ. lol

And now we open up the floor for all the naysayers; the boys and girls who like to "shrug" and enjoy the "virtue of selfishness". As for me I'm done here because there is nothing more to talk about!

cnh

Well said my friend.

steveinaz

Socialized medicine, awesome. All I know is that I don't want to hear a peep of grief out of those that re-elected this fool.

rooftop59

steveinaz wrote: »

Socialized medicine, awesome. All I know is that I don't want to hear a peep of grief out of those that re-elected this fool.

Nice comment Steve. Excellent way to fruitfully and intelligently move the conversation forward.

steveinaz

The "program" will speak for itself. My Son's hours have also been cut--just as predicted. For someone working just over minimum wage, that's PAINFUL.

pitdogg2

EndersShadow wrote: »

I believe it is because every employer with 50 employee's or more must offer health coverage to their employees. The caveat is that its 50 full time employees, so 2 part timers only count as 1 full time employee if I am right here. It may be that part time employee's dont even count, but its got specifically to do with the requirements on the number of employees a company has to have in order to be required to offer health insurance.

Anything over 29 hrs. a week is considered FULL TIME for the O-care that is why you are seeing everyone drop to 28hrs. This is also how they are able to say no one is losing their job over this O-care....

rooftop59

DSkip wrote: »

They are required to offer benefits to full time employees, not part time. I don't see how that applies to the city anyways since they surely exceed that limit.

It applies to the city because any worker with less than 30 hours a week does not have to be provided with medical insurance. So even a city with several hundred employees can make half of them part time to radically reduce their benefits obligations.

rooftop59

Its an unfortunate loophole for sure. Its affecting us in higher ed as well as universities are tempted to hire more adjuncts to help cover budget losses.

But I have an idea, why don't we get rid of minimum wage. medicare, medicaid, social security, public schools, roads, libraries, and just let walmart run the country?

steveinaz

rooftop59 wrote: »

But I have an idea, why don't we get rid of minimum wage. medicare, medicaid, social security, public schools, roads, libraries, and just let walmart run the country?

Excellent way to fruitfully and intelligently move the conversation forward.

Better idea, how about we reform these programs instead of "pretending" that they'll be just fine. How about we target abuses, so that the truly needy get the help they need. How about we disband Teacher unions, so we can fire a bunch of flunkies that have their job only because of "tenure." No other Government employees are permitted "collective bargaining rights" why teachers? How about we do things that REALLY make a difference, not surface-crap that sounds pretty but accomplishes nothing. And what about those roads and bridges? What happened to those "shovel ready" projects?

rooftop59

I know that you are intelligent enough to see the connection without me spelling it out for you. Its not socialism or anarchy, there has to be a middle ground and finding the right middle ground is going to be difficult and painful at times. That doesn't mean one should categorically reject any middle ground.You continually commit the fallacy of a false dilemma and I am not sure why...

rooftop59

DSkip wrote: »

This is not what I'm saying. This was already in place prior to this bill, so why would the bill affect his employment status now? I'm not trying to defend anything, I'm just trying to put the pieces together. What is it about the bill that is giving them the green light to drop the workers down to 28/week?

They didn't have to provide insurance before (but they probably did anyway), now they do, but not for a worker below the threshold. So I agree that if they were already providing benefits to full time but not part time workers, then this move doesn't make much sense...

Timothy Smith

steveinaz wrote: »

Socialized medicine, awesome. All I know is that I don't want to hear a peep of grief out of those that re-elected this fool.

Steve speaks the truth.

This is exactly what I expected to happen. Our leaders decide to jam "The Affordable Healthcare Act" (AKA Obamacare) down our throats, heaping new insurance requirements on employers, as a path to eventual government healthcare so we will all be dependent on the federal government.

As P.J. O'Roark said: "If you think healthcare is expensive now...just wait until it is "free"".

tonyb

CNH,
Always look forward to discussions involving you. I think for the most part we all see eye to eye, we just differ on how to get there. Some of you have problems with corporate greed, and that's a valid complaint in some cases but it doesn't define all corporations everywhere either. You simply can't legislate morality, not going to happen. Just like you can't tax the rich, because those costs get trickled down to the end user....you. People are in business to make a profit, not charity. How much profit is up to what the consumer is willing to spend. Take big oil for an example. A target for most "greed" haters. Bottomline is that oil companies make about 7-9 cents per gallon of gas sold. Government makes 45-65 cents......who's the greedy one ?

Fulltime jobs ? Been looking for a year now and the same stuff. Part time....low wage, no benefits. Full timers are being cut to avoid the additional taxes of the new HC laws. The middle class will get slammed with this bill. Story after story of triple the old rates. Some tout the added benefits, but even those have limits. Point is, you were lied to from the beginning. Politicians in general have no shame when selling a piece of legislation that hardly nobody read. Tax breaks for big corporations wouldn't happen if politicians didn't allow it. So if you want to point fingers, point towards Washington D.C. I think it's also safe to say that the tax code as it stands is nothing more than a book of lobbyist donations.

That said, jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate and the ones that have full time work will see their HC contributions triple. Happened to my wife's policy. Thing is, a lot of people didn't pay anything, Healthcare was a benefit offered by a lot of companies. Now companies will be forced to dump their plans or charge you outrageous rates forcing you into exchanges. The average family of four who once received HC free from their employer will now see a 6-9 thousand dollar swing out of pocket. Only the rich will be able to afford Cadillac policies that once was a staple of corporate benefits. Will your company boost your pay to offset these additional costs ? Highly doubt it. So corporations save by not having to pay that benefit, those who never had insurance will benefit, government will benefit, and those working in the middle class will get the shaft. A race to the bottom of 3rd world status.

pitdogg2

DSkip wrote: »

. What is it about the bill that is giving them the green light to drop the workers down to 28/week?

see post 20 that is what was told on world news the other night.....

pitdogg2

tonyb wrote: »

The average family of four who once received HC free from their employer will now see a 6-9 thousand dollar swing out of pocket.

Sorry man but for the past 35yrs none of my healthcare through was EVER FREE....As of Right now today(payday) I have paid over 5500.00 my part from my employer they pay 2/3's so add the shiite up...for a family of 4

kevhed72

"So my step son finds out 2 days ago that his hours will be cut to 4 day 7 hour shifts (28 hr per wk) because even public jobs are cutting back due to the new health care bill."

Sounds like quite a leap to make this connection.

Maybe if the public sector did more work with less resources, like the private sector has done for years, most municipalities wouldn't be in the boat they are in today.

Also, how many folks have actually read the health care bill....that is all.

steveinaz

A voucher based system, funded by a federal sales tax (likely 6% would be plenty) would be the BEST option, IMO, and would cover 100% EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN, to include the homeless. The voucher system would provide a CHOICE of catestrophic healthcare coverage, from the vendor of your choice. Then, this would open the market of private insurance to COMPETE for YOUR business for supplemental insurance. This also CUTS the tie between employment and coverage. Right now, if you lose your job, you lose your coverage---not so with a voucher based system. The other "cherry on the cake"......everytime an illegal alien makes a purchase in the U.S., they are paying into the "kitty" to help cover cost incurred when they need medical attention.

Supplemental Health insurance would be purchased like auto insurance. Unsatisfied with your provider? FIRE THEM, and get a policy from another provider. With employment based care, you HAVE to take what they give you. This freedom of choice will drive policy prices down, as we leverage good 'ol COMPETITION.

tonyb

Your an exception then, as most corporations as a condition of employment offered HC benefits. Granted they varied in policy coverage but the bar was set at somewhat of a higher standard to attract better employees. Then they moved to cost sharing and started taking a bit out of your check to help offset rising costs. Nothing like what it will be now however. What some still don't get under this new plan is you will be paying more, period, and still it won't cover everything. Your deductibles will be higher too. Also what you can deduct from your taxes will have a higher threshold. It used to be anything over 7.5% of your adjusted gross income in medical bills was deductible, now it's 10%. Lets also not forget the tons of additional taxes on medical equipment, who do you think will brunt those costs ? The end user of course.

We can do 12 rounds on this subject, as it stands the IRS has lost track of 67 million bucks and the HC law hasn't even started yet. Anyone who thinks government will do a better job with this is sadly mistaken. They can't even deliver the mail within budget, let alone handle something as big as the HC industry. Anyone of you ever been to a VA hospital ? That's what your national HC will become, only worse.

rooftop59

The average family of four who once received HC free from their employer will now see a 6-9 thousand dollar swing out of pocket. Only the rich will be able to afford Cadillac policies that once was a staple of corporate benefits.

Tony this is false. Please direct me to data backing up this claim. My wife's co-worker thought that the new "o-care" would only cost 28 a month whereas she pays much more right now through the university plan and doesn't see how that is. The reality a single women making 25 k a year will pay 158 a month for the silver tier, which is one step up. The invented "facts" that people spout over this issue are just insane, and I think most often the result of too much of a certain news organization.

gimpod

DSkip wrote: »

I guess I don't understand how reducing them to part time is a result of this bill? Every benefit of a part-timer stands prior to the bill, so why do it now? I'm sincerely hoping someone can clue me in.

Simply it's a way to cut cost. If your not (as an employer) required to supply health care benefits to part timers you cut back the full timers hours and or a little creative rescheduling of the pay period and they become part timers and you just saved a bunch of $$$$ by not having any full time employees that you have to supply health insurance or pay overtime (in my day you got overtime for anything over 8 hours a day, now it's done by xx number hours per pay period) if done right. This kind of stuff has been going on in the health care industry for decades, just ask anybody who works in a hospital or nursing home.

EndersShadow wrote: »

Glad to see you post again Gimpod! Hope all is well!.

Thanks man it's good to be posting again (I having a good day ). As far as being well, That's a whole other thread but I can say depending on how look at it I am getting some really good or bad drugs.

Sorry for the derail.

DSkip wrote: »

They are required to offer benefits to full time employees, not part time. I don't see how that applies to the city anyways since they surely exceed that limit.

rooftop59 wrote: »

They didn't have to provide insurance before (but they probably did anyway), now they do, but not for a worker below the threshold. So I agree that if they were already providing benefits to full time but not part time workers, then this move doesn't make much sense...

Once again it's all about cutting cost.

scottyboy76

steveinaz wrote: »

The "program" will speak for itself. My Son's hours have also been cut--just as predicted. For someone working just over minimum wage, that's PAINFUL.

Steve Steve Steve, you know the unions will soon have min. wage at 15.00 an hour, whether businesses can afford it, and whether it will be passed on as more cost to the struggling consumer, who has seen goods and services, as well as every tax, whether explicit or hidden into final costs skyrocket.

So dont try to act like your son wont be just fine, as soon as the central gestapo,err government and affiliateds get that wrapped up too.