Full/Part Time worker cliff- the 29ers & the 49ers

Trajan

conscientia mille testes
Jun 17, 2010
29,048
5,463
48
The Bay Area Soviet
well, the trend has been setting up and , looks like the math says, its a go.





ObamaCare and the '29ers'
How the new mandates are already reducing full-time employment.
Updated February 22, 2013, 6:25 p.m. ET


Here's a trend you'll be reading more about: part-time "job sharing," not only within firms but across different businesses.

It's already happening across the country at fast-food restaurants, as employers try to avoid being punished by the Affordable Care Act. In some cases we've heard about, a local McDonalds has hired employees to operate the cash register or flip burgers for 20 hours a week and then the workers head to the nearby Burger King BKW +2.39% or Wendy's to log another 20 hours. Other employees take the opposite shifts.

ED-AQ452_1commi_D_20130220173305.jpg




snip-

Welcome to the strange new world of small-business hiring under ObamaCare. The law requires firms with 50 or more "full-time equivalent workers" to offer health plans to employees who work more than 30 hours a week. (The law says "equivalent" because two 15 hour a week workers equal one full-time worker.) Employers that pass the 50-employee threshold and don't offer insurance face a $2,000 penalty for each uncovered worker beyond 30 employees. So by hiring the 50th worker, the firm pays a penalty on the previous 20 as well.

These employment cliffs are especially perverse economic incentives. Thousands of employers will face a $40,000 penalty if they dare expand and hire a 50th worker. The law is effectively a $2,000 tax on each additional hire after that, so to move to 60 workers costs $60,000.

A 2011 Hudson Institute study estimates that this insurance mandate will cost the franchise industry $6.4 billion and put 3.2 million jobs "at risk." The insurance mandate is so onerous for small firms that Stephen Caldeira, president of the International Franchise Association, predicts that "Many stores will have to cut worker hours out of necessity. It could be the difference between staying in business or going out of business." The franchise association says the average fast-food restaurant has profits of only about $50,000 to $100,000 and a margin of about 3.5%.

Because other federal employment regulations also kick in when a firm crosses the 50 worker threshold, employers are starting to cap payrolls at 49 full-time workers. These firms have come to be known as "49ers." Businesses that hire young and lower-skilled workers are also starting to put a ceiling on the work week of below 30 hours. These firms are the new "29ers." Part-time workers don't have to be offered insurance under ObamaCare.

The mandate to offer health insurance doesn't take effect until 2014, but the "measurement period" used by the feds to determine a firm's average number of full-time employees started last month. So the cutbacks and employment dodges are underway.

The savings from restricting hours worked can be enormous. If a company with 50 employees hires a new worker for $12 an hour for 29 hours a week, there is no health insurance requirement. But suppose that worker moves to 30 hours a week. This triggers the $2,000 federal penalty. So to get 50 more hours of work a year from that employee, the extra cost to the employer rises to about $52 an hour—the $12 salary and the ObamaCare tax of what works out to be $40 an hour.

more at-
Review & Outlook: ObamaCare and the '29ers' - WSJ.com


and there it is.....
 
NEWSFLASH: Most folks working at McDonalds are "part timers".

newsflash- and they always will be and anyone who isn't ? soon will be and I don't see that as any relief, do you?


newsflash- if you read the article its not just fast food, it was an example.
 
"The mandate to offer health insurance doesn't take effect until 2014, but the "measurement period" used by the feds to determine a firm's average number of full-time employees started last month. So the cutbacks and employment dodges are underway."

Surprise!

"The law requires firms with 50 or more "full-time equivalent workers" to offer health plans to employees who work more than 30 hours a week. (The law says "equivalent" because two 15 hour a week workers equal one full-time worker.)"

When did we become France?

"This week Nigel Travis, the CEO of Dunkin' Donuts, asked Congress to change the health law's definition of full-time to 40 hours a week from 30 hours so worker hours won't have to be cut."

This is kind of scary:
Internal Revenue Bulletin - February 27, 2012 - Notice 2012-17

The Fair Labor Standards Act doesn't even define full time employees.

WOW!
 
Obamacare should be renamed "The law of unintended consequences." So much bad will come out of the law we are just starting to see the results. But we had to pass it to find out what was in it.
 
Health insurance should not be tied to employment at all and this monstrosity makes that worse. But of course, that's the whole point isn't it? They want it to screw things up, they want employers to cut hours and workers so they can declare it a failure and say we (meaning they) need to fix it with universal/single payer. Just give it time.
 
"The mandate to offer health insurance doesn't take effect until 2014, but the "measurement period" used by the feds to determine a firm's average number of full-time employees started last month. So the cutbacks and employment dodges are underway."

Surprise!

"The law requires firms with 50 or more "full-time equivalent workers" to offer health plans to employees who work more than 30 hours a week. (The law says "equivalent" because two 15 hour a week workers equal one full-time worker.)"

When did we become France?

"This week Nigel Travis, the CEO of Dunkin' Donuts, asked Congress to change the health law's definition of full-time to 40 hours a week from 30 hours so worker hours won't have to be cut."

This is kind of scary:
Internal Revenue Bulletin - February 27, 2012 - Notice 2012-17

The Fair Labor Standards Act doesn't even define full time employees.

WOW!
The act was written in favor of big business, so it was filled full with loop holes favoring business anyway, yet it was put out there to suggest that it was looking out for the employee (the laborer, the little guy), when the employee still never stood a chance much as I read it. There is a war going on between our current government and it's campaign promises against greedy businesses taking to much, and destroying the middle class and etc. Now there are strategies that are being formulated by all sides to fight in this war, and I betcha that the average Joe will lose again and again and again, because according to big business or many buisnesses in this nation, it is all about profits to them at any cost, even if it means changing out the workforce many times over in the course of doing business, just so they (the employee's) don't ever become family or are looked at in any way such as that (cost to much). If big business had it's way, we would all be slaves again, and these acts wouldn't even exist at all.
 
Making changes to healthcare was a good idea...
But Obama and his cronies fucked it all up....
I agree, because it was never about us, but instead it was not letting a good crisis go to waste.
 

Forum List

Back
Top