Default Style Register
Daycare.com Forum
Daycare Center and Family Home Forum>Obama Care Making Parents Hours Go Down?
Country Kids 08:26 AM 01-02-2013
About a month ago, I had a parent that pretty went from 5 days a week to two days a week where they work because of Obama Care. Another person said that at their work they were losing 10 hours a week due to Obama Care.

Are employers cutting hours so they don't have to provide insurance? That just is very wrong if that is the case. Lets get more people on the system then!

Whats funny though is minumum wage is being raised here and now the highest in the nation. So I'm sure that will cause more layoffs for people.

I'm ready to get off the merry go round-
Reply
itlw8 08:37 AM 01-02-2013
not uncommon if they work 35 hours of more they are f/t .Places that have ins for some are good at doing that. Walmart, Steak and Shake,McDonalds. most fast food,

Now if they have more than 50 employees they HAVE to provide ins for f/t it will happen to more and more people.
Reply
familyschoolcare 08:50 AM 01-02-2013
The only way to solve this is to make it cheaper thus cost effective to hire one full time employee over two partime employees. Companies where already doing this to some degree and from a business point of view can you blame them. If you have two people that usually work 20 hours each or one that works 40 you get 40 hours of work done for you but by dividing it into two people you do not have to pay ins. You don't have to over time when you have more than 40 hours of work to be done.

I am no saying this is fair, just that it will take a while and several more laws before the full spirit of Obama care will be taking place in this country. It is a start.
Reply
Willow 08:50 AM 01-02-2013
I'm sorry to say, but I don't blame them.

I would probably do the same if I were being forced to pay for something I didn't want and was expected to eat the new expense myself.
Reply
Scout 09:09 AM 01-02-2013
I think if it's a small company that it's not totally impossible that they are using Obama Care as a scapegoat to cut costs. I mean, who wouldn't want to look like the bad guy? Sad thing is that we will not know for sure. Lots of companies cut hours each year prior to this also. Where I used to work every winter we would get hours cut, EVEN IF YOU WERE F/T. F/T was considered 35 hrs per week as PP said so we would sometimes lose 5 hours. Companies are always going to look for ways to save money. It is good business. I hope they are able to work with the new situation or find something more suitable since I have BTDT!
Reply
Country Kids 09:14 AM 01-02-2013
No both people work for large global restaurant chains.

Whats funny is they are having to pay out more hourly wise for two people then for just one. Its costing them double to pay two people to work a few hours then pay one to work full time. So in the long run its probably costing them more then they realize.
Reply
Play Care 10:18 AM 01-02-2013
Originally Posted by Country Kids:
No both people work for large global restaurant chains.

Whats funny is they are having to pay out more hourly wise for two people then for just one. Its costing them double to pay two people to work a few hours then pay one to work full time. So in the long run its probably costing them more then they realize.
Eh, service and hospitality industry are notorious for cutting hours or keeping people's hours just below where they would have to pay insurance. I blame greed.
Reply
seebachers 10:24 AM 01-02-2013
no, it costs them much more to pay the one person with full time benefits than it does to pay two part timers with no benefits.
Reply
Country Kids 11:29 AM 01-02-2013
Originally Posted by seebachers:
no, it costs them much more to pay the one person with full time benefits than it does to pay two part timers with no benefits.

Well our minimum wage is right at $9.00 an hour if not a little higher. So for those two part-timers they are paying $18.00 an hour insteade of the $9.00 an hour for the full-timer. I know the insurance costs but I bet in the long run it actually ends of being even if not more for the part-timers because of the $ amount per hour.
Reply
DCMom 11:45 AM 01-02-2013
I'm confused, how does it cost $18/hr?
If you pay Employee A from 8-12:30 then employee B from 12:30-5 they each are paid $9/hr for the hours they work during the day.
I used to job share at my former job and keeping the overhead costs down was the reason they did it that way.
Reply
Country Kids 11:54 AM 01-02-2013
Originally Posted by DCMom:
I'm confused, how does it cost $18/hr?
If you pay Employee A from 8-12:30 then employee B from 12:30-5 they each are paid $9/hr for the hours they work during the day.
I used to job share at my former job and keeping the overhead costs down was the reason they did it that way.
Because you aren't going to have just one part-time person working at a time. Usually you will have 1 full-time person and a couple part-timers or all part-time people. If you cut some of those part-time postitions and made them full-time your cost goes down. If you took two part-time positions and made it into one full-time you are saving.
Reply
small_steps 11:59 AM 01-02-2013
Originally Posted by Country Kids:
Because you aren't going to have just one part-time person working at a time. Usually you will have 1 full-time person and a couple part-timers or all part-time people. If you cut some of those part-time postitions and made them full-time your cost goes down. If you took two part-time positions and made it into one full-time you are saving.
I'm still confused. Maybe I'm having one of my blonde moments but I'm with the previous poster, I would think it would turn out the same as far as hourly pay goes
Reply
seebachers 11:59 AM 01-02-2013
It is still $9.00 per hour for each employee (not $18 an hour total).....hiring 2 employees for the same 40 hours to be split. Each employee gets only 20 hours and no benefits. $9.00 x 20 = $180 per one employee and $180 for the other for a total of $360.00 for a 40 hour work week totaled together. Not per person.

On average, it cost 20% - 28% on top of the base salary to employ a person full time. So that would be $9.00 x 40 = $360 per hour in just wages and another (360*20% = $72) $72 a week for the benefits to pay him. That makes it an extra $288 a month that the employer has to pay to have the full timer. That is why it is more cost effective for a company to hire two part timers WITHOUT benefits.

Not saying that I believe that it is right, but I can see when make cost savings a priority that is why companies go that way.
Reply
safechner 12:07 PM 01-02-2013
I am not surprised about this. My husband's job is doing the same thing but they laid people off, not cutting hours because they told everyone that they are facing to pay higher taxes because of Obama about two months ago.

I don't blame on them but I do believe US citizens will be suffering when they will keep lay them off or cutting hours soon. In fact, we are going face to pay more taxes this year (Bush's tax cuts expired), which I am not looking forward to it! Most people don't realized they voted Obama.

I actually dont agree with Obama care because I felt it is not right thing to do force people to have Obama care and they have to pay taxes if they don't have insurance benefits. I have heard some people are glad to have Obama care but they do not know the whole story yet. I know it won't effect until 2014.

That is why I don't vote Obama.
Reply
Blackcat31 01:10 PM 01-02-2013
Here is a great article (short) that explains why Obamacare incentivizes part time jobs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...art-time-jobs/
Reply
Country Kids 01:39 PM 01-02-2013
Originally Posted by Blackcat31:
Here is a great article (short) that explains why Obamacare incentivizes part time jobs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...art-time-jobs/
Very interesting article and I like that it was short and easy to understand.

The very last part was the most interesting-about the umemployment rate.
Reply
MarinaVanessa 02:20 PM 01-02-2013
Originally Posted by Country Kids:
Because you aren't going to have just one part-time person working at a time. Usually you will have 1 full-time person and a couple part-timers or all part-time people. If you cut some of those part-time postitions and made them full-time your cost goes down. If you took two part-time positions and made it into one full-time you are saving.
If you are going to compare then your comparisons should be equal. For example if you have more than one employee then it's because you need more coverage so lets say that you run a retail store or an office that is opened from 8am-5pm (and close 1 hour for lunch) and you need enough staff to run the business and to answer the phones so you need at least 2 people present at all times (you pay $9/hr).

you can schedule 2 full timers:
$9x8 hours = $72 x 2 $144
(20% for benefits) $28.80
$144 + $28.80 = $172.40

You can schedule 1 full timer and 2 part timers:
$9x8 hours = $72 + (20% for benefits) $14.4 = $86.40
$9x4 hours = $36 x 2 pt employees = $72 (4 hour shifts)
FT employee $86.40 + 2 PT employees $72 = $158.40

Or you can schedule 4 part timers
$9x4 hours = $36 x 4 pt employees = $144 (4 hour shifts)

In all 3 examples you have the same number of people in the business at the same time (2) but as you can see it's more cost effective to have PTers.

Businesses have more PT not because you need more but because you can have more PTers because it's cheaper to have them rather than FTers. That's why in retail, restaurants etc. people hire more PT than they do FT.
Reply
Nellie 04:11 PM 01-02-2013
One of my Dcf told me that at her husbands work they would loose 10 hours a week if obama was reelected. This is a larger manufacturing company. I know that sence his first term our health insurance premium has doubled, our deductible has trippled, and they cover 10% less. Buisness are feeling the increases too. Many can't afford much more.
Reply
youretooloud 04:15 PM 01-02-2013
I haven't noticed it in my daycare. But, my friend has two businesses, and they are letting 60% of their staff go because they can't afford to provide them with insurance.
Reply
Sugar Magnolia 04:33 PM 01-02-2013
No, it has not affected my parents hours. Nor have I heard of anyone being laid off for this reason. The Affordable Health Care Act has, however, given me hope that I can buy insurance for my family without fear of being denied because of my pre existing heart.condition, being dropped if we become ill, make rates lower, and let my son remain covered when he goes to college.
Reply
MarinaVanessa 04:38 PM 01-02-2013
Originally Posted by youretooloud:
I haven't noticed it in my daycare. But, my friend has two businesses, and they are letting 60% of their staff go because they can't afford to provide them with insurance.
I haven't noticed it in my daycare either but many of my friends work in management in retail stores or are restaurant owners and many of them are forced to offer their FTers a choice of either a "demotion" from FT to PT or to be laid off. Of course their employees are opting to go to PT instead of not having a job but it's so sad and the buddies aren't to fond of the idea of having to do it.

Two of my buddies are brothers and both own their own restaurants (they each own their own business, not joint owners) and they came up with a solution that I thought was great ... they cut their FTers down to PT but hired each others staff so that they would work half of their FT hours in one restaurant and the other half at the other restaurant. I thought it was very thoughtful of them to go above and beyond the call of duty to keep their employees income rolling in.
Reply
Scout 04:40 PM 01-02-2013
IDK, I look at it a different way. Say you had your own child who was ill with a chronic condition. Before Obama care they could be denied coverage after they age out of your insurance because of pre existing condition or because they have already met the LIFETIME max an insurance company will pay...now there is no lifetime max or denial for pre existing conditions. I have a friend who is in this situation( her son will need an organ transplant probably before he is out of his teens) and she is very pleased with the new system. I know I had to pay more before to get a max coverage where as now it doesn't matter. There are pros and cons to everything. Healthcare will always be one of the biggest issues in this country. I urge everyone to watch that documentary about it(can't remember the name) but, it made me want to move to Europe to have my kids! lol. It's by the guy who did Farenheit 9/11. Very good, even if you don't agree with it.
Reply
Willow 04:51 PM 01-02-2013
Originally Posted by Scout:
It's by the guy who did Farenheit 9/11.
Thank you for not uttering his actual name......



Originally Posted by Scout:
Very good, even if you don't agree with it.
Disagree completely.
Reply
Crystal 05:32 PM 01-02-2013
Originally Posted by scout:
idk, i look at it a different way. Say you had your own child who was ill with a chronic condition. Before obama care they could be denied coverage after they age out of your insurance because of pre existing condition or because they have already met the lifetime max an insurance company will pay...now there is no lifetime max or denial for pre existing conditions. I have a friend who is in this situation( her son will need an organ transplant probably before he is out of his teens) and she is very pleased with the new system. I know i had to pay more before to get a max coverage where as now it doesn't matter. There are pros and cons to everything. Healthcare will always be one of the biggest issues in this country. I urge everyone to watch that documentary about it(can't remember the name) but, it made me want to move to europe to have my kids! Lol. It's by the guy who did farenheit 9/11. Very good, even if you don't agree with it.
ita!!!!
Reply
Sugar Magnolia 05:42 PM 01-02-2013
Originally Posted by Scout:
IDK, I look at it a different way. Say you had your own child who was ill with a chronic condition. Before Obama care they could be denied coverage after they age out of your insurance because of pre existing condition or because they have already met the LIFETIME max an insurance company will pay...now there is no lifetime max or denial for pre existing conditions. I have a friend who is in this situation( her son will need an organ transplant probably before he is out of his teens) and she is very pleased with the new system. I know I had to pay more before to get a max coverage where as now it doesn't matter. There are pros and cons to everything. Healthcare will always be one of the biggest issues in this country. I urge everyone to watch that documentary about it(can't remember the name) but, it made me want to move to Europe to have my kids! lol. It's by the guy who did Farenheit 9/11. Very good, even if you don't agree with it.
Michael Moore "Sicko". Great film. Also recommend "Bowling for Columbine"
Reply
Springdaze 05:45 PM 01-02-2013
I dont know why it has to be all in one bill or nothing. I get that kids should be covered but what does that have to do with forcing people to have ins. A friend of mine, who is also a client works pt and husband runs an electrical business but doesnt make alot doesnt have ins. her kids cant be covered because the state says her husband owns a business and therefore they arent eligible. Now at the end of the year she has to pay a penalty because she doesnt have ins! What kind of sense does that make? yep, she is choosing to not have ins and owe 5000 bucks from when her son broke his arm!
Reply
Scout 06:07 PM 01-02-2013
Originally Posted by Sugar Magnolia:
Michael Moore "Sicko". Great film. Also recommend "Bowling for Columbine"
This is the one I always forget about. I love his films. Even if I didn't agree with his point of view I think they are very well made.
Reply
Crystal 06:33 PM 01-02-2013
What needs to be remembered is that those without insurance end up seeing a doctor.....usually in the ER for catostophic issues....instead of seeing a doctor on a regular basis, resulting in a lack of preventative care....resulting in HUGE medical bills that they cannot afford that are then footed by the Government, i.e. taxpayers. Had they been recieving preventative care, their medical conditions might (likely would have) be found before it turns in to something major, like full blown cancer, etc.

This isn't going to force everyone to buy insurance they cannot afford, it will require all to be insured, however there are subsidies to assist. If you are at or under 138% of the poverty threshold, your insurance will be subsidized.

So, the government pays for DYING people to recieve medical care, OR we cover them BEFORE they need the extensive, exorbitantantly priced care for major medical conditions. Either way, the government pays for it.
Reply
Scout 05:06 AM 01-03-2013
Originally Posted by Crystal:
What needs to be remembered is that those without insurance end up seeing a doctor.....usually in the ER for catostophic issues....instead of seeing a doctor on a regular basis, resulting in a lack of preventative care....resulting in HUGE medical bills that they cannot afford that are then footed by the Government, i.e. taxpayers. Had they been recieving preventative care, their medical conditions might (likely would have) be found before it turns in to something major, like full blown cancer, etc.

This isn't going to force everyone to buy insurance they cannot afford, it will require all to be insured, however there are subsidies to assist. If you are at or under 138% of the poverty threshold, your insurance will be subsidized.

So, the government pays for DYING people to recieve medical care, OR we cover them BEFORE they need the extensive, exorbitantantly priced care for major medical conditions. Either way, the government pays for it.
Well said! I see more and more people in their 30's getting dx with cancer. We need to get out the mindset that if you are young, you do not need to get a yearly physical...myself included! I never go to the doctor but, I do plan on changing that this year!!
Reply
Tags:health care, obama, politics
Reply Up