508mikey
Chinese food is garbage
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 61,939
- Likes
- 51,588
Cheap compared to what Obamacares going to cost over the next decade.
Back to Obamcare, there was a Senator on one of the shows this morning talking about what the GOP may try to aaccomplish. First thing was the Keystone XL project then he said they would try to make some changes to the ACA such as moving what is considered full time work to 40 hours per week . that would be a good move, IMO.
I've seen that issue raised, as well. The theory is that the current definition of 30 hours means that some employers have cut back hours for certain employees to 29 hours a week, in order for the employer not to have to pay for the insurance for that employee.
And since the provision only applies to employers with more than 50 employees, we are talking about that universe of employers. So what would happen under this proposal is that you'd have some small subset of employers (50 + employees) that will have their employees work 39 hours a week.
The employees theoretically make more, right? But will they? I fear that what would happen is that salaries would go down so that employees were making the same amount as they are now, and employers would just cut some employees to make up the difference.
I really need to see some good study on this because I worry that it will have the effect of reducing jobs while providing no benefit to these employees, who will work longer hours to make the same money and still not get coverage through their employer.
I admit that on the front end of the discussion I'm a bit skeptical of an employer who has more than 50 employees but does not already offer health insurance.
Back to Obamcare, there was a Senator on one of the shows this morning talking about what the GOP may try to aaccomplish. First thing was the Keystone XL project then he said they would try to make some changes to the ACA such as moving what is considered full time work to 40 hours per week . that would be a good move, IMO.
I've seen that issue raised, as well. The theory is that the current definition of 30 hours means that some employers have cut back hours for certain employees to 29 hours a week, in order for the employer not to have to pay for the insurance for that employee.
And since the provision only applies to employers with more than 50 employees, we are talking about that universe of employers. So what would happen under this proposal is that you'd have some small subset of employers (50 + employees) that will have their employees work 39 hours a week.
The employees theoretically make more, right? But will they? I fear that what would happen is that salaries would go down so that employees were making the same amount as they are now, and employers would just cut some employees to make up the difference.
I really need to see some good study on this because I worry that it will have the effect of reducing jobs while providing no benefit to these employees, who will work longer hours to make the same money and still not get coverage through their employer.
I admit that on the front end of the discussion I'm a bit skeptical of an employer who has more than 50 employees but does not already offer health insurance.
I've seen that issue raised, as well. The theory is that the current definition of 30 hours means that some employers have cut back hours for certain employees to 29 hours a week, in order for the employer not to have to pay for the insurance for that employee.
And since the provision only applies to employers with more than 50 employees, we are talking about that universe of employers. So what would happen under this proposal is that you'd have some small subset of employers (50 + employees) that will have their employees work 39 hours a week.
The employees theoretically make more, right? But will they? I fear that what would happen is that salaries would go down so that employees were making the same amount as they are now, and employers would just cut some employees to make up the difference.
I really need to see some good study on this because I worry that it will have the effect of reducing jobs while providing no benefit to these employees, who will work longer hours to make the same money and still not get coverage through their employer.
I admit that on the front end of the discussion I'm a bit skeptical of an employer who has more than 50 employees but does not already offer health insurance.
Couple of thoughts...
1) companies such as Home Depot and Lowe's will simply have their employees work 39 hours instead of 29. They have very few full time employees.
2) this will be a good thing for kids that are still at home that work at places like this. It's a way of raising the minimum wage without raising it.
The employees theoretically make more, right? But will they? I fear that what would happen is that salaries would go down so that employees were making the same amount as they are now, and employers would just cut some employees to make up the difference.
If you haven't received a raise and complain about it, maybe you should look for a new gig instead of complaining on VN
Wow.
If only we could all use college students to make billions as we monitor their short-comings before they go pro for guaranteed millions. Are you sure you aren't a mini-version of Dan Snyder? Easy to over pay for all of your vegetables(players) when raising your crop(players) is free.
Seriously... your response is one of the most pretentious things I've heard in a while
Given what you just said to him, I know what my response to you would be. "Go **** yourself".