Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is The 29 Hour Work Week Coming As Employers Seek To Escape The Obamacare Mandate?
CNS news ^ | 11-9-2012 | Craig Bannister

Posted on 11/11/2012 8:03:51 AM PST by Renfield

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-71 last
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
In some ways he's got it all wrong. Nowadays, especially in professional jobs that require a lot of skill and education, the trend is to have fewer employees work more hours, not the other way around.

If you have work that typically requires a professional staff to spend 120 per week getting the job done, you're better off hiring two employees and having them work 60-hour weeks than three employees with 40-hour weeks. You end up saving money even if you pay the two employees 50% more to compensate them for the extra time they work. For one thing, most employee benefits (sick time, vacation time, medical insurance (think about this in the context of Obamacare), etc.) are fixed costs regardless of how many hours someone works. Secondly, having two employees instead of three means you can get away with one-third less office space for the work.

51 posted on 11/11/2012 9:59:59 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Heck, I could do my job from home. I suspect we’ll see that more and more as companies try to save money on office space.


52 posted on 11/11/2012 10:01:12 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Renfield; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; NFHale; Impy; ...

I remember back in the Clinton era a Dem proposing short work-weeks to reduce unemployment.
Unfortunately for hourly employees that means less $$$.


53 posted on 11/11/2012 10:04:24 AM PST by sickoflibs (How long before cry-Bohner caves to O again? They took the House for what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

My company has tried that, and I’ve talked them out of it ... mainly by pointing out that even in very expensive commercial real estate markets the cost of office space isn’t very high compared to all of the other costs of running the business. In fact, at some point in the last decade we’ve reached the point where medical coverage for an employee costs more than the real estate they occupy and the office furniture, computer and telecommunications equipment they use.


54 posted on 11/11/2012 10:08:45 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Which is why companies are on board with ObamaCare, and frankly I understand it. Why should a company be in the business of providing health insurance for their employees when those resources could be put to better use? They don’t have to worry about providing health insurance for outsourced workers, so it immediately puts the American worker at a distinct disadvantage.


55 posted on 11/11/2012 10:11:38 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
let machines do the work that people won't do without complaining

Complaining is the least of the problems with the modern workforce. Lawsuits, absenteeism, sick leave, workers comp, unemployment insurance, recordkeeping, OSHA, slackerism, theft of service and goods, going postal, security, et al.

56 posted on 11/11/2012 10:12:03 AM PST by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Here's something else to think about ...

Once all of the provisions of Obamacare kick in, there is going to be a huge cohort of people who will suddenly become valuable, highly prized employees in any industry: prospective employees who don't need employer-paid medical coverage because they can demonstrate that they have coverage through other means. This can be a spouse's employer-paid insurance plan or a government plan (I'd love to be hiring older employees on Medicare right now).

57 posted on 11/11/2012 10:18:26 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

In my company, if you cover a spouse that is eligible to be covered under their company’s medical plan, that will cost an additional $150/month to cover them.


58 posted on 11/11/2012 10:23:21 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

That’s $1,800 per year. If you worked for me and your spouse had this kind of provision in his/her insurance plan, I’d gladly write you a check for $1,800 to cover that additional expense for you.


59 posted on 11/11/2012 10:31:55 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Productivity gains through adoption of new and advanced technology is a rather slow and gradual process. Productivity gains are the ONLY way we can increase the overall wealth of society.

What you are seeing now are the SUDDEN impacts of government meddling in an industry. It certainly wasn’t a free market before given the myriad millions of regulations imposed on insurance by government at all levels. But now the very heavy hand of central planning if making a bad situation MUCH MUCH worse. The huge shifts in labor patterns are not caused by productivity increases or changes but are entirely due to government fouling everything up.

Right on schedule, completely as predicted, and bound to get MUCH worse as the onerous regs now kick in. People were happy in early 2012 because their kids could stay on their insurance plan and pre-existing conditions were covered. But the piper wants his due starting January 1.


60 posted on 11/11/2012 10:34:03 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
People were happy in early 2012 because their kids could stay on their insurance plan and pre-existing conditions were covered.

People were happy because they had no idea what these provisions of Obamacare involved. Keeping the kids on the insurance plan until the age of 26 wasn't intended to provide medical coverage for more people. It was a huge windfall for the insurance industry (whose lobbyists basically wrote Obamacare, by the way) to keep an enormous group of insured customers who would be having premiums paid for them while typically making very few claims for them.

And the mandate for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions doesn't necessarily correlate to the cost of a new policy. One Freeper a few weeks ago presented a hypothetical scenario that he/she had researched, involving a 35-40 year old uninsured person who suddenly decided to get on a medical plan after being diagnosed with a major medical problem. The Freeper did some shopping around, and learned that the average annual premium in that case was something like $36,000. What the heck is the point of a "pre-existing conditions" mandate if that's what the insured has to pay for coverage? LOL.

61 posted on 11/11/2012 10:40:19 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

I like these work hours!

“We get up at noon and go to work at one.

Take an hour for lunch and at two were done...-” Wizard of Oz”


62 posted on 11/11/2012 10:44:41 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (The parasites now outnumber the producers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

You don’t understand. We simply force US companies not to outsource. Now the jobs will be in the US. It’s not like the guy in some third world country willing to do the work for less could be employed by anyone else. Our jobs. Here. Done deal. Fist of government trumps invisible hand, works every time.


63 posted on 11/11/2012 10:53:21 AM PST by Darth Reardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Darth Reardon

You’re being sarcastic, right?


64 posted on 11/11/2012 10:56:13 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

(I’d love to be hiring older employees on Medicare right now).

*********************************************************

I had not thought about that. However, I think there may be a law regarding coverage gap, so that anything not covered by Medicare would have to be covered, if it was covered for the rest of the FTEs. Do you know if that is the case?

I was just thinking that, if the work force restructures to part-time, I might look for a part time job. Can’t make more than around $14,000 or my Social Security gets reduced.

If I went back to work full time, We would be in a higher tax bracket, and loose Social Security dollars too, so we would be feeding the beast.

Still, I would probably be working, if my daughter didn’t need me to babysit. I really think it is better to avoid day care.


65 posted on 11/11/2012 10:56:46 AM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

The New Normal.

Watch the unions demand that anything they work over 30 hours is now overtime!!!


66 posted on 11/11/2012 10:56:57 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Absolutely I am. Unfortunately, many people think that way.


67 posted on 11/11/2012 11:08:56 AM PST by Darth Reardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I think we kid ourselves. When you look at the metrics, we’re a shadow of our former selves. We could turn it around, and so I do advocate for it. If we don’t in short order though, we’ll never be what we used to be.

We are on the verge of falling below China. It’s shopping for a major military base in South America.

This is not just fun and games any longer, not to infer that’s what you engaged in.


68 posted on 11/11/2012 11:31:46 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Hurricane Sandy..., a week later and 47 million Americans still didn't have power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Thanks. My point was the bennies started in 2012, but the horrendous true costs clobber us in 2013 and thereafter. The layoffs we are seeing this week are the tip of the iceberg.

This was another dereliction by Romney. He said he would repeal the monstrosity, but didn’t explain what it will cost society.


69 posted on 11/11/2012 12:41:50 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

According to the timeline I saw, the 30 hrs limit does not kick in till 2014.


70 posted on 11/11/2012 2:32:23 PM PST by Hound of the Baskervilles ("Nonsense in the intellect draws evil after it." C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

doesnt wal-mart already do this?


71 posted on 11/11/2012 6:59:09 PM PST by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-71 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson