Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
30 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: This story just breaks my heart. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So the act forces employers to shed jobs, never knew that.

The unions version

"SEIU Local 1 Organizing Coordinator Tyler French, from the union’s Chicago headquarters, explained that janitors were going on strike to protest their employer’s “retaliation” against collective bargaining efforts."

So is this a case of Obamacare costing jobs, or just being used as an excuse for bad labor relations in general?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
So the act forces employers to shed jobs, never knew that.


I suppose it's asking a lot to think these Democrats will actually recognize basic economic principles even though they're getting smacked upside the head by them right now.
Sorry but the company is making a choice, did it offer health insurance to these workers before Obama care? Why had Obamacare forced them to make job cuts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Poor SEIU members in Chicago are being laid off and seeing their hours cut because of Obamacare.

Quote:
Members of the Chicago-based Service Employees International Union Local 1 have gone on strike over recent job cuts by a janitorial company called Professional Maintenance.

The reason for the cuts? The employer says it is because of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. This is ironic since SEIU is a major supporter of the law.

Tyler French, Local 1's organizing director, told Mediatrackers Ohio the company claimed it had to cut its employees' hours due to Obamacare mandates.


Poor union members, getting burned by the very law they worked so hard to get passed. I wonder if this irony will sink in to their thick skulls or if the unions have them so brainwashed that they'll blame their former employer.

I suppose it's asking a lot to think these Democrats will actually recognize basic economic principles even though they're getting smacked upside the head by them right now.


You misread that, BJ. The strikers weren't in Chicago, they were in Columbus. And the reason for the strike wasn't layoffs or salary cuts, but (according to organizers) retaliation against collective bargaining. Also, I think your news sources may be a little bit behind the times.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Profile
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:


You misread that, BJ.



Nah, he didn't misread it. He just makes shit up.
14 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Altair IV wrote:
Golux13 wrote:


You misread that, BJ.



Nah, he didn't misread it. He just makes hit up.
To be fair, he did not make this up, just did not check the facts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Altair IV wrote:
Golux13 wrote:


You misread that, BJ.



Nah, he didn't misread it. He just makes hit up.

It's his shtick. His worldview forces him to make shit up.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
Poor SEIU members in Chicago are being laid off and seeing their hours cut because of Obamacare.

Quote:
Members of the Chicago-based Service Employees International Union Local 1 have gone on strike over recent job cuts by a janitorial company called Professional Maintenance.

The reason for the cuts? The employer says it is because of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. This is ironic since SEIU is a major supporter of the law.

Tyler French, Local 1's organizing director, told Mediatrackers Ohio the company claimed it had to cut its employees' hours due to Obamacare mandates.


Poor union members, getting burned by the very law they worked so hard to get passed. I wonder if this irony will sink in to their thick skulls or if the unions have them so brainwashed that they'll blame their former employer.

I suppose it's asking a lot to think these Democrats will actually recognize basic economic principles even though they're getting smacked upside the head by them right now.


You misread that, BJ. The strikers weren't in Chicago, they were in Columbus. And the reason for the strike wasn't layoffs or salary cuts, but (according to organizers) retaliation against collective bargaining. Also, I think your news sources may be a little bit behind the times.
this has been going on for 6 months, and only now does Obama care lead to job loses. Six month ago Columbus janitors took to the streets to demand a fair contract. This Monday, they return to the table to negotiate with the cleaning contractors who have demanded a wage freeze for janitors for the next three years, in addition to increases in health care costs (so they already get health care) and the right to cut janitors’ hours at any time. What has (apart from , maybe, the last part) got to do with Obama care?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Obamacare" is going to be the go-to excuse for anything a company does for the next year or two.

Before now, a company could cut back benefits or drop them altogether with no penalty at all. But if they want to cut employee costs from here forward, they can say the magic word "Obamacare" to deflect blame elsewhere.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Profile
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Altair IV wrote:
Golux13 wrote:


You misread that, BJ.



Nah, he didn't misread it. He just makes hit up.
To be fair, he did not make this up, just did not check the facts.


Facts, schmacts. He has been on a whirlwind tour of making shit up to fit his tiny purview here lately.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well one thing for sure... we can trust the employers and the employees to both be completely honest in everything they say.

No spin her by either side.


(and no, I don't have a solution or better way to get accurate information... just sayin...)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, I made my first ACA-influenced management decision today. My intern stopped in to discuss working for us during here winter break. She had done excellent work for us during the summer, putting in 40 hours per week. As an intern, she did not receive benefits and did not expect any. Today, my HR department informed us that the ACA has mandated that anyone who works 30 hours or more in a week must be put on benefits, regardless of their work status, be it intern or something else. I did not budget for these benefits. As a result, I will not be having our intern work for more than 29 hours per week during her break.

She completely understood why we are doing this, and as the internship is more for her to gain experience than anything else, she is not upset by this. However, the reality is that this law has resulted in her earning power being reduced by 27.5% over what it would have been previously. Perhaps a minor issue compared to whatever benefits the ACA will provide to our society, but I suspect this is not an isolated case.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty
msg tools
Avatar
Shoot, I knew this thread was going to be bullshit from the title alone. BJ doesn't have a heart.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
desertfox2004 wrote:
She completely understood why we are doing this, and as the internship is more for her to gain experience than anything else, she is not upset by this. However, the reality is that this law has resulted in her earning power being reduced by 27.5% over what it would have been previously.


If you're so concerned about her earning power and want to avoid the ACA, why don't you simply raise her hourly wage to compensate her in turn?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
desertfox2004 wrote:
She completely understood why we are doing this, and as the internship is more for her to gain experience than anything else, she is not upset by this. However, the reality is that this law has resulted in her earning power being reduced by 27.5% over what it would have been previously.


If you're so concerned about her earning power and want to avoid the ACA, why don't you simply raise her hourly wage to compensate her in turn?


I'm not that concerned about her earning power - we pay interns a standard rate. I'm simply stating a fact - the ACA is going to cost her 27.5% of her previous earnings, and I will need to get by with her doing 27.5% less work per week for me. In this case, the ACA is doing neither of us a favor. Again, if on balance the ACA provides our society with a positive impact, then this is a minor price to pay, but it is a price nonetheless.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
desertfox2004 wrote:
Well, I made my first ACA-influenced management decision today. My intern stopped in to discuss working for us during here winter break. She had done excellent work for us during the summer, putting in 40 hours per week. As an intern, she did not receive benefits and did not expect any. Today, my HR department informed us that the ACA has mandated that anyone who works 30 hours or more in a week must be put on benefits, regardless of their work status, be it intern or something else. I did not budget for these benefits. As a result, I will not be having our intern work for more than 29 hours per week during her break.


Did your HR department miss the memo that the employer mandate was delayed until 2015?

There is also a 95% rule that could allow not covering full-time interns as long as they don't make up too much of the work force.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rshipley wrote:
desertfox2004 wrote:
Well, I made my first ACA-influenced management decision today. My intern stopped in to discuss working for us during here winter break. She had done excellent work for us during the summer, putting in 40 hours per week. As an intern, she did not receive benefits and did not expect any. Today, my HR department informed us that the ACA has mandated that anyone who works 30 hours or more in a week must be put on benefits, regardless of their work status, be it intern or something else. I did not budget for these benefits. As a result, I will not be having our intern work for more than 29 hours per week during her break.


Did your HR department miss the memo that the employer mandate was delayed until 2015?

There is also a 95% rule that could allow not covering full-time interns as long as they don't make up too much of the work force.


I can't really say what my HR does or does not know about this matter, but I have to depend on them to know the rules. I will mention this to them on Monday. Thanks for the head's up!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
bjlillo wrote:
kuhrusty wrote:
Shoot, I knew this thread was going to be bullshit from the title alone. BJ doesn't have a heart.


I was going to argue with you, but I had a pretty good laugh at this video earlier tonight so I know I don't have a leg to stand on.



This is freaking hilarious. laugh
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
kuhrusty wrote:
Shoot, I knew this thread was going to be bullshit from the title alone. BJ doesn't have a heart.


I was going to argue with you, but I had a pretty good laugh at this video earlier tonight so I know I don't have a leg to stand on.



This is freaking hilarious. laugh


I knew it was coming but that was still tough to watch. Circle of life I guess. ::sniff::
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alaren wrote:
rshipley wrote:
desertfox2004 wrote:
Well, I made my first ACA-influenced management decision today. My intern stopped in to discuss working for us during here winter break. She had done excellent work for us during the summer, putting in 40 hours per week. As an intern, she did not receive benefits and did not expect any. Today, my HR department informed us that the ACA has mandated that anyone who works 30 hours or more in a week must be put on benefits, regardless of their work status, be it intern or something else. I did not budget for these benefits. As a result, I will not be having our intern work for more than 29 hours per week during her break.


Did your HR department miss the memo that the employer mandate was delayed until 2015?

There is also a 95% rule that could allow not covering full-time interns as long as they don't make up too much of the work force.


A lot of companies were full steam ahead trying to make the original deadline. The delay didn't really help those who had already committed to compliance by the original deadline; would have cost them more to backpeddle and then re-implement the transition.

I am closely familiar with one company Obamacare is costing an extra million dollars per year, and that's after the cuts they had to make to keep everyone employed. No layoffs as a result, but the tradeoff is they no longer cover any health insurance costs for spouses--they used to subsidize those. I've seen a couple news articles about the "mistake" in the bill... apparently if you are covered by your employer, even if your employer does not cover your spouse or children, the fact that you are covered may make them ineligible for certain benefits and subsidies? Anyway it looks like a good example of what happens when the government forces employers to provide benefits of a particular kind: benefits of other kinds suffer.


The company I was at cut health care benefits and raised costs every year from 2002 to 2012 (along with pensions, then mass layoffs) despite raising dividends and reporting profits.

The ACA could not have been a factor until at least 2009 and realistically 2011.

What I'm saying is- if the ACA had not been passed, benefits would still be cut this year at many companies- that were profitable.

I'm sure ACA has some higher costs. I've also seen several examples of draconian statements about the ACA that turned out to be unfounded fear mongering or a huge inflation of the actual cost.

Let's put it in and then we can adjust it. The employer insurance model we had for the last 50 years was visibly breaking down. Top executives got great health care and everyone else was being increasingly shafted with each passing year.

It's a large part of why Obama was able to be elected and to have this program passed. If employer provided health care was working- it wouldn't have motivated so many people to vote for Obama and so many representatives and senators to pass a program like this.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty
msg tools
Avatar
maxo-texas wrote:
The company I was at cut health care benefits and raised costs every year from 2002 to 2012 (along with pensions, then mass layoffs) despite raising dividends and reporting profits.

The ACA could not have been a factor until at least 2009 and realistically 2011.

What I'm saying is- if the ACA had not been passed, benefits would still be cut this year at many companies- that were profitable.

Yep. In the early 00's, I was at a company that cut all contractors' pay by 10% in the same quarter that they had just announced record profits. All kinds of shit is going to get blamed on the ACA, which is going to make it hard, if not impossible, to figure out its real costs.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
The company I was at cut health care benefits and raised costs every year from 2002 to 2012 (along with pensions, then mass layoffs) despite raising dividends and reporting profits.

The ACA could not have been a factor until at least 2009 and realistically 2011.

What I'm saying is- if the ACA had not been passed, benefits would still be cut this year at many companies- that were profitable.

Yep. In the early 00's, I was at a company that cut all contractors' pay by 10% in the same quarter that they had just announced record profits. All kinds of shit is going to get blamed on the ACA, which is going to make it hard, if not impossible, to figure out its real costs.
Thats the tragedy, people will buy the "it's obamacares fault" oppose it and each year after it's repealed will still face cuts in pay and healthcare benefits. They (as always it seems) will make sacrifices to keep their jobs and pay and will still end up losing them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
The company I was at cut health care benefits and raised costs every year from 2002 to 2012 (along with pensions, then mass layoffs) despite raising dividends and reporting profits.

The ACA could not have been a factor until at least 2009 and realistically 2011.

What I'm saying is- if the ACA had not been passed, benefits would still be cut this year at many companies- that were profitable.

Yep. In the early 00's, I was at a company that cut all contractors' pay by 10% in the same quarter that they had just announced record profits. All kinds of shit is going to get blamed on the ACA, which is going to make it hard, if not impossible, to figure out its real costs.


Uh, guys. Obama. Come on. OBAMA.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alaren wrote:
rshipley wrote:
desertfox2004 wrote:
Well, I made my first ACA-influenced management decision today. My intern stopped in to discuss working for us during here winter break. She had done excellent work for us during the summer, putting in 40 hours per week. As an intern, she did not receive benefits and did not expect any. Today, my HR department informed us that the ACA has mandated that anyone who works 30 hours or more in a week must be put on benefits, regardless of their work status, be it intern or something else. I did not budget for these benefits. As a result, I will not be having our intern work for more than 29 hours per week during her break.


Did your HR department miss the memo that the employer mandate was delayed until 2015?

There is also a 95% rule that could allow not covering full-time interns as long as they don't make up too much of the work force.


A lot of companies were full steam ahead trying to make the original deadline. The delay didn't really help those who had already committed to compliance by the original deadline; would have cost them more to backpeddle and then re-implement the transition.


Delaying an implementation date isn't usually that expensive in my experience. The IRS is encouraging employers to start the reporting in 2014 as a test period, but no penalties apply until 2015.

Quote:
I am closely familiar with one company Obamacare is costing an extra million dollars per year, and that's after the cuts they had to make to keep everyone employed. No layoffs as a result, but the tradeoff is they no longer cover any health insurance costs for spouses--they used to subsidize those. I've seen a couple news articles about the "mistake" in the bill... apparently if you are covered by your employer, even if your employer does not cover your spouse or children, the fact that you are covered may make them ineligible for certain benefits and subsidies? Anyway it looks like a good example of what happens when the government forces employers to provide benefits of a particular kind: benefits of other kinds suffer.


I'd be interested in exactly what is costing an extra million a year because of the ACA. Did they have to cover more people?

The issue with dependent coverage is if your employer offers it, the calculation of whether the plan is affordable is based on the individual coverage cost. In some cases, it would be better for the employee's family if the employer didn't offer dependent coverage if it isn't subsidized. This seems like a good candidate for a fix if the Congress was interested in doing that sort of thing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/health-insurance-pr...



This was my experience over the last decade and at these levels of deductibles (ours were actually $5000 in 2012), you basically didn't have health care unless you had a major illness and this was at a major corporation.

The main benefit of the insurance was $20 office co-pays. We had to get all our drugs from Medco and outside of generics it was $38 to $85 per month for prescriptions.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/business/despite-new-healt...

Quote:
In California, Aetna is proposing rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent for some of those policy holders, according to the insurers’ filings with the state for 2013. These rate requests are all the more striking after a 39 percent rise sought by Anthem Blue Cross in 2010 helped give impetus to the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, which was passed the same year and will not be fully in effect until 2014.


Insurance rates were skyrocketing before ACA.

And yes, I agree- I think we need a single payer system. The executives from just one insurance company were taking $60 million off the top in pay.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alaren wrote:
The level of coverage required by Obamacare is "higher" (by official measures) than what these plans were expected to provide, and costs more per person to purchase. The real kicker, though, is that the migration away from HSAs and FSAs means higher per-incident out-of-pocket employee cost for actual medical care even though they are ostensibly getting "better" medical insurance coverage.


I think most of the migration is to PPO and HMO plans which also have low out-of-pocket costs. Indemnity plans (80/20) seem to have been on the decline for a while.

Quote:
I think a coherent argument can be made either way for which is really the "better" health insurance situation--a little financial pain that is going to recurs forever, or a lot of financial pain that is unlikely to ever occur, much less recur--but that's why I think choice in health coverage is so important, because reasonable people can disagree, and should have the liberty to do so. Under Obamacare, liberty suffers, and not with any obvious and necessary advantages to anyone but a tiny percentage of Americans.


The unlikely is the main reason for insurance. If I understand you correctly, opting to take a risk that others may have to pay for isn't a liberty I have much respect for.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.