PDA

View Full Version : Another company goes part time only


JustRalph
08-19-2013, 08:43 AM
http://www.policymic.com/articles/59981/obamacare-strikes-and-forever-21-cuts-employees-hours

Sure glad this stuff isn't happening.........

Clocker
08-19-2013, 09:10 AM
Sure glad this stuff isn't happening.........

It's not happening. It's just another phony scandal to take Washington's eye off the ball and to discredit the most transparent administration in history.

People don't understand what is good for them, and that this is a good thing. Cutting hours means more jobs for more people, which helps spread the wealth around. Several people on this very forum recently argued for the benefits of cutting the work week. Their views are vindicated.

Dave Schwartz
08-19-2013, 09:50 AM
Although the ethical nature of Forever 21’s decision is debatable, it is both rational and understandable

An excellent quote from the article.

No business can be expected to lose money in order to satisfy a law.

Robert Goren
08-19-2013, 10:51 AM
Another company headed toward bankruptcy, because of bad management decisions which the right will blame on Obama. Going the part-time help will only make employees care less about what to the company. It has been proven over and over again. Businesses do not fail because taxes or government regulations.They fail because the bosses are too dumb to keep up with their competitors. Watch CNBC 's The Profit where a guy comes and tries to rescue small businesses and see all the dumb management. If you have never been on the decision level of a business, you will get a real eye opener. In two of the 3 shows thus far, the business were built by someone who has died and kids are running it to ground by doing stupid stuff. The third business was in trouble because $400,000 disappeared in the last year. I wish I could say that these business were exceptions, but my experience tells me they are the rule. I remember here locally a prominent local business ate his gun after it was learned he was kiting checks to keep up his life style. A friend of his told me how shocked she was by the incident. Her father (who built a local theater business from nothing) told me 20 minutes later that he wasn't surprised. That guy had never "smelled " right to him. What difference a generation makes when it comes to business savvy.

Clocker
08-19-2013, 11:04 AM
Another company headed toward bankruptcy, because of bad management decisions

There is nothing in the story to indicate that they are in trouble. And if they are in trouble, it is certainly exacerbated by a federal program that virtually mandates a switch to part time work for low wage retail operations.

Robert Goren
08-19-2013, 11:21 AM
There is nothing in the story to indicate that they are in trouble. And if they are in trouble, it is certainly exacerbated by a federal program that virtually mandates a switch to part time work for low wage retail operations. It does no such thing. That is a management decision. The companies that survive will be the ones that sacrifice a little profit temporary for good of the company in the long run. These kinds of decisions have to be made daily. I have never seen a company last too long by grabbing quick profits at the cost of future profits. Some of Forever 21's competitors are making the opposite decision. We will see who survives. If I am correct, the Forever 21s will go out business and blame Obama care and you and others on the right will eat it up. In the mean time its competitors who made the opposite decision will thrive and you and those on the right won't even notice.

rastajenk
08-19-2013, 11:47 AM
You expect to hold off a tidal wave of real experiences with three episodes of a reality-like TV show? You serve up some weak tea sometimes, but you really mailed it in this time.


/cliche-finder off

tucker6
08-19-2013, 12:09 PM
What difference a generation makes when it comes to business savvy.
There's nothing generational about business savvy. It is built into some people's DNA like anything else. There are 25 year olds out there that can run rings around 99% of people over 50, and the reverse holds true as well.

I will say that most small businesses fail, not due to govt tax and regs, but through the choices the owner makes. Having a great idea (whether a product or a plan) doesn't mean you are good at implementation. That's why licensing and royalty concepts were invented. Just because you're good at implementation doesn't mean you're good with people or benefit plans. That's why HR depts were invented. Stick to what you are good at and add key people to do the rest if you can.

I knew a CEO of a fairly large business that ran it into the ground because his vision was very myopic and he was a control/power freak who didn't trust his people to do their jobs. When the head of sales left, he took over the position. How much time do you think he gave to sales meetings/concepts/programs/pricing when he already had a full time job as CEO????? That's why businesses fail...

Clocker
08-19-2013, 12:25 PM
The companies that survive will be the ones that sacrifice a little profit temporary for good of the company in the long run.

Forever 21 has over 27,000 employees. They have some stores outside the country. Let's just say conservatively that they have 20,000 US non-management employees. The employer mandate penalty would be $60 million a year if they did not provide health insurance to those employees, and who knows how much more the cost would be if they did provide it. A small sacrifice for the good of the company in the long run?

mostpost
08-19-2013, 02:33 PM
http://www.policymic.com/articles/59981/obamacare-strikes-and-forever-21-cuts-employees-hours

Sure glad this stuff isn't happening.........
Another in a long series of anecdotal posts by you that proves nothing. According to the Huffington Post article on this same story, the company claims that less than 1% of its US workers will be affected by this move. Forever 21 also says that the decision has nothing to do with Obamacare.

When you show me statistical evidence that a significant % of American businesses are cutting employee hours at a substantial rate, I might pay attention. As of now the combined total of your and others posts on the subject is in the neighborhood of one in a million.

JustRalph
08-19-2013, 02:52 PM
Another in a long series of anecdotal posts by you that proves nothing. According to the Huffington Post article on this same story, the company claims that less than 1% of its US workers will be affected by this move. Forever 21 also says that the decision has nothing to do with Obamacare.

When you show me statistical evidence that a significant % of American businesses are cutting employee hours at a substantial rate, I might pay attention. As of now the combined total of your and others posts on the subject is in the neighborhood of one in a million.

You are full of it. The entire restaurant industry has either done it, or is planning to do it. Keep telling yourself that it's not happening........

mostpost
08-19-2013, 04:22 PM
It's not happening. It's just another phony scandal to take Washington's eye off the ball and to discredit the most transparent administration in history.

People don't understand what is good for them, and that this is a good thing. Cutting hours means more jobs for more people, which helps spread the wealth around. Several people on this very forum recently argued for the benefits of cutting the work week. Their views are vindicated.

I'm sitting here shaking my head, unable to comprehend how someone can come to the conclusions you come to. Proposals to go from a 40 hour work week to a 35 or 36 hour work week are always accompanied by a corresponding increase in hourly salary. Since the increases in productivity over the last decades have not been accompanied by comparable increases in wages, there is ample room for improvement.

Cutting someone's hours while keeping them at the same hourly rate and denying them benefits has only one outcome. That is to hurt the workers.

tucker6
08-19-2013, 04:34 PM
I'm sitting here shaking my head, unable to comprehend how someone can come to the conclusions you come to. Proposals to go from a 40 hour work week to a 35 or 36 hour work week are always accompanied by a corresponding increase in hourly salary. Since the increases in productivity over the last decades have not been accompanied by comparable increases in wages, there is ample room for improvement.

Cutting someone's hours while keeping them at the same hourly rate and denying them benefits has only one outcome. That is to hurt the workers.
Yes and no. It has less to do with hurting workers (although that may be an outcome) than it does cost shedding. Most families have both adults working. Both companies that they work for likely have health care and other benefits. if company A decides to forgo full time, they likely also eliminate health care costs. That is their real reason for doing this, and not to stick it to the employee per se. It is also likely that the employee can pick up coverage with the spouse. Eventually as Obamacare takes hold, no company will offer health coverage. Why offer something that is being given out for 'free'? You are seeing the first vestiges of that here.

Now you're free to ask, "but won't the employees leave"? Some will. Most will not due to family circumstances. Again, a calculated risk from mngt. Besides, anyone with a spouse who can get benefits would be willing to work at company A. In the end, the employee may take a 12% pay cut (5 hours lost/40 hours), but they still have a job. As the economy improves, I would expect wages to follow for this new class of worker.

Edit to throw you a piece of red meat: The actual outcome is that profits will go up for the same revenue stream. Investors are happy as are upper mngt, who likely have bonus programs tied to cost shedding endeavors. That is business. Always has been. Always will be.

Saratoga_Mike
08-19-2013, 04:47 PM
Another in a long series of anecdotal posts by you that proves nothing. According to the Huffington Post article on this same story, the company claims that less than 1% of its US workers will be affected by this move. Forever 21 also says that the decision has nothing to do with Obamacare.

When you show me statistical evidence that a significant % of American businesses are cutting employee hours at a substantial rate, I might pay attention. As of now the combined total of your and others posts on the subject is in the neighborhood of one in a million.

I love your baseless arrogance - it's very funny!

Anecdotal? How about you go to the Dept of Labor's website? How about you tell us how many full-time jobs were created between April 2013 and July 2013?* Now tell us how many PART-TIME jobs were created over the same time frame?

Let me do it: +37k full time jobs and +684k part-time jobs.....turns out Anecdotal Ralph is right.

Next question?

*use the seasonally adjusted numbers; otherwise, you will get a distortion from the normal seasonal uptick in part-time work

maddog42
08-19-2013, 04:52 PM
Just to give another perspective.

A couple weeks ago I was in Half-Price Books in OKC. I saw they were needing help. I have about 5 years of experience in running and/or working in used book stores so I picked up an application. I am looking for a part-time job, so I can continue to babysit the grand kids. When I went in for my interview the manager and district manager told me they would like to hire me, but they only hire full time employees. They asked if I could go full time at $8 an hour.
I politely told them it wasn't the pay, but my situation wouldn't permit it. They were extremely nice and seemed like a good company. Surprisingly, they seem to have stores(50?) in at least 10 states.


http://www.hpb.com/

JustRalph
08-19-2013, 05:02 PM
Try this perspective. In June Dave and Buster's put 85% of their hourly employees on part time status. Directly due to Obamacare. They call it "workforce management due to the ACA"

Roughly 5000 employees restricted to 28.5 hours a week. From full to part time.

They have 65 stores. They just opened two new ones. Hired nothing but part timers. The ACA is making an entire industry part time


Just to give another perspective.

A couple weeks ago I was in Half-Price Books in OKC. I saw they were needing help. I have about 5 years of experience in running and/or working in used book stores so I picked up an application. I am looking for a part-time job, so I can continue to babysit the grand kids. When I went in for my interview the manager and district manager told me they would like to hire me, but they only hire full time employees. They asked if I could go full time at $8 an hour.
I politely told them it wasn't the pay, but my situation wouldn't permit it. They were extremely nice and seemed like a good company. Surprisingly, they seem to have stores(50?) in at least 10 states.


http://www.hpb.com/

Clocker
08-19-2013, 05:02 PM
I'm sitting here shaking my head, unable to comprehend how someone can come to the conclusions you come to.

I didn't come to any conclusions. I just threw the bait in the water and someone took the hook.

Proposals to go from a 40 hour work week to a 35 or 36 hour work week are always accompanied by a corresponding increase in hourly salary.

Moonbats propose, economic realities dispose.

Since the increases in productivity over the last decades have not been accompanied by comparable increases in wages, there is ample room for improvement.

Repeated here endlessly and tediously, without a shred of objective analysis to back up the claim.

Cutting someone's hours while keeping them at the same hourly rate and denying them benefits has only one outcome. That is to hurt the workers.

Oops, reality rears its ugly head. You only have Obama and Pelosi and Reid to blame for that. If that is really happening, although the Kool Aid drinker are in denial.

Dave Schwartz
08-19-2013, 05:02 PM
I'm sitting here shaking my head, unable to comprehend how someone can come to the conclusions you come to. Proposals to go from a 40 hour work week to a 35 or 36 hour work week are always accompanied by a corresponding increase in hourly salary. Since the increases in productivity over the last decades have not been accompanied by comparable increases in wages, there is ample room for improvement.

MostP,

Maybe if you work for the postal service.

In the private sector, I really doubt that this is true.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't your response fall into the category of "anecdotal?" Didn't you get on Ralph in another thread for this?

Saratoga_Mike
08-19-2013, 05:07 PM
Just to give another perspective.

A couple weeks ago I was in Half-Price Books in OKC. I saw they were needing help. I have about 5 years of experience in running and/or working in used book stores so I picked up an application. I am looking for a part-time job, so I can continue to babysit the grand kids. When I went in for my interview the manager and district manager told me they would like to hire me, but they only hire full time employees. They asked if I could go full time at $8 an hour.
I politely told them it wasn't the pay, but my situation wouldn't permit it. They were extremely nice and seemed like a good company. Surprisingly, they seem to have stores(50?) in at least 10 states.


http://www.hpb.com/

Anecdotal - please abide by MostPost's edict and stick with Dept of Labor data.

Saratoga_Mike
08-19-2013, 05:08 PM
Try this perspective. In June Dave and Buster's put 85% of their hourly employees on part time status. Directly due to Obamacare. They call it "workforce management due to the ACA"


It's a restaurant/entertainment chain - so I suspect a vast majority of workers were already part-time, but I agree with you on your overall point.

JustRalph
08-19-2013, 05:20 PM
It's a restaurant/entertainment chain - so I suspect a vast majority of workers were already part-time, but I agree with you on your overall point.

Nope. These were all full time or close to it.

They were allowed to keep 15% roughly full time.

Saratoga_Mike
08-19-2013, 05:33 PM
Nope. These were all full time or close to it.

They were allowed to keep 15% roughly full time.

So it must have excluded waiters/waitresses? I missed that part - thanks for the clarification....still just anecdotal, though :rolleyes:

Steve 'StatMan'
08-19-2013, 06:58 PM
So it must have excluded waiters/waitresses? I missed that part - thanks for the clarification....still just anecdotal, though :rolleyes:

Ralph's wife owns/owned at least one or more Dave & Busters.

JustRalph
08-19-2013, 07:11 PM
Ralph's wife owns/owned at least one or more Dave & Busters.

Not anymore. Moved on. Right after this decision was made...........

Her ownership stake was stock, bought back many years ago.

Moving on to brighter things.......but maybe an ownership stake of another company again in the near future

PaceAdvantage
08-19-2013, 09:09 PM
If this is happening with companies with thousands of employees, you can just imagine the effect it is going to have on smaller non-chain operations with 50-100 employees.

Companies that were perhaps nicely getting by, now having to close up shop because of this health care legislation being forced down their throats.

I wonder if we will see a serious uptick in unemployment once these rules start being enforced big time...

JustRalph
08-19-2013, 09:23 PM
If this is happening with companies with thousands of employees, you can just imagine the effect it is going to have on smaller non-chain operations with 50-100 employees.

Companies that were perhaps nicely getting by, now having to close up shop because of this health care legislation being forced down their throats.

I wonder if we will see a serious uptick in unemployment once these rules start being enforced big time...

Try this one........

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2569737261001/small-business-owner-closing-restaurants-due-to-obamacare/

PaceAdvantage
08-19-2013, 09:44 PM
Fox just makes up stuff like that to bash Obama, right Ralph?


Because he's half-white.

Tom
08-19-2013, 10:28 PM
I thought he was half-assed?

Clocker
08-19-2013, 10:56 PM
I wonder if we will see a serious uptick in unemployment once these rules start being enforced big time...

The Bureau of Labor Statistics computes 6 different measurements of unemployment, U1 through U6. The one normally used by government and the media is U3, the "Official Unemployment Rate", which measures the number of people without jobs who are actively looking for work. Under U3, people with part time jobs are counted as employed.

U6, usually called the "real unemployment rate" by haters and malcontents on the right, measures the number of people without jobs, including those who want to work but have given up on looking for now. It also counts the "underemployed", those with part time jobs who want full time work but can't find it.

Currently, flat or even declining full time job growth is statistically off-set by the growing creation of new part time jobs, and U3 is flat or even declining. U6 will increase as more and more firms cut back on full time jobs to avoid ObamaCare penalties.

For the last few years, U6 has been running about double U3. So with the current official rate around 7%, the real rate is about 14%.

Dave Schwartz
08-19-2013, 11:46 PM
Ralph,

I watched that video - the one with the restaurant owner closing his businesses. My opinion was that his part of the interview was every agenda-based.

When he was asked if he had considered cutting the work force back to part time in order to stay in business, instead of answering he put forth a right-wing message that the government doesn't want him to be in business.

It isn't that I disagree with the theme of the message, but that I question that THIS ONE is sincere.

LOL - This is purely anecdotal on my part.


Dave

JustRalph
08-20-2013, 04:05 AM
Dave, I agree.

It does illustrate that the government is forcing businesses to make these kinds of decisions though. That is the true take away from the vid.

When a government uses force against it's own people, and that is what this is. 90k IRS agents constitute the IRS, and they will be enforcing this law. Then it is plain and simple tyranny.

Government placing extra burden on business is never conducive to a healthy economy. I get OSHA and other things that have to do with on the job safety etc........but taking the health benefits and forcing people into government plans (which is the true goal) by going not around businesses, but through them, can never be a good thing and is wholesale un-American in my opine. It's what happens in countries like Venezuela.

rastajenk
08-20-2013, 06:38 AM
I thought he was half-assed?
No, I'm pretty sure he is a whole ass. :p

Capper Al
08-20-2013, 07:28 AM
It looks like Ralph is building a case for nationalizing health. If Obamacare fails utilizing the private sector then the only remaining way to provide healthcare would be via the government. Otherwise, many Americans would go without healthcare. We know Ralph doesn't want to see that. Ralph is our undercover comrade!

tucker6
08-20-2013, 08:28 AM
It looks like Ralph is building a case for nationalizing health. If Obamacare fails utilizing the private sector then the only remaining way to provide healthcare would be via the government. Otherwise, many Americans would go without healthcare. We know Ralph doesn't want to see that. Ralph is our undercover comrade!
what he is pointing out is that govt bureaucrats will never be able to out think a capitalist. All these new govt regs have pushed business to shed that which causes the new regs to go into effect. Eliminate the class of employee and health care coverage, and you not only eliminate the extra paperwork, but all the cost as well. This is Darwinism at work in the business world.

Saratoga_Mike
08-20-2013, 08:55 AM
[QUOTE=tucker6]what he is pointing out is that govt bureaucrats will never be able to out think a capitalist. QUOTE]

Truer words have never been spoken

PaceAdvantage
08-20-2013, 09:14 AM
It looks like Ralph is building a case for nationalizing health. If Obamacare fails utilizing the private sector then the only remaining way to provide healthcare would be via the government. Otherwise, many Americans would go without healthcare. We know Ralph doesn't want to see that. Ralph is our undercover comrade!Ralph, it's obvious you're getting to Al big time...keep up the good work!

Clocker
08-20-2013, 09:21 AM
If Obamacare fails utilizing the private sector then the only remaining way to provide healthcare would be via the government.

The government micromanaging insurance companies by dictating what policies they have to offer, what prices they have to charge, and what services they have to give away "free" is hardly "utilizing" a market sector. It is one step short of nationalization, which is, of course, the ultimate goal.

I find it ironic that pro-choice protesters who don't want the government to have any say about abortion, including partial birth abortion, are totally in favor of the government having full control of health care, including reproductive health care. And in full support of the government dictating what reproductive health care coverage is mandatory for everyone to purchase.

HUSKER55
08-20-2013, 10:24 AM
is it just me? Do you guys and gals really think our government has any right being in anyone's business?

Robert Goren
08-20-2013, 10:31 AM
The government micromanaging insurance companies by dictating what policies they have to offer, what prices they have to charge, and what services they have to give away "free" is hardly "utilizing" a market sector. It is one step short of nationalization, which is, of course, the ultimate goal.

I find it ironic that pro-choice protesters who don't want the government to have any say about abortion, including partial birth abortion, are totally in favor of the government having full control of health care, including reproductive health care. And in full support of the government dictating what reproductive health care coverage is mandatory for everyone to purchase. I find people on the other end even more ironic!

badcompany
08-20-2013, 11:07 AM
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article3824623.ece


Mystery over sudden rise in national death rates

Thousands of elderly people have died unexpectedly during the past year, driving a rise in overall death rates that is baffling public health chiefs, a leaked government report has revealed.

------------------

I recently listened to a Podcast in which a British Anesthesiologist said he believes this "mystery" is a result of people putting to much of their health in the hands of the medical system.

Perhaps we should be focusing less on healthcare and more on health.

johnhannibalsmith
08-20-2013, 12:00 PM
...Perhaps we should be focusing less on healthcare and more on health.

And maybe even life from time to time. This preoccupation with not dying in this country is getting... morbid.

rastajenk
08-20-2013, 12:22 PM
Amen to that. I wish there could be a cultural shift, not mandated by gov death panels but merely acknowledged by a societal common sense, that when it's time to go, it's time to go.

badcompany
08-20-2013, 12:23 PM
And maybe even life from time to time. This preoccupation with not dying in this country is getting... morbid.

You mean I'm not gonna live forever? :(

johnhannibalsmith
08-20-2013, 12:40 PM
You mean I'm not gonna live forever? :(

Nope... and trying to is futile. :D

mostpost
08-20-2013, 01:22 PM
MostP,

Maybe if you work for the postal service.

In the private sector, I really doubt that this is true.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't your response fall into the category of "anecdotal?" Didn't you get on Ralph in another thread for this?

I think you misunderstood what I said, or maybe I was not clear. I meant when those of us on this board propose a reduced work week, we think it should be accompanied by a raise in hourly pay.

What I am talking about here is the traditional forty hour work week, which was established to prevent companies forcing their employees to work more than that amount of time without additional compensation. The forty hours is a maximum. You are thinking of the forty hour work week as a minimum below which you do not have to provide benefits.

I definitely did mean to imply that companies which are cutting employee hours to avoid healthcare will accompany that cutback with additional pay to soften the blow. Even the United States Postal Service won't do that.

As for my post being anecdotal, it is not, because I was posting my own opinion and not what someone else was doing. I hope that after reading the paragraphs above you can see that this is so.

Saratoga_Mike
08-20-2013, 01:31 PM
As for my post being anecdotal, it is not, because I was posting my own opinion and not what someone else was doing. I hope that after reading the paragraphs above you can see that this is so.

Do you dispute the Department of Labor statistics? Or maybe I'm misreading your position.

Is it your position that ObamaCare has NOT resulted in companies opting for more part-timers vs full-timers? Yes or no? Then please feel free to expound (you don't need encouragement in that area!).

tucker6
08-20-2013, 02:05 PM
What I am talking about here is the traditional forty hour work week, which was established to prevent companies forcing their employees to work more than that amount of time without additional compensation. The forty hours is a maximum. You are thinking of the forty hour work week as a minimum below which you do not have to provide benefits.

You do realize that the bolded part is untrue for the most part. Employees are regularly asked to put in 'casual overtime' at no compensation. To do so helps one's career. To refuse to do so is remembered at cut time. That's the cold reality versus the law. Where I worked, casual was considered to be a minimum of five hours per week, but many of us worked 15-20 hours extra at no pay.

Tom
08-20-2013, 02:15 PM
You mean I'm not gonna live forever? :(

My goal is to live forever.
So far, so good...right on schedule!

Capper Al
08-20-2013, 02:36 PM
Ralph, it's obvious you're getting to Al big time...keep up the good work!

Your confusing our comrade Ralph with the anti-Ralph. The anti-Ralph doesn't care if everyone has healthcare. He knows that he and his family are covered and to hell with everyone else.

tucker6
08-20-2013, 02:43 PM
Your confusing our comrade Ralph with the anti-Ralph. The anti-Ralph doesn't care if everyone has healthcare. He knows that he and his family are covered and to hell with everyone else.
why don't those other people have health care?

johnhannibalsmith
08-20-2013, 02:51 PM
why don't those other people have health care?

Because conservatives want them to die in the street since they are anchors that don't contribute to the tax base... haven't you been paying attention?


:D

mostpost
08-20-2013, 02:55 PM
You do realize that the bolded part is untrue for the most part. Employees are regularly asked to put in 'casual overtime' at no compensation. To do so helps one's career. To refuse to do so is remembered at cut time. That's the cold reality versus the law. Where I worked, casual was considered to be a minimum of five hours per week, but many of us worked 15-20 hours extra at no pay.I knew a guy like you when I worked at Motorola many years ago. He was always working "free" overtime to suck up to the bosses. He said it was because it helped his profit sharing. Problem was that he was giving up a 50% increase in pay for a 1% profit sharing. He did not work in my department, but I know the guys in his department were not happy with him.

When I do a job, I do it to the best of my ability. I expect to be paid to that standard.

The problem with this country nowadays is people like you, who undermine their fellow employees to get ahead. If you had actual ability you would get ahead based on that. A second problem is that it works all too often.

xtb
08-20-2013, 02:55 PM
I was doing some late night grocery shopping a few nights ago at Wegmans, the second largest employer in the Rochester NY area. The very nice checkout woman who has been there for years, began dumping on me first about the high cost of groceries and then about how she's barely getting by now and most full time Wegman's employees' hours, including hers, are being cut to 29 hrs/week to avoid health insurance coverage. When she was done, she apologized for dumping on me and was visibly very upset about the whole thing. She doesn't know how she's going to get by.

Clocker
08-20-2013, 03:09 PM
She doesn't know how she's going to get by.

I have read about informal sharing networks starting up where employers who can only give a good employee part time hours will exchange information with others locally in the same industry. The worker then works 2-3 days at one fast food place or grocery store and 2-3 days at another.

Of course, that is just anecdotal information, so it is probably all lies and political propaganda.

mostpost
08-20-2013, 03:17 PM
Do you dispute the Department of Labor statistics? Or maybe I'm misreading your position.

Is it your position that ObamaCare has NOT resulted in companies opting for more part-timers vs full-timers? Yes or no? Then please feel free to expound (you don't need encouragement in that area!).

I do not dispute the Department of Labor statistics. I dispute the interpretation they are given here and the reasons for those statistics.

My position is that the number of companies opting for more part-timers vs full-timers is insignificant. According to a link I will post below, less than .2% (two tenths of one percent) of small businesses will be affected by the employer mandate.

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-smallbusiness.php

Here is how they break it down. There are six million small businesses in the United States. 5.8 million of those employ less than fifty workers. They are not covered by the mandate.

Of the 200,000 remaining firms, 192,000 already provide coverage. That leaves 8,000 firms which do not provide coverage and employ in excess of 50 workers.

The question remains, how many of those firms are going to cut off their noses to spite Obama's face and how many will take advantage of tax credits as high as fifty percent and low rates on the exchanges to provide health insurance to their employees and themselves. Did you know that 25% of small business owners do not have health insurance for themselves, while another 50% rely on a family member's coverage.

tucker6
08-20-2013, 03:21 PM
I knew a guy like you when I worked at Motorola many years ago. He was always working "free" overtime to suck up to the bosses. He said it was because it helped his profit sharing. Problem was that he was giving up a 50% increase in pay for a 1% profit sharing. He did not work in my department, but I know the guys in his department were not happy with him.

When I do a job, I do it to the best of my ability. I expect to be paid to that standard.

The problem with this country nowadays is people like you, who undermine their fellow employees to get ahead. If you had actual ability you would get ahead based on that. A second problem is that it works all too often.
:lol: If you only knew.

Everyone who wants to get ahead in this world makes sacrifices. If you don't then don't b!tch about the size of your paycheck. People like you who do not work hard enough or are unhappy with those who want to get ahead are indeed a drag on a business. I wanted employees that pushed and pulled even when the day ended. Those people got rewarded handsomely for that work ethic. Those that complained that they were five minutes late in leaving last night because a customer had a problem are the problem. Just like your socialist co-workers that look down on hard work and those that want to get ahead.

LottaKash
08-20-2013, 03:26 PM
When she was done, she apologized for dumping on me and was visibly very upset about the whole thing. She doesn't know how she's going to get by.

That is the reality of living today in Amerika.....:eek: ...What is coming next, one can only imagine...

If anyone can't relate to this current reality, then I feel for you....Then, you are imo, so lost in your own false reality, and that if enough of you remain set, then we will surely, severely suffer much more, soon enough...

mostpost
08-20-2013, 03:29 PM
I have read about informal sharing networks starting up where employers who can only give a good employee part time hours will exchange information with others locally in the same industry. The worker then works 2-3 days at one fast food place or grocery store and 2-3 days at another.

Of course, that is just anecdotal information, so it is probably all lies and political propaganda.

No, I'm sure it is true and it's not all bad. The ideal-or should I say proper-situation would be for the employer to continue to give the deserving employee the 30 plus hours he was receiving previously. But if they won't do that, they should receive some credit for helping him get hours elsewhere.

Of course the employee will now have to pay for his own health insurance. But, on the other hand the company was not paying for it to begin with.
Also, the exchanges under Obamacare do provide premiums below what an individual pays now on the open market. And Obamacare provides a sliding scale of subsidies to help with premium costs.

What I think is disgusting is companies which were previously providing Healthcare coverage to their employees and are now using Obamacare as a pretext to cut hours and drop coverage.

tucker6
08-20-2013, 03:39 PM
What I think is disgusting is companies which were previously providing Healthcare coverage to their employees and are now using Obamacare as a pretext to cut hours and drop coverage.
Why is it disgusting? Why didn't the Dems and GOP and POTUS think this through when they had all those many hours of hearings and outreach meetings before signing Obamacare into law? Oh that's right, the Dems and Obama didn't invite the GOP or businesses to weigh in on the effect this law would have on how business is conducted. If you don't want to talk to us, then don't cry when it doesn't turn out the way you thought it would. The problem with your way of thinking is that you are unable to think like a capitalist. Therefore, what was a simple matter for us is unimaginable for you. That's what's disgusting!

Cutting hours and health care is a no-brainer based on Obamacare. I truly hate to see it happening, but I can't find any fault on the employer. They are in business to make money, NOT to ensure that people are above the poverty line and/or have proper health care coverage. I guarantee that these things, while ideal if they happen, are not part of any company's business plan.

Clocker
08-20-2013, 03:41 PM
Here is how they break it down. There are six million small businesses in the United States. 5.8 million of those employ less than fifty workers. They are not covered by the mandate.

Those 5.8 million small businesses historically have been the primary source for job creation. They now face one more major barrier to hiring more people: it is prohibitively expensive to cross the ObamaCare limits. Which means ever more part time jobs and fewer and fewer new full time jobs. And slower and slower economic growth.


Of the 200,000 remaining firms, 192,000 already provide coverage.

And you are assuming that none of those firms will drop or phase out health insurance? Or stop hiring new full time employees? Anecdotal evidence to the contrary?

mostpost
08-20-2013, 03:41 PM
:lol: If you only knew.

Everyone who wants to get ahead in this world makes sacrifices. If you don't then don't b!tch about the size of your paycheck. People like you who do not work hard enough or are unhappy with those who want to get ahead are indeed a drag on a business. I wanted employees that pushed and pulled even when the day ended. Those people got rewarded handsomely for that work ethic. Those that complained that they were five minutes late in leaving last night because a customer had a problem are the problem. Just like your socialist co-workers that look down on hard work and those that want to get ahead.
I'm sorry, I missed where you were standing at the Bellwood Post Office watching me work. You weren't there when I walked through a blizzard with sixty mile an hour wind gusts to deliver your mail-up steps you had not shoveled for a week. You weren't there when I came in off the street soaking wet and freezing cold so you could get your TV Guide. You weren't there when my back ached, my feet hurt and my knees gave out.

And you were not there when I worked the stamp window and people yelled at me and abused me because they did not get a package that was sent from a completely different town. And you were not there when I was yelled at because the line was too long or too slow, because USPS refused to properly staff the window services.
No, wait, you were there. You were that @$$****.

Tom
08-20-2013, 03:43 PM
Because conservatives want them to die in the street since they are anchors that don't contribute to the tax base... haven't you been paying attention?


:D

Next thing you know, you will giving away the secret handshake! :eek:

tucker6
08-20-2013, 03:47 PM
Those 5.8 million small businesses historically have been the primary source for job creation. They now face one more major barrier to hiring more people: it is prohibitively expensive to cross the ObamaCare limits. Which means ever more part time jobs and fewer and fewer new full time jobs. And slower and slower economic growth.




And you are assuming that none of those firms will drop or phase out health insurance? Or stop hiring new full time employees? Anecdotal evidence to the contrary?
I know more than a few business owners who have in the mid 40's employees. They will never go to 50 and trigger all the regs they would then fall under. I know one eye doctor who would like to open two more offices, but the additional expenses with going over the 50 limit means he'd lose money in the venture and be worse off than he is now. It's crazy that the govt is crushing free enterprise in the name of helping people. This company WANTS to hire another 15-20 people, but the govt will kill him financially if he does so. Where the exit door to this madness?

Clocker
08-20-2013, 03:48 PM
Next thing you know, you will giving away the secret handshake! :eek:


It's too late. The secret is already out.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_B46l1E-7fm0/TKIOnkNEThI/AAAAAAAADuA/0oko0Qbh8vQ/s400/despicable.alan.grayson.die.quickly.jpg

tucker6
08-20-2013, 03:52 PM
I'm sorry, I missed where you were standing at the Bellwood Post Office watching me work. You weren't there when I walked through a blizzard with sixty mile an hour wind gusts to deliver your mail-up steps you had not shoveled for a week. You weren't there when I came in off the street soaking wet and freezing cold so you could get your TV Guide. You weren't there when my back ached, my feet hurt and my knees gave out.

And you were not there when I worked the stamp window and people yelled at me and abused me because they did not get a package that was sent from a completely different town. And you were not there when I was yelled at because the line was too long or too slow, because USPS refused to properly staff the window services.
No, wait, you were there. You were that @$$****.
Just as I thought. A govt worker. You think like one. How's it feel to have a good pension and health plan that other don't have? Great I bet!! Chances of being laid off? Nil.

I don't abuse other people, but I'm sure if I had seen you, I'm sure I would be rolling my eyes to myself.

tucker6
08-20-2013, 03:53 PM
It's too late. The secret is already out.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_B46l1E-7fm0/TKIOnkNEThI/AAAAAAAADuA/0oko0Qbh8vQ/s400/despicable.alan.grayson.die.quickly.jpg
Why is 'die quickly' so far down on the list? What was so important about 1 and 2? :D

tucker6
08-20-2013, 03:56 PM
You weren't there when I walked through a blizzard with sixty mile an hour wind gusts to deliver your mail-up steps you had not shoveled for a week. You weren't there when I came in off the street soaking wet and freezing cold so you could get your TV Guide. You weren't there when my back ached, my feet hurt and my knees gave out.

And you were not there when I worked the stamp window and people yelled at me and abused me because they did not get a package that was sent from a completely different town. And you were not there when I was yelled at because the line was too long or too slow, because USPS refused to properly staff the window services.
You know, as I read this sorrowful post, I kept seeing a picture of mngt drawing a curtain around your slumped body ready to perform the 3rd step to the GOP health care plan. :lol:

TJDave
08-20-2013, 03:57 PM
I know one eye doctor who would like to open two more offices, but the additional expenses with going over the 50 limit means he'd lose money in the venture and be worse off than he is now.

Uh......

:faint:

tucker6
08-20-2013, 03:59 PM
Uh......

:faint:
you don't believe that?

Anecdotal evidence attached ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/05/24/the-problem-with-obamacares-50-employee-cutoff/

badcompany
08-20-2013, 04:52 PM
You know, as I read this sorrowful post, I kept seeing a picture of mngt drawing a curtain around your slumped body ready to perform the 3rd step to the GOP health care plan. :lol:

I image I got was of Mosty, mailbag strapped to his back, and a team of sled dogs, mushing through the snow.

http://saintagnesavon.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/wc_68_dog-sled.jpg

Clocker
08-20-2013, 04:55 PM
Why is 'die quickly' so far down on the list? What was so important about 1 and 2? :D


http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/-usmvYOPfco/hqdefault.jpg


The next card very cleverly said: 2. And if you do get sick...

JustRalph
08-20-2013, 04:57 PM
Your confusing our comrade Ralph with the anti-Ralph. The anti-Ralph doesn't care if everyone has healthcare. He knows that he and his family are covered and to hell with everyone else.

Funny story, my wife and I don't have insurance right now ...........

PaceAdvantage
08-20-2013, 06:50 PM
Funny story, my wife and I don't have insurance right now ...........Careful now...Al knows all when it comes to the good ol boy gang here at PA...

So, are you SURE you and your wife don't have insurance? Perhaps right before Capper Al posted that to you, your wife, unbeknownst to you, somehow acquired some form of health insurance...I would double check...after all, if Al says it, it's usually true...

tucker6
08-20-2013, 07:28 PM
I image I got was of Mosty, mailbag strapped to his back, and a team of sled dogs, mushing through the snow.

http://saintagnesavon.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/wc_68_dog-sled.jpg
The capitalists are in front pulling his lazy butt along as usual. They know that if they don't work hard, no meal.

mostpost
08-20-2013, 08:22 PM
The capitalists are in front pulling his lazy butt along as usual. They know that if they don't work hard, no meal.
http://saintagnesavon.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/wc_68_dog-sled.jpg
You never get anything right. The capitalist is in the sled doing nothing. The workers are in harness pulling the sled, while the capitalist is wondering why they aren't pulling faster. When the trip is over he will be telling everyone how he got the sled from point A to point B all by himself and in spite of the dogs.

tucker6
08-20-2013, 09:19 PM
You never get anything right. The capitalist is in the sled doing nothing. The workers are in harness pulling the sled, while the capitalist is wondering why they aren't pulling faster. When the trip is over he will be telling everyone how he got the sled from point A to point B all by himself and in spite of the dogs.
What you meant to say was...

Obama is in the sled looking lost and forlorn and doing nothing as usual. The capitalists are in harness pulling the sled along as fast as can be expected, while the Dem spectators are wondering why the capitalists aren't pulling faster to support everyone watching on the sidelines. When the trip is over Obama will be telling his sheeple how he got the sled from point A to point B all by himself and in spite of the capitalists out in front pulling the whole time. When it comes time for dinner, Obama will share the food destined for the capitalists with all the spectators on the sidelines as well, because after all, we're all in this together!!


Does that work for you??

Tom
08-20-2013, 09:27 PM
And you were not there when I was yelled at because the line was too long or too slow, because USPS refused to properly staff the window services.

That is so true, and not just USPS.
Many companies screw the public by putting lazy, unmotivated people in positions like that.

tucker6
08-20-2013, 09:32 PM
That is so true, and not just USPS.
Many companies screw the public by putting lazy, unmotivated people in positions like that.
have a heart, will ya. The guy walked both ways in 60mph winds to deliver your fat stock dividend checks to your door. The least you could have done was put a shovel out there for him on day one to clean the steps.

HUSKER55
08-21-2013, 06:31 AM
mine is delivered electronically

Clocker
08-21-2013, 10:13 AM
More anecdotal evidence about the unintended consequences of ObamaCare.

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.
Full story (http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2013/08/ups-to-drop-15000-spouses-from.html)

New Jersey substitute teachers notified of new limits on hours:
A group of substitute teachers in Mercer County have been told that national health care reform may take a large bite out of their earnings potential. The Hamilton school district has told its substitute teachers they will be limited to working a maximum of four days a week in the coming school year because of the federal health reform law’s future requirement that full-time employees be provided with health insurance.
Full story (http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/08/hamilton_school_district_substitute_teachers_limit ed_to_4_day_work_week_because_of_health_care_refor .html)

Many consumers will be better off not getting health insurance from their employer, and getting subsidized insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. Hmmm, does that sound like unemployment benefits paying more than a job?

...for some people, it will be more economical to have an employer not offer health insurance subsidies for them and their families—and for the entire family to then instead be able to buy insurance with government subsidies on the Obamacare state health exchanges.

"Our analysis suggests that employees and employers across the country should sit down and discuss the potential merits of discontinuing employer-sponsored plans," ValuePenguin.com said in a new report. "The company would end up saving money while the employee would benefit from thousands of dollars in tax subsidies—a clear win-win for both parties."
Full story (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100972664?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

RaceBookJoe
08-21-2013, 11:31 AM
have a heart, will ya. The guy walked both ways in 60mph winds to deliver your fat stock dividend checks to your door. The least you could have done was put a shovel out there for him on day one to clean the steps.

But he worked to the best of his ability and was paid accordingly ( like he says employees should be ) , so he cant complain ;)

mostpost
08-21-2013, 12:17 PM
Many consumers will be better off not getting health insurance from their employer, and getting subsidized insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. Hmmm, does that sound like unemployment benefits paying more than a job?

No, it sounds like the opposite. It sounds like someone is doing a job and not getting the benefits.

JustRalph
08-21-2013, 12:18 PM
Just another anecdote

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/08/hamilton_school_district_substitute_teachers_limit ed_to_4_day_work_week_because_of_health_care_refor .html

Teachers hours cut

RaceBookJoe
08-21-2013, 12:27 PM
All I know is that I hear about more companies cutting work force than adding. I think CSCO was the latest one cutting.

HUSKER55
08-21-2013, 12:29 PM
http://saintagnesavon.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/wc_68_dog-sled.jpg
You never get anything right. The capitalist is in the sled doing nothing. The workers are in harness pulling the sled, while the capitalist is wondering why they aren't pulling faster. When the trip is over he will be telling everyone how he got the sled from point A to point B all by himself and in spite of the dogs.



Actually, the capitalist is the person who bought the sled, bred and trained the dogs, and then hired a person to do the job. That person who is riding is a democrate who wants a free ride.

badcompany
08-21-2013, 12:46 PM
Actually, the capitalist is the person who bought the sled, bred and trained the dogs, and then hired a person to do the job. That person who is riding is a democrate who wants a free ride.

This.

However, Mostpost's interpretation is the standard Leftist definition of a Capitalist: a useless idler who profits off the backs of the exploited worker.

Of course, in reality, the Capitalist is the mover and shaker who works the sixteen hour days and takes on the entrepreneurial risk in order to make things happen.

Jeff P
08-21-2013, 06:06 PM
The natural order of dogs and sleds:

Dogs love to run and they love being outdoors. However, not all dogs are created equal. The alpha dogs are stronger (and have more worth to their owner) than betas do. Alpha dogs love to strut their stuff and will demonstrate their superior strength and speed over betas at every opportunity. As a result, things go smoother, the sled travels faster, and becomes a more effective means for traveling extended distances when the guy in charge of the dogs is smart enough to realize this and put the alphas in front of the betas.

These simple truths are helpful in certain situations; for instance when the sled team is competing against other sled teams in a race. (This is also helpful in situations where the sled team is an integral part of the owner’s survival; for instance when both dogs and owner are actively engaged in hunting and securing food for the coming winter.)

However, never underestimate the ability of man to f'%k up the natural order of things.

In Provinces where beta dog lovers control the house and senate, not only is it considered bad form for a sled owner to let his alpha dogs demonstrate their superiority over the beta dogs; but under the law of the land, he faces an equality tax for doing so. After all, in an enlightened society, all sled dogs are considered equals and must be treated as such. Clearly, any other way of thinking is simply unconscionable.

One of the benefits of an enlightened society is that money generated by the equality tax can be used to provide assistance for the sled owners who practice good form by placing their beta dogs in front of the alphas. Tax money received by such sled owners is a most welcome supplement. Without it, many sled owners would starve. After all, they have a hard time securing food because (for reasons unknown to them) sleds are ineffective when it comes traveling fast enough or far enough to secure enough food for the coming winter.

In Provinces where alpha dog owners control the house and senate, only an idiot would hook up the beta dogs in front of the alphas. Mother Nature might be beautiful. But everybody knows Mother Nature is (at times) utterly merciless. The winter is long and survival of the fittest is the law of the land. You had better know how to get the most out of your dogs and your sled if you want to survive.

Does that about sum it up?






-jp

.

DJofSD
08-21-2013, 06:12 PM
So, does that mean Obama is a beta dog?

Mike at A+
08-21-2013, 06:16 PM
So, does that mean Obama is a beta dog?
Omega-mutt

Tom
08-21-2013, 11:30 PM
mostpost think all one need do is how up and the buildings will be thee, the equipment running, the power paid for, the customers identified........all the simple stuff. Once the union boys get, the real work begins. Coffee breaks, long lunches, more coffee....bitch meetings....

The fact of the matter is that most employees are as important to the business as the inventory, many less.

He thinks he brings it all to the table, but the fact is, someone else brought the table.

mostie....know your roll, shut your hole. :D

JustRalph
08-27-2013, 04:04 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-hospital-lay-49-workers-due-obamacare_751271.html

Layoffs due to Obamacare

Striker
08-27-2013, 04:29 PM
With all these layoffs and reduction in full-timers to part-time, when/if Congress does repeal Obamacare in the future, since those actions are based solely on Obamacare, we should expect these companies to reinstate the part-timers back to full-time and hire back the same number of people let go, right? :rolleyes:

Dave Schwartz
08-27-2013, 06:02 PM
Striker actually makes a good point.

The fact that a company lays off workers and chooses to blame it on ObamaCare, does not make it the REAL reason.

I recall reading a story years ago about a company that relocated to Texas with the real purpose being to rid itself of of 10,000 of its 12,000 employees. They interviewed people and asked them if the question: "If the company relocates, will you come with us if a moving allowance is provided?" Those who answered "yes" were not invited to move.

The company moved to Texas and got all kinds of tax breaks for the 7,000 new workers it was going to hire.

(Yes, I am aware that this falls into the realm of completely anecdotal. But even if I have the story somewhat incorrect, is there anyone who doubts it has happened this way many times?)

I know of one person on this forum - an old friend - that told me of living this story as the guy who actually did the firing as H/R manager. After he fired several thousand people he had worked with for many years, he was fired.

(I really hope he reads this and decides to share the whole story. It is a good one.)

HUSKER55
08-27-2013, 08:44 PM
I am beginning to wonder if people understand that Obamacare has very little to do with healthcare and everything to do with insurance.

How many problems would go away if people were not over weight, didn't smoke and exercised and didn't drink to excess?

RaceBookJoe
08-28-2013, 10:56 AM
With all these layoffs and reduction in full-timers to part-time, when/if Congress does repeal Obamacare in the future, since those actions are based solely on Obamacare, we should expect these companies to reinstate the part-timers back to full-time and hire back the same number of people let go, right? :rolleyes:

That was the gamble that was taken when 0care was rushed through. Not only did it give companies a convenient employee-lowering excuse, but it also gave those companies a chance to see how they could manage with a smaller workforce. The ones that truly need workers will hire again if the law is repealed, the ones that find they can get by with less employees...that goes on the backs of those who signed that law, not that they give a crap about anyone anyways.

RunForTheRoses
08-28-2013, 12:21 PM
Obamacare versus the Faculty
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2013/08/obamacare-versus-faculty.html

don't know how widespread this phenomenon is, but I thought I would share an email I received this morning:

I have been teaching multiple sections of economics for four years now at several Colleges and Universities in the State of Indiana. I have also been a frequent user of your texts in the classes that I teach.

With the implementation of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) these institutions are giving notification to their part-time faulty that their individual teaching schedules will now be limited to three sections. At the college this will likely result in the cancellation of 20-25% of the class sections in economics, and I would assume other areas will have a similar result. The students are not fully aware of the situation and many will be surprised that their desire to get a college education is now being impacted by the need to avoid the full implementation of the ACA.

JustRalph
08-28-2013, 12:53 PM
That was the gamble that was taken when 0care was rushed through. Not only did it give companies a convenient employee-lowering excuse, but it also gave those companies a chance to see how they could manage with a smaller workforce. The ones that truly need workers will hire again if the law is repealed, the ones that find they can get by with less employees...that goes on the backs of those who signed that law, not that they give a crap about anyone anyways.

This is exactly the plan in some companies. In fact, in some companies they are now using the two roster system against employees. If you piss them off you go from the "designated full time roster" to the "designated part time roster" and lose half of your income. Justified by quoting the ACA as the reason. While they implement a have and have not system wherein they are using the ACA as a weapon. And there are no laws in place to address this.

This was all predicted. Early on.

Clocker
08-28-2013, 01:08 PM
This was all predicted. Early on.

Except by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and those that voted for the bill without knowing what was in it.

JustRalph
09-04-2013, 06:42 PM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/09/04/afl-cio-president-trumka-employers-restructuring-workforce-29-12-hour#ixzz2dwtDWx9o

Still Anectodal ? Your buddy Trumpka is bitching about it now.........


Another in a long series of anecdotal posts by you that proves nothing. According to the Huffington Post article on this same story, the company claims that less than 1% of its US workers will be affected by this move. Forever 21 also says that the decision has nothing to do with Obamacare.

When you show me statistical evidence that a significant % of American businesses are cutting employee hours at a substantial rate, I might pay attention. As of now the combined total of your and others posts on the subject is in the neighborhood of one in a million.

RaceBookJoe
09-05-2013, 09:26 AM
Just saw this one also..

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669682-obamacare-employer-mandate-spurs-work-hours-job-cuts.htm

rastajenk
09-05-2013, 12:15 PM
An anecdote here, an anecdote there, and pretty soon you're talking about real trends.

HUSKER55
09-05-2013, 01:31 PM
if memory serves the democrats wanted obamacare passed without reading it.....

now,... let us talk about a responsible government when libs are in charge

DJofSD
09-05-2013, 01:39 PM
now,... let us talk about a responsible government when libs are in charge
You sound like you're drawing a red line in the sand.

HUSKER55
09-05-2013, 05:39 PM
WOULD you like some cheese to go with that wine :D

newtothegame
09-07-2013, 01:42 AM
Surely mosty would believe a Union Leader....

http://cnsnews.com/video/newsbusters/afl-cio-president-trumka-employers-restructuring-workforce-29-12-hours-avoid

AFL-CIO President Trumka: Employers Restructuring Workforce to 29 1/2 Hours to Avoid ObamaCare

JustRalph
05-18-2015, 11:36 PM
Another in a long series of anecdotal posts by you that proves nothing. According to the Huffington Post article on this same story, the company claims that less than 1% of its US workers will be affected by this move. Forever 21 also says that the decision has nothing to do with Obamacare.

When you show me statistical evidence that a significant % of American businesses are cutting employee hours at a substantial rate, I might pay attention. As of now the combined total of your and others posts on the subject is in the neighborhood of one in a million.

The lawsuits are now starting........sure glad this anecdotal "class action" wasn't really granted by the court.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0ae36d9a-9e17-4bab-8faa-95862543edac

TJDave
05-18-2015, 11:57 PM
Dave and Buster's?

I expect the company will be history long before the lawsuit. :lol:

JustRalph
05-19-2015, 12:09 AM
Dave and Buster's?

I expect the company will be history long before the lawsuit. :lol:


They recently went public and are expanding by leaps and bounds

TJDave
05-19-2015, 12:28 AM
They recently went public and are expanding by leaps and bounds

News to me. Still have that Chucky Cheese for adults business model?