Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

New Study Reveals Few Employers Have Cut Workers’ Hours Due to Obamacare

It has become standard practice among opponents of the Affordable Care Act to refer to the bill as a “jobs killer.”

The idea is that the sanctions applied to employers who do not provide insurance to their workers are so onerous, that they will change their hiring patterns to avoid them.

There are two obvious ways to avoid the sanctions. First, firms can keep the total number of workers at a firm under 50, and in this way avoid being subject to sanctions. Second firms can reduce the number of hours that employees work so that they fall under the 30 hour a week average that would have them count towards the firm’s penalty under the ACA.

According to a new study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), the Affordable Care Act has not forced employers to cut workers hours.

An analysis of data from the Current Population Survey shows that only a small number (0.6 percent of the workforce) of workers report working just below the 30 hour cutoff in the range of 26-29 hours per week. Furthermore, the number of workers who fall in this category was actually lower in 2013 than in 2012, the year before the sanctions would have applied.

by Anonymousreply 2109/20/2013

Well, the deadline for enforcement has been extended until 2014 and many companies think the whole bill will be overturned before 2016 so aren't all that worried about it.

by Anonymousreply 107/25/2013

The drive to defeat Obamacare has nothing to do with its real effects and consequences (which will actually benefit both businesses and state governments in the long run by taking the entire responsibility for health care costs off their shoulders) and everything to do with the principle that Obama and all his works must be crushed and obliterated at any cost.

by Anonymousreply 207/25/2013

What R2 said.

by Anonymousreply 307/25/2013

The story shouldn't be about ObamaCare being at fault... it should be about greedy, selfish, corrupt asshole executives being petty and vindictive against their own work-forces in their efforts to enrich themselves even further.

by Anonymousreply 407/25/2013

Why would they, R4? Nothing has taken effect yet.

One thing I can tell you it has done is limit growth and jobs creation. I have no plans to expand until I know what it all means and what it will end up costing me. Other small business owners I know are doing the same.

by Anonymousreply 507/25/2013

so r5, you don't currently provide health insurance to your 42 employees?

by Anonymousreply 607/25/2013

No, R6. Only full time managers.

by Anonymousreply 707/25/2013

You're part of the problem in this country, r5. Pony up you cheap fuck.

by Anonymousreply 807/25/2013

Sure, R8, ready when you are. You just let me know when you're ready to pay 20% more for my product.

Health benefits should be available to all citizens through Universal Healthcare. It's long overdue. The burden should not be placed on businesses. Employer provided healthcare is an antiquated system that started back in the dark ages of WW2, when there was a labor shortage and companies needed a carrot to entice workers. Since then the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed and there are 10 workers for every job. You do the math. No one should be surprised that more and more employers are getting out of the game.

by Anonymousreply 907/25/2013

Meanwhile another shitty fast food company says they may only hire part-timers.

I really hope this bullshit blows up in their faces. It was once accepted that offering insurance was part and parcel of offering employment. If more employers decide they don't want to offer their employees health benefits, something is going to give. I can only hope that we end up with national healthcare that is not tied to employment.

by Anonymousreply 1007/25/2013

R5 is a fucking moron

by Anonymousreply 1107/25/2013

Moron = someone who makes 10 x what R11 makes.

by Anonymousreply 1207/25/2013

r12, you make so much money but you're still too cheap to treat employees fairly and provide medical insurance. You probably hire illegals too under minimum wage and don't pay any social security taxes on them.

by Anonymousreply 1307/25/2013

Employers wouldn't need to cut back if the economy had improved since Obama took helm. He appointed a panel of CEOs from Fortune 500s for advice on how to improve the economy and took none of their advise. Miss Jarrett, whose only experience in business is working in a real estate office in Chicago, is his "Go To" person.

by Anonymousreply 1407/25/2013

This, like so many other anti-ObamaCare stories, is a lie...

[bold]GOP Mistweets Lies About Survey Results[/bold]

House Speaker John Boehner, among other Republicans, wrongly tweeted that a recent “study” found “74% of small businesses will fire workers, cut hours under #Obamacare.” Actually, no more than 13 percent of the small businesses surveyed said that.

On July 16, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a three-page report summarizing the results of its Small Business Outlook Study for the second quarter of 2013. The report said: “Despite the Administration’s delay of the employer mandate by a year, small businesses expect the requirement to negatively impact their employees. 27% say they will cut hours to reduce full time employees, 24% will reduce hiring, and 23% plan to replace full time employees (30 hours per week or more) with part-time workers to avoid triggering the mandate.”

The Washington Examiner published an article about the survey’s findings under the inaccurate headline: “74% of small businesses will fire workers, cut hours under Obamacare.” That article got the attention of Boehner, other Republicans and their allies, who then repeated the bogus claim to their many followers on Twitter.

But the survey didn’t find that “74% of small businesses will fire workers, cut hours under #Obamacare.”

When inquired about the survey results, a Chamber of Commerce spokeswoman told us that the percentages included in its report were based only on the responses of those businesses “impacted by the employer mandate.” And most respondents said they wouldn’t be affected by the mandate.

The health care law requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to offer health insurance to their employees or pay a penalty. But the Chamber didn’t limit its survey to only businesses with 50 or more full-time employees. Instead, small-business executives were defined as those in an “executive level position in a company with fewer than 500 employees and annual revenue less than $25 [million],” the report said. And only “17 percent of the small-business owners surveyed responded they would be impacted by the employer mandate,” the Chamber spokeswoman told us.

As we explained earlier, 17 percent of those surveyed answered “yes.” Furthermore, as the question makes clear, small businesses that answered “yes” could select all of the choices that applied to them. So, it would be wrong to add up the percentages for all of the responses — as was done to get 74 percent — since there could be overlap that would lead to double counting.

Even assuming that one could add the percentages together, that would mean, at most, 13 percent of the small businesses who responded to the survey would cut hours, reduce hiring or replace full-time employees with part-time employees.

The 74 percent figure isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Chamber’s report summarizing the findings of the survey. However, the Chamber’s senior vice president and national political director, Rob Engstrom, did refer to the figure when he tweeted on July 17: “@Bill__Oreilly thanks for including our #smallbiz survey on the segment tonight. 74% will fire or reduce hours bc of employer mandate.”

These tweets distort what the survey actually said, but it’s true some jobs will be lost because of the law’s employer mandate.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the employer requirements “will probably cause some employers to respond by hiring fewer low-wage workers” and perhaps hire more part-time or seasonal employees. The CBO said penalties assessed to employers “will, over time, generally be passed on to workers through reductions in wages or other forms of compensation.” It didn’t give an estimate for jobs lost.

(more at the link)

by Anonymousreply 1507/25/2013

The truth:

[bold]STUDY: Very Few Employers Have Actually Cut Workers’ Hours Because Of Obamacare[/bold]

With implementation of the Affordable Care Act inching closer by the day, there’s been a slow but steady stream of employers claiming that the law is forcing them to cut back workers’ hours and rely more heavily on part-time employees. But for all the talk, very few companies have actually cut hours because of Obamacare, according to a new analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

Obamacare requires firms that have 50 or more employees to provide a minimum level of health coverage to their full-time workers — defined as those who work 30 hours or more per week — or pay a $2,000 per employee fine after the first 30 workers. Since the overwhelming majority of companies that size already offer health care benefits, the provision only affects about 10,000 firms. Nonetheless, reform critics have latched onto the narrative that the requirement is a job-killer, citing the example of retail and service sector companies like Regal Theaters that are cutting back hours to avoid paying for workers’ health care benefits.

The CEPR report shows that to be a minority position among larger employers. Since 30 hours per week is the threshold for employees receiving benefits under the law, researchers expected companies that didn’t want to comply with Obamacare to roll back workers’ hours to just below that threshold. But only about 0.6 percent of the labor force worked between 26 and 29 hours per week in 2013. Since 2012, the number of part-time employees working that range of hours actually stayed statistically the same. Furthermore, less than a third of workers say they are working less than 30 hours because of an employers’ decision — most choose to work the limited number of hours. That led the authors to conclude that the trend “is in the wrong direction for the ACA as job-killer story.”

“While there may certainly be instances of individual employers carrying through with threats to reduce their employees’ hours to below 30 to avoid the sanctions in the ACA, the numbers are too small to show up in the data,” the CEPR researchers write. “It appears that in setting worker hours employers are responding to business considerations in much the same way as they did before the ACA took effect.”

Researchers also contend that the Obama administration’s recent decision to delay the employer coverage requirement by a year should have little effect on the numbers, since it was only announced earlier this month.

Companies had been shifting towards part-time workers and cutting those workers’ benefits long before the health care law was around, and part-time employment has been propping up the economic recovery. But as this report shows, few firms are changing their workers’ hours in the way one would expect them to if they were really that worried about Obamacare.

by Anonymousreply 1607/25/2013

[quote]Miss Jarrett, whose only experience in business is working in a real estate office in Chicago, is his "Go To" person.

This can not be true.

by Anonymousreply 1707/25/2013

Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians lie. What a shock.

by Anonymousreply 1807/26/2013

Republicans always seem to assert the opposite of what is true.

by Anonymousreply 1907/29/2013

Instead of newspaper reports like this why doesn't OBAMA address the nation HIMSELF and clearly outline these things to us?

Reagan would get on primetime tv all the damn time and sell his agenda to us live on air from the Oval Office. Why doesn't Obama address the nation and simply explain the benefits of Obamacare once and for all?

He has had many good agendas that he is letting OTHER people define than doing it himself. Be pro-active, Mr. President!

by Anonymousreply 2007/29/2013

Republicans love to twist, spin, and misrepresent studies in order to imply they support Republican positions & policies... which they rarely, if ever do.

by Anonymousreply 2109/20/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!