- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,154
- Reaction score
- 432
- Location
- Kingdom of Nigh
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
In an open letter, James P. Hoffa, Joseph Hansen and D. Taylor wrote: “Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”
It went on to state, “We can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and well being of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”
Read more: Union Bosses Say ObamaCare Will Destroy Health of Americans | Fox News Insider
Union Bosses Say ObamaCare Will Destroy Health of Americans | Fox News Insider
Now even the Unions that once supported Obamacare are decrying how bad it is.
Union Bosses Say ObamaCare Will Destroy Health of Americans | Fox News Insider
Now even the Unions that once supported Obamacare are decrying how bad it is.
Union Bosses Say ObamaCare Will Destroy Health of Americans | Fox News Insider
Now even the Unions that once supported Obamacare are decrying how bad it is.
"The sky is falling...the SKY is falling!!!!"
How about telling us why?
Union Bosses Say ObamaCare Will Destroy Health of Americans | Fox News Insider
Now even the Unions that once supported Obamacare are decrying how bad it is.
Union Bosses Say ObamaCare Will Destroy Health of Americans | Fox News Insider
Now even the Unions that once supported Obamacare are decrying how bad it is.
Given the finite amount of jobs and the reality that there are far more workers than things to do because of technology shifts that have made workers much more productive or unneeded as they were when the 40 hour workweek was established as the norm perhaps it is not a health care act that is making it problematic for society? That system was formed in a time when we needed many workers for manufacturing. Things are just getting worse for employee demand on that front now that we are making newer technology leaps into things like 3D printing. There are some problems with the ACA, but the 40 hour workweek is not one of them.
If I'm not mistaken, the need for employer purchased/provided healthcare under the ACA depends on the number of full time employees a company has, full time being defined as those working a standard 40 hr work week. The unions may be coming to the realization that many companies may be looking to move their full time employees to 39 hrs, or 38, 37, etc. in order to reduce their number of "full time" employees, thus eliminating a significant cost to their bottom lines. If these unions lose their employer provided/supplemented health care, that would do significant harm to the level of health care insurance those employees have going forward.
Given the finite amount of jobs and the reality that there are far more workers than things to do because of technology shifts that have made workers much more productive or unneeded as they were when the 40 hour workweek was established as the norm perhaps it is not a health care act that is making it problematic for society? That system was formed in a time when we needed many workers for manufacturing. Things are just getting worse for employee demand on that front now that we are making newer technology leaps into things like 3D printing. There are some problems with the ACA, but the 40 hour workweek is not one of them.
If I'm not mistaken, the need for employer purchased/provided healthcare under the ACA depends on the number of full time employees a company has, full time being defined as those working a standard 40 hr work week. The unions may be coming to the realization that many companies may be looking to move their full time employees to 39 hrs, or 38, 37, etc. in order to reduce their number of "full time" employees, thus eliminating a significant cost to their bottom lines. If these unions lose their employer provided/supplemented health care, that would do significant harm to the level of health care insurance those employees have going forward.
I understand where he is coming from.
Companies can not afford to meet the requirements for healthcare provision as mandated by the law for anyone working over 30 hrs a week. Companies are cutting hours from full timers and hiring PT people to fill the voids.
People are suffering because they have less bring home pay and are now required to purchase a healthcare plan with money they dont have because their hours have been cut.
this was happening long before the ACA. Companies often hire their low end workers PT or through contracts to avoid benefits they established for full time workers. There are some of those benefits required by law, and others that were self imposed by business to keep their higher end employees. plus it does give managers more flexibility to have a larger pool of part time employees to call upon for emergencies. The ACA may have slightly increased the problem, but it was very prevalent long before the ACA came into existence. That is a lie being told to you by corporate america and the insurance companies.
I believe that the definition of full time (max hours per week) changed under PPACA and PPACA rules also change based on the total number of employees. While I agree that PPACA did not start this trend it certainly made it no better. Mandating added employee benefit costs is certainly not going to help any business do better.
They might have been able to actually promote full time employment through the employer mandate if they included all workers. Then you would actually save money on hiring full time employees over a lot more part time employees. But the system would still suck ass considering you are filtering socialism through a capitalist enterprise.
If I'm not mistaken, the need for employer purchased/provided healthcare under the ACA depends on the number of full time employees a company has, full time being defined as those working a standard 40 hr work week. The unions may be coming to the realization that many companies may be looking to move their full time employees to 39 hrs, or 38, 37, etc. in order to reduce their number of "full time" employees, thus eliminating a significant cost to their bottom lines. If these unions lose their employer provided/supplemented health care, that would do significant harm to the level of health care insurance those employees have going forward.
I was listening to some talk show on our local radio station and they were talking about this. One of the callers made a good point about the law and the implementation of this law.
With all the goings on and problems coming into focus (many of those issues were being screamed about but ignored by those wanting this bill to pass) HOW the administration is implementing this law, with waivers, exemptions and delays, why did Congress pass a law if it is not being followed by the Executive Branch. The law specifically gives dates that must be met...by law. This administration is handing out exemptions to those laws.
The Constitution says that the President shall enforce the laws it does not say that the President shall hand out exemptions to those laws.
Issue #1 for me is that the law is the law, like it or not. If they werent in such a damn hurry in pushing this bill through so fast and done it right the first time, they wouldnt be sitting there with their thumbs up their butts handing out exemptions to their law.
Issue #2 for me is the exemptions themselves. The President handing out exemptions to laws of our country is insane. If he does this, what is to stop this President or any future President from exempting certain provisions of other laws...even temporarily.
It applies to companies with 50 or more full-time employees -- defined as 30 hours per week.
People familiar with low end employment understand that restricting hours to avoid benefits has been going on for a hell of a lot longer than the ACA or even obama's political history. The ACA did not make that happen. The overwhelming pool of workers in comparison to the amount of worker hours needed by a company did that. I remember having trouble with that sort of thing back int he early 90's and it was pretty much SOP back then. being from Canada you may not be aware of how employment works in america.
Enjoying socialist healthcare john? Maybe you should try our republaromney care?
:yawn: - you're a one-trick pony just like your hero.
Keep misrepresenting our healthcare by referring to it as socialist, not understanding anything about it or all its aspects, and you'll never have anything close to it and you'll continue to be stuck with the horse's ass you've got.
You must be proud - as a liberal in Chicago, you're particularly responsible for the Obamacare monstrosity - congrats!!
this was happening long before the ACA. Companies often hire their low end workers PT or through contracts to avoid benefits they established for full time workers. There are some of those benefits required by law, and others that were self imposed by business to keep their higher end employees. plus it does give managers more flexibility to have a larger pool of part time employees to call upon for emergencies. The ACA may have slightly increased the problem, but it was very prevalent long before the ACA came into existence. That is a lie being told to you by corporate america and the insurance companies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?