Grocery Store Chain Cuts Health Care for Part Time Workers

[Don]

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130710/BUSINESS/130719892/1003

However, part-time employees may actually benefit from Wegmans’ decision, according to Brian Murphy, a partner at Lawley Benefits Group, an insurance brokerage firm in Buffalo.

“If you have an employee that qualifies for subsidized coverage, they might be better off going with that than a limited part-time benefit,” Murphy said.

That’s because subsidized coverage can have a lower out-of-pocket cost for the insured employee while also providing better benefits than an employer-paid plan.

Under the Affordable Care Act, part-time employees are not eligible for health insurance subsidies if their employer offers insurance.

“It’s a win-win. The employee gets subsidized coverage, and the employer gets to lower costs,” Murphy said.

A "win-win." Companies identify all their employees as part-time; stop offering part-time employee insurance; and the part-time employees get subsidized health insurance because the companies refuse to offer insurance.

So we have companies basically doing the same they're accused of not doing now - not offering insurance - with the side effect of employing workers half the hours they work now, which reduces their ability to afford anything, much less insurance, and this is considered by an "insurance expert" to be a "win-win" situation.

Anyone else see where this is leading?

 

[annsni]

Giant/Stop and Shop have also cut part time worker's hours because both my girls work there and now struggle to pay their bills. During the summer, they would increase their hours because they didn't have college but now they can't work more than 29 hours. Fortunately, they can increase that a little bit with overtime on Sunday but still - they used to work 35+ hours each week during the summer. Oh - and they USED to offer part timers insurance at a greatly discounted rate but that will stop as of the end of the year.

 

[Don]

[sarcasm] Yep, that Affordable Care Act, it's the best thing since sliced bread. [/sarcasm]

 

[Salty]

So if congress works less than 29 hours a week, they will not be covered under OBAMA care?

Wow - what a great ideal to keep Congress in session 40 hours every week of the year!!!! I know they must be grateful for being fully covered under Obamacare

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130710/BUSINESS/130719892/1003



A "win-win." Companies identify all their employees as part-time; stop offering part-time employee insurance; and the part-time employees get subsidized health insurance because the companies refuse to offer insurance.

So we have companies basically doing the same they're accused of not doing now - not offering insurance - with the side effect of employing workers half the hours they work now, which reduces their ability to afford anything, much less insurance, and this is considered by an "insurance expert" to be a "win-win" situation.

Anyone else see where this is leading?

No....not Wegmans! Shame on you Danny Wegman, shame on you.

This is a quality store & tactics like this are encourage-able. Is this the "NEW NORMAL"

 

[Don]

So if congress works less than 29 hours a week, they will not be covered under OBAMA care?

Wow - what a great ideal to keep Congress in session 40 hours every week of the year!!!! I know they must be grateful for being fully covered under Obamacare

LOL :applause:

 

[ktn4eg]

"Affordable Care." Now there's an oxymoron if there ever was one.

 

[FollowTheWay]

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130710/BUSINESS/130719892/1003



A "win-win." Companies identify all their employees as part-time; stop offering part-time employee insurance; and the part-time employees get subsidized health insurance because the companies refuse to offer insurance.

So we have companies basically doing the same they're accused of not doing now - not offering insurance - with the side effect of employing workers half the hours they work now, which reduces their ability to afford anything, much less insurance, and this is considered by an "insurance expert" to be a "win-win" situation.

Anyone else see where this is leading?

We should tell these companies that we do not support their actions by boycotting their stores.

 

[annsni]

We should tell these companies that we do not support their actions by boycotting their stores.

Why? The store that my girls work at was great - great number of hours for the girls (they didn't apply as full time but in the summer, they could work up to about 38 hours), had the ability to get health insurance if they wished at a greatly discounted rate (how many companies offer part timers insurance??) and have great convenience in hours.

But then Obama stepped in. Now they can't buy insurance if they wanted to. They can't make the money they used to because the company can't afford to pay for insurance for all the part timers so they have to keep the hours under 30 hours a week. All this means my daughters now need to get second jobs to make their ends meet. It's not the supermarket's fault. They were fine before this new law.

 

[Salty]

We should tell these companies that we do not support their actions by boycotting their stores.

Pray tell us - which supermarkets (or for that matter - Big Box stores) are not cutting hours due to Obama care.

I am in the same boat - I am kept under 29 hours per week.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Why? The store that my girls work at was great - great number of hours for the girls (they didn't apply as full time but in the summer, they could work up to about 38 hours), had the ability to get health insurance if they wished at a greatly discounted rate (how many companies offer part timers insurance??) and have great convenience in hours.

But then Obama stepped in. Now they can't buy insurance if they wanted to. They can't make the money they used to because the company can't afford to pay for insurance for all the part timers so they have to keep the hours under 30 hours a week. All this means my daughters now need to get second jobs to make their ends meet. It's not the supermarket's fault. They were fine before this new law.

It is rather strange that European employers cover all their employees and the healthcare is good and yet, we in the US, a much richer country say we cannot afford to give healthcare to all. In Europe, not only are they covered in their own country, but if they travel within Europe they are covered in the other countries as well.

 

[Salty]

It is rather strange that European employers cover all their employees and the healthcare is good and yet, we in the US, a much richer country say we cannot afford to give healthcare to all. In Europe, not only are they covered in their own country, but if they travel within Europe they are covered in the other countries as well.

And what is the tax rate in Europe?

 

[Crabtownboy]

[/SIZE]

And what is the tax rate in Europe?

I don't know. The question, IMHO, points out the primary problem here. We are greedy. The main point is, even with less money they take care of their own, all of them. We are too greedy or just do not care about others enough to ensure they are taken care of when there is a need.

 

[annsni]

Not only what is the tax rate, but what is the care like in these countries? Why did my friend's dad come to the States for prostate cancer treatment? Because they wouldn't treat him in England. Why does another friend have to wait 10 weeks to see a gynecologist when she is bleeding heavily constantly? I don't think the health care is as "stellar" as we think it is for the general public. Yes, great health care is available. For a fee.

 

[Salty]

I don't know. The question, IMHO, points out the primary problem here. We are greedy. The main point is, even with less money they take care of their own, all of them. We are too greedy or just do not care about others enough to ensure they are taken care of when there is a need.

According to Wike, Germany has a 45% tax rate.
At what point do we become greedy?
If after paying all my bills, I only have $20 left - and I spend that for my entertainment - does that make me greedy because I did not give the $20 to someone else?
Salty

PS
Crabby, actually, I was going to use that $20 to take you out for lunch - and a great discussion:1_grouphug: