So I’ve been watching a lot of Fox news lately and this morning this guy Jon Taffer made the claim that the bar owners association is moving to 20 hour work weeks for their employees. His claim is that in order to avoid losing their good employees with this move, they are sharing employees with each other. They give them 20 hours each.
I’m not sure I believe him, but I’m not sure how to prove it.
I tried to find an average number of employees most bars have since I suspect it’s under fifty, but couldn’t find anything. But if I’m right, most bars aren’t even subject to the rules of obamacare, so if they are doing this, then why?
Also, wouldn’t most bars need their employees during the same peak hours?
Not every small business owner behaves rationally, or has a good understanding of what Obamacare requires (in part because of misinformation from certain news channels). So it shouldn’t be surprising that some are taking these measures when they are not in fact subject to Obamacare’s requirements. See, for example, this reporting.
I’m not sure if I know any bars that employ full time staff. In particular this one sports bar/restaurant I frequent has all part time employees. Even the manager is part time and works at another bar too.
I’ve seen a number of news stories about companies that are bacing for a huge increase in their healthcare costs. (One news story I read the other day said that one particular company was going to get socked with a 70% increase.) In most of these stories, the underlying subtext is that the company is trying to figure out if it would be cheaper to drop healthcare and just pay the penalty.
Still, I suspect you might be right here. I doubt many bars would have anything close to 50 employees. It could just be that his healthcare costs are getting too high, and he’s looking for a “creative” solution. I personally suspect that the ban on pre-existing conditions is leading healthcare companies to raise cost across the board.
There are two “costs” you might be referring to: the cost of health insurance (i.e., premiums) and the cost of healthcare (i.e., the cost of healthcare services).
The cost of premiums is rising, but it has been rising for decades, and is rising more slowly since 2009. This could be after-effects of the Great Recession, or it could be the effect of Obamacare (and in particular changed practices in anticipation of Obamacare requirements).
Either way, Obamacare has not increased the cost of insurance above the pre-Obamacare baseline.
Another component of increased insurance costs is that rather ACA has a standard level of coverage. In the past it was hard to compare policies from different companies because some had bare bones benefits.
Complaining about increased costs when you get something better is like wishing you could still buy a Hyundai Sonata for less than $20,000 even though the quality and base equipment have improved.
We’ve had a few threads here about bar-ownership. IIRC one of the chief issues a bar-owner runs into is finding reliable staff who won’t steal from you. Doubling the number of hands that touch your money seems to be the opposite of a solution to that issue.
not what you’d expect - do you have any more info? The top google hit for “John Taffer Obamacare” is this thread.
The top google hit for “Bar Owners Association Obamacare” is a story from June about Catholics owning insurance companies, and the second hit is this thread.
There doesn’t seem to be a national entity known as the “Bar Owners Association.” Any particular state or town?
FYI, here is a link to the story mentioned in the OP. (It’s a video clip of Jon Tapper, star of the Spike TV series Bar Rescue, being interviewed on Fox & Friends.)
I think the OP made a mistake about that. I listened to the clip, and there was no mention about the “bar owners association” wrt Obamacare. The guy being interviewed just made some vague claim that some bars were doing or thinking about doing the 20 hour job-sharing thing.
Also, is it really that much cheaper to have a complicated system of swapping employees rather than simply paying for health care? After all, the alleged reason for doing this is “to avoid losing their good employees.” Offering health is a great incentive for a good emplyee to stick around.
Actually, we all benefit from the greed of entrepreneurs. The harder they try to get rich, the more then enrich all the rest of us. Think of it…if Joe Smith is earning a $100,000/yr today, then what if he is earning $1,000,000 tomorrow? Are we going to be better off or worse off?
Are we better off as a result of Bill Gates’s greed or worse? Michael Jordan? etc.?
This is GQ and therefore supposed to be confined to factual answers, so I’ll just point out that there are plenty of examples in recent years of the greed of businesses and their owners resulting in the wide-scale impoverishment of many people. Ken Lay, Bernie Madoff, Bob Diamond, Richard Fuld, and Lewis Ranieri spring to mind. A few cherry-picked examples (on either side of the debate) don’t prove anything.
Some people might say that they might like the option of buying a stripped down Sonata for less, to provide the cheapest effective transportation. (This option may be especially desirable if the car is for their hourly employees to drive. )
You could see that if someone was pinched, they might prefer a cheaper car to the choice of no car or scrimping elsewhere.
I’m not saying this to slam obamacare or to say that this would be for the best, I’m just laying out the counter-argument.
Extending the metaphor (simile?), we don’t let people drive around in manifestly unsafe cars just because their cheaper (at least in principle). I think there are minimum standards below which an officer can cite you for driving a vehicle which is ‘unsafe at any speed’.
If the Fox news story didn’t provide a citation for the claim, then I’m pretty sure there is no way to prove the statement.
There have been claims of employers reducing employee hours as long as the ACA discussion has been going on, and I don’t think there are any factual places to confirm this claim.
In fact, it really doesn’t make any sense.
The law says that if the employer has less than 50 full time employees, they are not required to offer insurance. This requirement was deferred for 1 year for employers with more that 50 full time employees.
The employer is required to notify the employees about the marketplace, however- the dreaded regulatory requirement many are complaining about; a notice in the workroom or paycheck. I believe the employer can be fined $100.00 per employee for not notifying employees of the ACA option.