I am not aware of having done so. Please elaborate.
I’m still waiting to hear why the doctor shortage is somehow related to Obamacare.
Just a data point. Just got a memo from the owners. Part time and extra board people will be having their hours cut. Not a huge amount but enough to keep everyone in those categories under the hour cap for insurance. This starts almost immediately as the hour calculation in 2014 will go back to the beginning of 2013.
Instead of increasing a part time employees hours when business picks up, more extra board people will be brought on instead.
So a bunch of extraboard and part time people, many of whom I know want to go full time, will not have that chance now.
Slee
My youngest son is in the same boat…told they aren’t letting anyone go full time, and instead will bring on more part-time people instead. 
where is the PR value in this?
There is a simple logic test behind the question of whether Obamacare will cause layoffs. Does adding cost to businesses affect profitability and if so will it affect a company’s ability to retain employees. I’d say the answer has to be yes for a percentage of businesses. I don’t see how it could do otherwise in a world economy.
I don’t see how this differs from the last decade, or so.
Telling full-timers they must work more overtime while making a concerted effort to hire only part-timers has been my experience with most industries for several years–long before the ACA was even debated, much less passed into law. I first saw this trend, (as a trend rather than an occasional event), in 2001 and it has not changed in the ensuing years.
In support of this, about half my daughter’s friends, who finished college in the height of the recession, got 30 hours of work for precisely this reason. Companies who give healthcare historically or for their higher ranks use this method to avoid it as much as possible. I wonder if the people mentioned would have gotten healthcare benefits if they worked full time. I somehow doubt it.
I like conservative logic:
Left: If we have national health insurance paid through taxes we can cover everybody and pay less like they do in every other country in the world.
Right: No, that is too radical. We need to keep our private insurance model that links healthcare to your employer.
Left: OK, that’s not optimal. but we can make that work if everyone is required to buy insurance and all employers are required to provide it for full time workers.
Right: Oh, look at your stupid plan, requiring employers to provide insurance means they will employ less full time people.
Left: But…
The thing is, employers have always favored a higher number of part time employees as compared to full time employees so they didn’t have to pay benefits before the ACA was passed. This is not a new strategy to avoid paying for benefits.
That’s a bit unfair. A number of Republicans have proposed decoupling the health insurance tax break from employer plans (which is a good idea).
It might not differ, but in my sons case he’s been working his way to become full time for the last two years. Several of his friends and coworkers became full time employees in that time, and my son has been told he would too…until recently (last week or so) when they had a meeting and were told that there is a freeze on making people full time, and instead they are going the route of bringing in more part time workers, and more temporary workers.
I advise your son (and friends and coworkers) to polish up their resumes and start looking for a new job. This employer has made it clear what they think of their employees: as temporary disposable units that can be swapped out, altered or replaced at will.
They may wish to continue working for such an outfit - I would advise against it. I know that he cannot just find a fantastic job immediately, but now is the time to start looking, while he continues to work for his current employer. However, he should realize that they do not value him at all, and have given him the message that he has no future there.
So they’re stringing him along and lo’ there comes a perfect excuse to string him along even more!
So listen. My impression is that this is true of practically every employer that exists. They do not value their workers except as disposable labor units, and they communicate that message regularly, whether with candy coating or not.
Is this not true?
Damn right. Too many people have health insurance now, so the 1% sometimes have to wait for an appointment.
This is only a good idea if it drives us to universal coverage as workers pay more both from losing a large part of the employer contribution and from losing the benefits of large companies negotiating better prices with suppliers.
Decoupling = extending the tax break to individual plans, not getting rid of it.
To a certain extent, but there exists a wide variation in how various employers treat and value employees. I think many small businesses can treat their employees remarkably well, and are rewarded by low turnover of staff and hard working folks.
What we need to do as employees is to choose the job (and employer) that benefits us the most, and certainly don’t assume that they have our best interests at heart.
If an employer stops even the pretense of valuing their employees… it’s time to move on.
Funny you say that, why do you think he is hiring more people? Is it so he can cut hours?
Just wait until they figure out what all that hiring, training, paperwork and the like costs them instead.
I’m sure they’ll find a way to blame someone else for that as well.
It’s the hallmark of a failing business; blame others for your own screwups until the company ceases to exist.