It’s the economy, it’s company restructuring, it’s Obamacare. Companies are reducing the hours of part-time employees as a result of changing business conditions. It’s not exclusively about Obamacare, but for the administration to claim the so-called Affordable Health Care Act is not partially responsible for any of it is pretty ridiculous.
Don’t fall for the “greedy rich company” line; it’s below your intelligence level. These companies are making decisions they hope will be the best for employees, customers and yes, shareholders. What’s wrong with that? Liberals, socialists and statists will undoubtedly point to high executive salaries and corporate/shareholder greed as the problem, but that’s pure class warfare.
Companies want to keep customers happy. They want to keep employees happy. They want to keep vendors and suppliers happy. They want to keep shareholders and owners happy. Decisions are made every day by owners, executives and managers in the attempt to keep those four groups in harmony with each other. It doesn’t help one bit when the government comes in and changes the rules on a regular basis dumping thousands of pages of regulations on their doorsteps.
When government changes the rules – making demands that increase costs – owners, managers and executives have decisions to make. Last week, Investors Business Daily published a list of more than 250 employers who publicly announced moves that would reduce part-time employee hours. Their list is comprehensive, including links to news sources and press releases about the changes. Some, but certainly not all, specifically mention the Affordable Health Care Act that wasn’t.
Big Government today references SeaWorld’s decision to cut part-time workers from the normal 32 hours per week down to 28 hours per week. The new federal regulations demand employers with more than 50 employees provide comprehensive health insurance benefits – or pay a government fine – to employees working more than 30 hours per week.
To avoid the 50/30 Obamacare trigger, some companies are laying off employees, cutting hours or not expanding. We have written here that this would happen. All it was going to take is one or two companies to make the decision to legally avoid the mandate and there would be a domino effect. Quite honestly, there is a clear duty for owners, executives and managers to do what is legal to keep costs down.
Why is that? Answer: You want the company to survive.
Competition exists after all, and if your competition is able to legally reduce costs by cutting hours and benefits and you take the “moral high-ground” and dish out the extra cash to cover health care (as an example), the cost of your products and services will be higher than your competition. Certainly, good will can keep you going for awhile – think Made in the USA campaign – but can you keep it up? It’s pretty clear if you are able to provide the same or better product and/or service at a lower cost, you’ll gain market share over time.
Claiming your prices are higher than everyone else because you provide health care to your part time employees will only get you so far. It certainly may work some of the time, but I’m betting on serious down-stream issues for companies who take the “high road.” Does it kind of suck for some people? Certainly does … but what is the alternative?
Edited to add: These effects were well known by the liberal statists who promoted Obamacare. Even though they are acting surprised and confused now, they knew it would happen. The door is opening for a government-run, socialized health care program, and we told you that was the end game.