Yes PN. There is a letter to the editor in today's Savannah Morning News noting the misleading spin on how the paper itself reported the story.
Here's the letter to the editor..
Keep opinions out of your news articles
Your subtitle, “Commissioners consider reducing employee work hours to comply with Obamacare,” in your April 25 front page article entitled, “County may cut workers,” hours is erroneous but highly misleading.
This subtitle clearly demonstrates your newspaper’s obvious opposition to the Affordable Care Act, as there is nothing in the law which requires any company or governmental body to cut workers’ hours of employment.
The law does require that any company or governmental entity must provide health insurance for all employees working 30 hours or more or face a fine/penalty for not doing so.
The fact that some part-time and seasonal workers in Chatham County are legitimately working more than 30 hours a week is something that needs to be appropriately addressed by providing those employees health insurance benefits and not by cutting their hours to totally avoid the provisions in the law.
So the accurate subtitle for the article should have been, “Commissioners considering cutting workers’ hours to avoid provisions in the ACA.”
I encourage your paper to at least attempt to appear fair in the treatment of news items, even though your news organization may actually have a biased opinion.
MICHAEL F. VEZEAU
i watched the meeting. they said they were cutting. one even said most are under 26 so they don't count. they can get insurance from their parents. even though the people they are talking about don't get insurance from the county in that past, they are not taking any chances.
@gacpl-part-time workers or seasonal workers don't qualify for healthcare-never have! The problem- they couldn't work the part-time workers like full-time employees and not offer benefits.. You know the jobs that work their workers full time hours 2 weeks out the month but don't want to offer them sick days, holidays or healthcare. It's like living with a man for years (playing house)..your playing wife but you don't have the benefits of a wife (on his insurance, can't carry his last name and etc)...
part-time workers or seasonal workers don't qualify for healthcare-never have..
but do now if they work enough hours each week and enough months. not only qualify, but under ACA, have to be offered healthcare. these people are not looking for healthcare or benefits from the county nor have they ever. they just want to work for money, work that is going to be cut short. but like all things democrat. the same attitude, if it's not happening to me , it must not be happening.
No matter how you spin it the ACA's provisions directly contributed to the decision. Organizations still have to operate on a consistent budget; the ACA further burdens the employer to fund the additional requirements regardless of the financial impact. GACPL is most likely correct in the point that the workers receiving the extra hours were glad to have the extra hours.
As we all know, healthcare is not free and as PN stated, temporary, part-time, and seasonal employees never received benefits to begin with. As much as we want to make the County the bad guy; complying with the ACA provisions is not fiscally responsible and borderline forced welfare at the expense of any employer.
Most Americans receive health care from their employers, and people often stay at jobs they don’t like in order to keep getting health coverage. Because of the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act, a lot of people won’t have to do this anymore. The Congressional Budget Office wanted to determine how many people would voluntarily reduce their hours at work because they no longer needed the health insurance that their job offered to full-time employees. Their answer was 2.3 million.
These people aren’t being fired. They’re not being downsized, or forced to work less. They’re deciding to work less because it’s within their financial interest to do so. Tell me why that’s a bad thing.
not a bad thing? many people that get their working hours cut will end up on government assistance of some kind. how much of your retirement are you willing to give up jimmy to cover it?
Gacpl- did you read the article? Do you understand the workers never worked full time? Also , do you understand how poverty works? Nine times out of ten they are already receiving benefits. You can't live off 8.00 a hour working full time hours! Most Americans work full time hours but rely on benefits to make it? Why do you think the democrats are fighting for higher wages? No one in America should work full time hours and rely on benefits. No one in America should work full time hours and not enjoy full time benefits because the employer plays chicken with the work hours. Most of you on this site have no clue what's going on in 2014. I can no longer call it racism...it's ignorance.
no i didn't read the article. i WATCHED the hearing. they showed it on tv. they were part time employees by the law then. the aca changed the definition of part time to over 30 hours a week. before that it was anything under 40 was part time. most were working 32 to 35 hours a week in past years. now they are targeting no more then 25 to be safe.
Your interpretation is the problem. It seems that you walked away hearing what you wanted to hear. You heard obamacare-full-time-part-time and assumed the worst. The issue was cleared up by the Commissioner and others. For the record part-time was never anything under 40! Usually anything over 32 hours was considered full time hours. As I stated before an employer can long pay chicken with your hours..
Under the Affordable Care Act (i.e. ObamaCare) penalties are imposed on “large employers” (i.e. those with 50 or more full time employees) if any “full time” employee receives a tax subsidy to assist in buying health insurance. For employers in the staffing industry, who bring on w-2 employees to staff client projects, determining what constitutes “full time” employment under ObamaCare could be a complicated task.
As part of the ObamaCare implementation process, the Department of Labor recently released “frequently asked questions” which, in part, touch upon the “full time” employment question. (see http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/tr12-01.pdf)
According to the DOL, “full time” employees are those who are employed at least 30 hours per week. In making such determination, for employees who are not “newly hired” employers can “look back” for up to 12 months to determine who is full time. For “newly hired” employees, an employer will be given six months to determine whether it “reasonably expects the employee to work full-time on an annual basis.” The FAQs further provide that if “a newly-hired employee is reasonably expected to work full-time on an annual basis and does work full-time during the first three months of employment, the employee must be offered coverage under the employer’s group health plan as of the end of that period.”
The “reasonable expectation” standard established by the DOL may prove difficult for staffing companies to utilize due to the fact that employment terms are based on client needs, which often are unknown and change day by day. As the Obama regime moves to implement ObamaCare, more definitive guidance will be issued by the IRS and Treasury Department that may further clarify the “full time” definition. Hopefully such guidance will address other issues such as seasonal, temporary and flex schedule employees.
you can dance around the subject any way you chose. bottom line from the counsel. hours will be cut. you can try to sell it anyway you want but that is still what was voted for.