More Restaurants Cutting Employees’ Hours in Prepa

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
A Growing Trend: More Restaurants Cutting Employees’ Hours in Preparation for ‘Obamacare’


As we drawer closer to the full implementation of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e.”Obamacare”), a growing list of restaurants and eateries have decided as a cost-cutting measure to cut back their employees’ hours.

A Taco Bell in Guthrie, Okla., for example, has cut “its full-time employees’ hours to avoid mandates under the new health care law,” News9.com reports.

“We talked to the company that owns the Guthrie restaurant today, and it confirmed the cuts. Now, employees there aren’t allowed to work more than 28 hours a week,” the report adds.
 
A

abcxyz

New Member
This most likely does nothing.

FTE= Full-time Equivalent.

If they have four employees that work 10 hour each, that is equal to 1 full time employee so unless they are going to cut staffing below 50 FTE employees than this does nothing.

Add up total hours for ALL employees then divide by 2,080 (52 weeks x 40 hours) and that will equal the number of FTE employees they have, rounded down.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike Obamacare.
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
abcxyz said:
This most likely does nothing.

FTE= Full-time Equivalent.

If they have four employees that work 10 hour each, that is equal to 1 full time employee so unless they are going to cut staffing below 50 FTE employees than this does nothing.

Add up total hours for ALL employees then divide by 2,080 (52 weeks x 40 hours) and that will equal the number of FTE employees they have, rounded down.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike Obamacare.
Click to expand...

That's not how the § 4980H(b) fine that was created by the PPACA and reconciliation bill works. There are 2 possible fines for employers in § 4980H.

The first is for a large employer that fails to offer its full-time employees the opportunity to enroll in qualifying coverage. The employer doesn't necessarily have to pay for that coverage, just have it offered through the employer. Full-time equivalents (120 hours per month) are used to determine whether an employer is an applicable large employer to begin with, but they are not used to determine how many full-time employees it has and thus how many its potential fine (for not offering qualifying coverage) would be based upon.

The second fine is for a large employer that does offer the coverage mentioned above, but doesn't pay for enough of it for some full-time employees such that those employees end up qualifying to receive credits to purchase coverage themselves through an exchange. For this fine, full-time equivalents are not used to determine how many such employees the employer has, and thus how many such employees the employer has to pay a fine based upon. An employee is either full-time (i.e. they average at least 30 hours per week for a given month) or they are not. If they are not full-time, the employer is not required (in order to avoid a fine) to pay for some amount of their coverage (which amount would depend on a number of factors).

So, reducing the number of full-time employees could help employers avoid paying fines or reduce the amount of those fines in a couple of ways, even if the aggregate number of hours worked doesn't decrease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top