The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-07-2013, 07:56 PM   #126
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,587

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

First and foremost: Healthcare benefits shouldn't be tied to employment, IMO.

And secondly, they are both dick moves and obviously the employer who is cutting the hours to make sure they don't have to give insurance to those people are dirtballs.

From the people I was speaking of (on a personal basis), they would prioritize what comes with being underemployed as to being employed solidly and having a job that gets benefits. As dumb as they are, unfortunately they know how to work the system and have no shame in doing so.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2013, 11:35 PM   #127
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
First and foremost: Healthcare benefits shouldn't be tied to employment, IMO.

And secondly, they are both dick moves and obviously the employer who is cutting the hours to make sure they don't have to give insurance to those people are dirtballs.

From the people I was speaking of (on a personal basis), they would prioritize what comes with being underemployed as to being employed solidly and having a job that gets benefits. As dumb as they are, unfortunately they know how to work the system and have no shame in doing so.
Now we have state govt cutting part timers back to 29. Even some with govs who supported Obamacare. Its not just the private sector.

Of course if you say 30 hours a week for benefits companies will trim down. You aren't going to spend all the money it takes over a few hours. You will say we can hire two part timers for 20 hours a week and that will be less then 1 part timer at 30 hours a week. You get 40 man hours for less money. Its a no brainer and you can't hold it against any company. If you owned a company you would do it also.

The problem is Obamacare. Its can't work because its only an idea and the law itself is whack and unworkable. The exchanges will be flooded, the subsidies won't be enough, the pre exisiting conditions coverage will cause prices to soar and middle class workers will be paying thousands more a yr in coverage. Single people will be getting blasted, families will get blasted, but hey some poor people with pre existing conditions will probably be good.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2013, 11:36 PM   #128
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
How many conservatives does it take to open a science textbook?
I don't know but chapter one is probably how to kill a baby and have it not be murder if it was written by you.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 04:01 AM   #129
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Now we have state govt cutting part timers back to 29. Even some with govs who supported Obamacare. Its not just the private sector.

Of course if you say 30 hours a week for benefits companies will trim down. You aren't going to spend all the money it takes over a few hours. You will say we can hire two part timers for 20 hours a week and that will be less then 1 part timer at 30 hours a week. You get 40 man hours for less money. Its a no brainer and you can't hold it against any company. If you owned a company you would do it also.

The problem is Obamacare. Its can't work because its only an idea and the law itself is whack and unworkable. The exchanges will be flooded, the subsidies won't be enough, the pre exisiting conditions coverage will cause prices to soar and middle class workers will be paying thousands more a yr in coverage. Single people will be getting blasted, families will get blasted, but hey some poor people with pre existing conditions will probably be good.
They are both using the law to "game the system". The correct anser is "they are no different."

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I don't know but chapter one is probably how to kill a baby and have it not be murder if it was written by you.
Wooooooooooooow! That's a good one! Did you do it aaaall by yourseeeeelf! We're so proooooud! Is there an accompanying crayon drawing we can put on the refrigerator?

Hey cut, how many gun crazed gentle idiots does it take to think police would want armed citizens "helping" them in a multiple active shooter situation?

Answer: Just one.

HIYOOOOOOOOO!
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 08:54 AM   #130
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,587

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

I didn't know the ACA mandated insurance coverage by employers for 30 hours. I thought that full-time was over 32 hours a week. That is interesting.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 09:13 AM   #131
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
First and foremost: Healthcare benefits shouldn't be tied to employment, IMO.

And secondly, they are both dick moves and obviously the employer who is cutting the hours to make sure they don't have to give insurance to those people are dirtballs.

From the people I was speaking of (on a personal basis), they would prioritize what comes with being underemployed as to being employed solidly and having a job that gets benefits. As dumb as they are, unfortunately they know how to work the system and have no shame in doing so.
its a barrier to enterprising people with families- I am glad to see it changing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 09:20 AM   #132
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
I didn't know the ACA mandated insurance coverage by employers for 30 hours. I thought that full-time was over 32 hours a week. That is interesting.
We've also discussed this fallacy before, haven't we? If youve ever been in management, cut, which I'm assuming you haven't by some of the things you've said, companies are ALWAYS trying to turn full time positions into part time. Now they're just using the ACA to blame it on. In fact, I spoke to the contacts I have within my old theater company, an sure enough they just had a GMs meeting where the owners blamed the ACA and told them to keep everyone under 30 hours and if you have to, just hire more people. When a manager asked how it would be any different than what they've been doing since the beginning, there was a "long, hilarious pause", then a few minutes of them "fumbling over themselves uncomfortably".

It's been happening since forever. Good businesses eventually find out (for skilled positions) that its actually more detrimental to have two people do the work of one. You're doubling training costs, doubling turnover, and so on.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 09:52 AM   #133
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,587

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
We've also discussed this fallacy before, haven't we? If youve ever been in management, cut, which I'm assuming you haven't by some of the things you've said, companies are ALWAYS trying to turn full time positions into part time. Now they're just using the ACA to blame it on. In fact, I spoke to the contacts I have within my old theater company, an sure enough they just had a GMs meeting where the owners blamed the ACA and told them to keep everyone under 30 hours and if you have to, just hire more people. When a manager asked how it would be any different than what they've been doing since the beginning, there was a "long, hilarious pause", then a few minutes of them "fumbling over themselves uncomfortably".

It's been happening since forever. Good businesses eventually find out (for skilled positions) that its actually more detrimental to have two people do the work of one. You're doubling training costs, doubling turnover, and so on.
Agreed. I just was under the impression you had to work at least 32 hours a week to be considered a full-time person.

And from my experience in the fields I've done, having one solid full time worker is better than a couple of part-timers. When I worked in the legal realm as a project manager, HR hired a guy who was a part-timer -- and because he was snuffed out of a full-time gig, barely put forth any effort. They also hired another part-time person to place on my shift along side of him (a woman) because they thought having two people who were there half the time could get just as much work done as one person who would have been there 40-50 hours a week.

After about two months of him fumbling away on his shifts, staring into outer space and missing deadlines -- I had to let them know they made a big mistake. The one dude got fired and a few weeks down the road, the girl they hired decided she couldn't cut the mustard. The legal jargon and business was too much for her. May have not been my place, but since it related to people who worked under me and I had to manage, I told them it'd be in the best interest for the team to hire someone full-time. I am not big on referring friends / nepotism, but had a good friend who was just finishing up his degree and was looking for work. I told him to throw in a resume.

They hired him. He struggled a bit at first (big learning curve with programs, legal terminology and knowing what clients want), but he has been a solid employee for them for almost two years now. He has also been promoted from where he started and is on route to be in the position I was in right after school. It was the right call to make. His production was double both of them combined because he was thankful to have a good wage, great benefits and the comfort of working with someone he had in other avenues (was in student government and other programs with him). . . and he wasn't a functional retard.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 10:48 AM   #134
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
Agreed. I just was under the impression you had to work at least 32 hours a week to be considered a full-time person.

And from my experience in the fields I've done, having one solid full time worker is better than a couple of part-timers. When I worked in the legal realm as a project manager, HR hired a guy who was a part-timer -- and because he was snuffed out of a full-time gig, barely put forth any effort. They also hired another part-time person to place on my shift along side of him (a woman) because they thought having two people who were there half the time could get just as much work done as one person who would have been there 40-50 hours a week.

After about two months of him fumbling away on his shifts, staring into outer space and missing deadlines -- I had to let them know they made a big mistake. The one dude got fired and a few weeks down the road, the girl they hired decided she couldn't cut the mustard. The legal jargon and business was too much for her. May have not been my place, but since it related to people who worked under me and I had to manage, I told them it'd be in the best interest for the team to hire someone full-time. I am not big on referring friends / nepotism, but had a good friend who was just finishing up his degree and was looking for work. I told him to throw in a resume.

They hired him. He struggled a bit at first (big learning curve with programs, legal terminology and knowing what clients want), but he has been a solid employee for them for almost two years now. He has also been promoted from where he started and is on route to be in the position I was in right after school. It was the right call to make. His production was double both of them combined because he was thankful to have a good wage, great benefits and the comfort of working with someone he had in other avenues (was in student government and other programs with him). . . and he wasn't a functional retard.
Nice.

Yep, no matter what field you're in or where you go, there will always be people that want to do it cheap as opposed to right. In my experience, cheap is almost never right. People will still try, though, because there's always a market for cheap.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 01:55 PM   #135
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,827
Default

We have paralegals at the office who are smarter then recent law school grads. All part timers! Just how it is. You won't see any jobs of 35 hours or 30 hours a week anymore. Companies will either do like Req said and hire a full time person, or they will do what i said and hire 2 part time people. What you won't see are tweaners anymore. No reason to pay someone bennies for 30 hours a week.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 05:14 PM   #136
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

As someone who actually manages people, deadlines and projects, the concept of 'two people getting 2x as much done as 1x' or rather two people working 20 hours getting as much done as one person doing 40 is hilariously stupid.

Anyone with even half a clue about managing people knows that.

For more, the seminal work in my field (which applies to any situation involving skilled labor though) is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

Last edited by Fedaykin; 05-08-2013 at 05:17 PM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 06:59 PM   #137
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
First and foremost: Healthcare benefits shouldn't be tied to employment, IMO.

And secondly, they are both dick moves and obviously the employer who is cutting the hours to make sure they don't have to give insurance to those people are dirtballs.
Why should they provide healthcare for employees when the government is giving them "free" healthcare

BTW, we told you liberals this would happen......we told you that once Obamacare was passed businesses would start dropping their healthcare coverage for their employees....most have started to drop spouses, and others are cutting back on hours so they don't have to provide it for them....paying the penalty tax or fee is cheaper, because that's what the socialists in government wanted all along....a single payer system.

Like the old joke goes -

the president promises the people free healthcare, they all cheer.....

he promises them free housing, they all cheer....

he promises them free cell phones and food stamps, they all cheer...

he then promises jobs for everyone and the people look at him like he's crazy.....

then someone from the crowd asks "what do we need jobs for?"

Last edited by errand; 05-08-2013 at 07:05 PM..
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 07:08 PM   #138
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
I didn't know the ACA mandated insurance coverage by employers for 30 hours. I thought that full-time was over 32 hours a week. That is interesting.
don't feel bad....congress passed it and Obama signed it into law and they didn't know **** about it either.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 08:12 PM   #139
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,587

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
As someone who actually manages people, deadlines and projects, the concept of 'two people getting 2x as much done as 1x' or rather two people working 20 hours getting as much done as one person doing 40 is hilariously stupid.

Anyone with even half a clue about managing people knows that.

For more, the seminal work in my field (which applies to any situation involving skilled labor though) is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month
Good link. And yeah, it blew my mind. I was hired as a Project Manager but for my first two months was trained underneath one to see how it could go. After a while, I came to notice certain days had heavier workloads than others and inconveniently enough those two hardly ever worked together on those shifts. It made things really tough with those ****ty workers. After discussing things with my immediate higher up, we had to make the decision to get a full-timer on there or else we would be ****ed.

One of the reasons I left that company (even though I was offered a promotion after 8 months of working there) was because HR and the top dogs were woefully aloof to what was actually going on with projects and what went on during production hours. About all of them **** the bed in my exit interview when I let them know that having performance reviews once every six months didn't give them near the insight necessary to be able to understand the dynamics of that environment.

I told them I thought it would be best if the Project and Team Managers (along with at least two higher ups) could meet with individuals on a bi-weekly basis and at the end of each month, assess our performance and goals. Sixth months is far too long. Getting a monthly report on performance handed to you by a supervisor (me or my boss) was not good enough. It just shows what you did wrong, doesn't even begin to address how to fix those things.

They really weren't interested and actually got quite offended. I didn't care. I just proceeded to tell them that their lack of compassion for their employees and failure to help them out when needed is why they don't keep any good workers around for a long time. I think the average time there for someone who would have been my assistant on my team (regardless of specialty) was 4 or 5 months. After about a year, I got fed up with the **** and moved on.

A good CEO or President, Manager, etc. of any company should be willing to take good feedback from their employees. They didn't. Then again, those people never dealt with anything like that, so obviously they wouldn't know how to address it.

After I had moved to Colorado, I had gotten a phone call from HR asking me if I would be willing to move back and work for them. I guess pandemonium ensued after I left my legal team and the person who I had been training turned out to be a fart licker and was completely lost without me. I laughed at them, fired off a few choice words and blocked the number from my phone.

Would have been nice to be making big bucks only a few years out of school, but oh well. That **** was not worth it.

Last edited by Requiem; 05-08-2013 at 08:25 PM..
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 08:27 PM   #140
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,587

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
Why should they provide healthcare for employees when the government is giving them "free" healthcare

BTW, we told you liberals this would happen......we told you that once Obamacare was passed businesses would start dropping their healthcare coverage for their employees....most have started to drop spouses, and others are cutting back on hours so they don't have to provide it for them....paying the penalty tax or fee is cheaper, because that's what the socialists in government wanted all along....a single payer system.
It isn't "free" and never was advertised as that.

Most businesses can afford to keep healthcare for their employees and not cut their hours. The ones that are primarily doing it are the greedy, selfish bastards who are using it as a ploy to debate the policy. They'd rather do whatever it takes to keep more money in their pockets than actually help provide for the people who make their businesses go round.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 08:43 PM   #141
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
It isn't "free" and never was advertised as that.

Most businesses can afford to keep healthcare for their employees and not cut their hours. The ones that are primarily doing it are the greedy, selfish bastards who are using it as a ploy to debate the policy. They'd rather do whatever it takes to keep more money in their pockets than actually help provide for the people who make their businesses go round.
Not just that, but they do things against their own business interests just to prove a point. Look at Papa Johns. Look at that Denny's franchise. Not only did they announce they were doing something that is already common business practice in **** jobs like Papa Johns, but they managed to alienate themselves, their employees AND their customers in one fell swoop.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 08:48 PM   #142
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
We've also discussed this fallacy before, haven't we? If youve ever been in management, cut, which I'm assuming you haven't by some of the things you've said, companies are ALWAYS trying to turn full time positions into part time. Now they're just using the ACA to blame it on. In fact, I spoke to the contacts I have within my old theater company, an sure enough they just had a GMs meeting where the owners blamed the ACA and told them to keep everyone under 30 hours and if you have to, just hire more people. When a manager asked how it would be any different than what they've been doing since the beginning, there was a "long, hilarious pause", then a few minutes of them "fumbling over themselves uncomfortably".

It's been happening since forever. Good businesses eventually find out (for skilled positions) that its actually more detrimental to have two people do the work of one. You're doubling training costs, doubling turnover, and so on.
Only lower class jobs will really be hit hard by this. Unfortunatley those will hit college students, people without degrees the most. You know the same people Obama is supposedly all for.

The facts are starting to come out that the federal govt is way way way behind implementing Obamacare. The exchanges are going to be flooded and they know it. They are trying to figure out how to stall it until Obama is out of office.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 08:52 PM   #143
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,827
Default

The govt will probably just end up collecting a whole lot of fines from people who could not afford healthcare.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 06:43 AM   #144
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,034

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Only lower class jobs will really be hit hard by this. Unfortunatley those will hit college students, people without degrees the most. You know the same people Obama is supposedly all for.

The facts are starting to come out that the federal govt is way way way behind implementing Obamacare. The exchanges are going to be flooded and they know it. They are trying to figure out how to stall it until Obama is out of office.
College kids will be on there parents insurance,so college kids for the most part have nothing to worry about.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 07:38 AM   #145
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
College kids will be on there parents insurance,so college kids for the most part have nothing to worry about.
They'll also be paying .75% interest rate on their loans...the same as the big banks...if Elizabeth Warren gets this bill through.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 07:54 AM   #146
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,587

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
They'll also be paying .75% interest rate on their loans...the same as the big banks...if Elizabeth Warren gets this bill through.
Which would be awesome, too bad it is only for one year. That would help out a lot, but I don't know if this will have anything to do with people who have Stafford Loans that are already out and being paid on. The Department of Education serviced my loan to someone else, and although I have my payment automatically debited out of my checking each month, I lost the discounted rate I had prior because of doing that. It's really B.S.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 10:11 AM   #147
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
It isn't "free" and never was advertised as that.

Most businesses can afford to keep healthcare for their employees and not cut their hours. The ones that are primarily doing it are the greedy, selfish bastards who are using it as a ploy to debate the policy. They'd rather do whatever it takes to keep more money in their pockets than actually help provide for the people who make their businesses go round.
If this is the case, I couldn't imagine why colleges are enacting employee hour cuts over Obamacare. Colleges aren't exactly bastions of greedy capitalist pig bastards.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 11:00 AM   #148
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,587

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Ain't that hard to figure out.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 11:25 AM   #149
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
Ain't that hard to figure out.
Then it should be even easier to explain yourself.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 11:55 AM   #150
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,587

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

No explanation is necessary. The monks told me not to waste my energy on bad people.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:04 PM.


Denver Broncos