Analysis: Obamacare, tepid U.S. growth fuel part-time hiring

(Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

Faltering economic growth at home and abroad and concern that President Barack Obama's signature health care law will drive up business costs are behind the wariness about taking on full-time staff, executives at staffing and payroll firms say.

Employers say part-timers offer them flexibility. If the economy picks up, they can quickly offer full-time work. If orders dry up, they know costs are under control. It also helps them to curb costs they might face under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

This can all become a less-than-virtuous cycle as new employees, who are mainly in lower wage businesses such as retail and food services, do not have the disposable income to drive demand for goods and services.

Some economists, however, say the surge in reliance on part-time workers will fade as the economy strengthens and businesses gain more certainty over how they will be impacted by Obamacare.

Executives at several staffing firms told Reuters that the law, which requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide healthcare coverage or incur penalties, was a frequently cited factor in requests for part-time workers. A decision to delay the mandate until 2015 has not made much of a difference in hiring decisions, they added.

"Us and other people are hiring part-time because we don't know what the costs are going to be to hire full-time," said Steven Raz, founder of Cornerstone Search Group, a staffing firm in Parsippany, New Jersey. "We are being cautious."

Raz said his company started seeing a rise in part-time positions in late 2012 and the trend gathered steam early this year. He estimates his firm has seen an increase of between 10 percent and 15 percent compared with last year.

Other staffing firms have also noted a shift.

"They have put some of the full-time positions on hold and are hiring part-time employees so they won't have to pay out the benefits," said Client Staffing Solutions' Darin Hovendick. "There is so much uncertainty. It's really tough to design a budget when you don't know the final cost involved."

Rest of story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-usa-economy-jobs-analysis-idUSBRE97K05K20130821

Number of long-term unemployed ‘unprecedented’ under Obama
Published August 21, 2013
Washington Free Beacon

The economy has seen an "unprecedented" number of long-term unemployed under the Obama administration, according to a liberal think tank, and economists say plans pursued by Democrats in Washington are unlikely to curb the problem.
Nearly 5 million workers are classified as long-term unemployed, while 900,000 more have stopped looking for work altogether, according to a new series of reports issued by the Urban Institute.
Three percent of the labor force has been out of work for more than six months, an improvement of only one percentage point since unemployment spiked in October 2009, according to the study.
"That long-term unemployment would rise during a recession is not at all surprising, but the extent of the increase and its persistently high level since the start of the recovery are both troubling and unprecedented," the report states. "The U.S. economy is now well into its fourth year of recovery, the unemployment rate is below 8 percent, yet the long-term share of unemployment is still near 40 percent."
The center-left think tank said that those startling figures are unlikely to change unless the United States can achieve dramatic job growth, rather than the middling 2 percent overall economic growth figures the Obama administration has averaged.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/21/number-long-term-unemployed-unprecedented-under-obama/#ixzz2ccIKLjM2

Weren't we warned about the backlash that would be caused with [name] cowh healthcare?...Businesses/Small Businesses are now being forced to go to seasonal/part time employees in order to deal with these mandates...NOW after it's too late the Unions are complaining about the lack of full times employees....Nice job by folks like Hoffa Jr and others that elected and re-elected the cowh...Surprised another Hoffa hasn't gone missing...the rank and file can't be happy with their lack of leadership...

I was checking out some job sites yesterday. I was intrigued, but not surprised, at the number of jobs described as "part-time:  less than 29 hours bi-weekly." In several cases, two part-time jobs were listed with identical employment criteria in the same department. Employers are getting two for one, and getting out of providing health care as a benefit.

Yesterday, I read an article that stated part-timers will probably end up with more take home pay than full-timers. Fewer hours worked, more take home pay due to the federal subsidies for those who don't have health insurance through their employers. Full timers will have to continue to pay their premiums with no hope of a subsidy.

It's a strange law, that's for sure. We could have done much, much better.

Melissa (PB) wrote:

It's a strange law, that's for sure. We could have done much, much better.

I agree, full of "unintended consequences" that folks are only just now realizing. There is no doubt health care needed some work but this law is not the answer.

nochain wrote:

Melissa (PB) wrote:

It's a strange law, that's for sure. We could have done much, much better.

I agree, full of "unintended consequences" that folks are only just now realizing. There is no doubt health care needed some work but this law is not the answer.

I'm with you on that, NoChain.

Some say the ACA is the first step toward single payer (Medicare for all), but I am beginning to have my doubts about that. There is nothing about this law that remotely resembles single payer, other than the attempt to get everyone covered with health insurance.

With single payer, at least, a tax will be called a tax. Nothing underhanded, no obscurity.

We'll see.

Totally off topic:

Ever read the book "Unintended Consequences"? I've tried to start it about three times, but I always get bored.

More bad news from the Obamacare debacle (this has already happened to me, my employer cut my wife off my health insurance because her employer offered health care coverage - of course it cost a lot more than our original combined coverage - what a great deal):

Employers dropping coverage for thousands of spouses over ObamaCare costs

Republican lawmakers are raising new concerns about ObamaCare after several large employers announced they are dropping health coverage for some employee spouses due to rising costs under the new law.
Both the University of Virginia and UPS told their employees recently they are no longer offering spousal coverage to those able to obtain insurance elsewhere; meaning thousands of Americans will no longer be able to choose the benefits they prefer.
UVA said Wednesday this is only one of many “major changes” coming to their health plans as a result of ObamaCare. The university says the changes are necessary because the law is projected to add $7.3 million to the cost of the university’s health plan in 2014 alone.
“The modified plan will provide new options and reward those who participate in wellness programs,” UVA’s Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer Susan Carkeek said in a press release. “But we must make adjustments or face millions of dollars in rising costs, fees and taxes that would be passed along to employees.”
Similarly, UPS partially blamed the new health law for the change, which is estimated to affect roughly 15,000 employee spouses.
The rising cost of health care "combined with the costs associated with the Affordable Care Act, have made it increasingly difficult to continue providing the same level of health care benefits to our employees at an affordable cost," UPS said.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/21/employers-dropping-coverage-for-thousands-spouses-over-obamacare-costs/#ixzz2chjkKNTF

nochain wrote:

Melissa (PB) wrote:

It's a strange law, that's for sure. We could have done much, much better.

I agree, full of "unintended consequences" that folks are only just now realizing. There is no doubt health care needed some work but this law is not the answer.

Announced today that UPS is dropping healthcare coverage and more companies expected to follow....so guess the administration will now count the fulltime workers reduced to part time works as....jobs created...

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Melissa (PB) wrote:

It's a strange law, that's for sure. We could have done much, much better.

I agree, full of "unintended consequences" that folks are only just now realizing. There is no doubt health care needed some work but this law is not the answer.

   Announced today that UPS is dropping healthcare coverage and more companies expected to follow....so guess the administration will now count the fulltime workers reduced to part time works as....jobs created...

Was it the University of VA that also dropped spouses and said Obamacare will add about $7.5 million annually to their health care cost? But the big lie was if you had coverage you liked you could keep it.

nochain wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Melissa (PB) wrote:

It's a strange law, that's for sure. We could have done much, much better.

I agree, full of "unintended consequences" that folks are only just now realizing. There is no doubt health care needed some work but this law is not the answer.

   Announced today that UPS is dropping healthcare coverage and more companies expected to follow....so guess the administration will now count the fulltime workers reduced to part time works as....jobs created...

Was it the University of VA that also dropped spouses and said Obamacare will add about $7.5 million annually to their health care cost? But the big lie was if you had coverage you liked you could keep it.

Along with....'Wont cost Americans one thin dime'.....

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Melissa (PB) wrote:

It's a strange law, that's for sure. We could have done much, much better.

I agree, full of "unintended consequences" that folks are only just now realizing. There is no doubt health care needed some work but this law is not the answer.

   Announced today that UPS is dropping healthcare coverage and more companies expected to follow....so guess the administration will now count the fulltime workers reduced to part time works as....jobs created...

Was it the University of VA that also dropped spouses and said Obamacare will add about $7.5 million annually to their health care cost? But the big lie was if you had coverage you liked you could keep it.

   Along with....'Wont cost Americans one thin dime'.....

Sounds like the dude didn't even read the mess before thumping his hollow chest and signing it into "law"

nochain wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Melissa (PB) wrote:

It's a strange law, that's for sure. We could have done much, much better.

I agree, full of "unintended consequences" that folks are only just now realizing. There is no doubt health care needed some work but this law is not the answer.

   Announced today that UPS is dropping healthcare coverage and more companies expected to follow....so guess the administration will now count the fulltime workers reduced to part time works as....jobs created...

Was it the University of VA that also dropped spouses and said Obamacare will add about $7.5 million annually to their health care cost? But the big lie was if you had coverage you liked you could keep it.

   Along with....'Wont cost Americans one thin dime'.....

Sounds like the dude didn't even read the mess before thumping his hollow chest and signing it into "law"

Like good ole'Nancy Pelosi and others said....Let's just pass it and then we'll get to what is inside....Oops guess we're finding out what's inside!...Gotten so bad that Jimmy Hoffa Jr is opposing the cowh...says the cowh is killing jobs in America...duh!...The same Hoffa that said the unions would go to war for the cowh...nice job

It just keeps getting worse:

"Delta Air Lines has issued an urgent warning about the impact of ObamaCare, claiming the law's implementation will contribute to a roughly $100 million increase in health care costs next year alone.
The astonishing figure was included in a letter from Delta executive Robert Kight to officials in the Obama administration. The website RedState.com was the first to obtain and publish the letter earlier this week.
A representative with Delta confirmed the authenticity of the letter to FoxNews.com.
"Like many large companies, Delta faces significantly increased healthcare costs in 2014 and beyond," the company said in a statement on Friday. "Delta will absorb the vast majority of those increased costs so that we can continue providing a high value, high quality health plan. Consistent with our culture, Delta will always keep the best interests of our people in mind in connection with the healthcare and other benefits we provide."
In the original letter, Kight disputes the notion that the law -- the biggest parts of which take effect at the start of 2014 -- will mean "business as usual" for big employers. A combination of factors, he claimed, will "mean that the cost of providing health care to our employees will increase by nearly $100,000,000 next year."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/23/delta-warns-obamacare-will-drive-100-million-spike-in-health-care-costs/?test=latestnews#ixzz2cpPxwITy

Nochain, I have to say that the hospital corporate focus on offering only part-time or as-needed jobs started way back before President Obama even entered politics. This drive to offer benefits to full-time workers only started back in the late 80s/early 90s, to the best of my recollection.

The change was gradual. First, benefits were limited only to those who were classified full-time. Permanent part-timers, who were originally paying a pro-rated share for their benefits, were left out in the cold.

Next came the concept of PRN (as needed) positions. These positions were essentially classified as temporary. No matter how many hours a person worked, he or she was unable to receive benefits because of the job classification.

Then came the full-court press. Some facilities started their own staffing agencies. It was stated right up front that benefits would never be available to those who worked in the hospital's agencies, no matter how many hours a person worked. By way of comparison, many local private nursing agencies offered benefits to people who worked at least 26-29 hours per week back in the early 2000's.

Now, at a couple of hospitals and facilities whose online careers offerings I've observed, fewer and fewer full-time positions are being offered. In some cases, I've seen two part-time positions with the exact same hiring qualifications offered in a single unit. It's a win/win situation for the facility - they get a full-time staff person by way of hiring two part-timers to fill a full-time slot, and never have to provide benefits.

I think the legislators who wrote the ACA made a huge mistake by trying to fine corporations for not offering benefits to anyone who works over 29 hours. What the legislation could have done was force corporations who offer benefits to those classified as full-timers to also offer pro-rated benefits to all employees, no matter the classification. A pro rata formula based on the hours a person worked over a two week period would have been simple to implement, with those who worked at least 80 hours bi-weekly receiving the highest level of premium assistance. It also would have encouraged all workers to pick up more hours as they became available, and would perhaps even have encouraged employee loyalty.

The truly small businesses who have never offered insurance coverage would not have been penalized under the PBCare plan.   Instead, those employees would have, had a public option been included, been able to find health insurance on their own at a reasonable rate.