I work PRN at a hospital, usually 36-48 hours per week. We have been told that because of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) we can no longer work more than 30 hours a week. While this doesn't officially take effect until Jan. 2015, our hospital is choosing to implement this now.
Of course, you can imagine, we are all upset, particularly those of us who work full-time hours. I choose to work PRN because I get paid more per hour and don't need benefits because I have insurance through my husband's employer.
Our hospital heavily utilizes PRN nurses both dedicated to a particular floor and a float pool. We all feel this is really going to negatively affect patient care and adequate staffing. I am going to find another PRN job to get the hours I need to work each week.
This is the typical 'extreme' right response used when conservatives get flustered, and want to deflect the topic away from the sole topic at hand, healthcare access, and shows your real feelings about your employees- the same employees you claim to be concerned about. Sorry, Charlie.[/quote']
The typical debate between me (liberal) and my husband (conservative):
Him: "The liberal agenda is going to destroy this country."
Me: "No, it's not."
Him: "Yes, it is. Look it up."
Me: "I'm not going out of my way to prove YOUR point for you. HOW is the liberal agenda going to ruin this country?"
Him: "It just IS. Open your eyes! You can see it EVERYWHERE!"
Me: "Where, specifically?"
Him: "Everywhere."
Me: "Give me ONE example, from a reliable source."
This is the typical, 'extreme' right response used when conservatives get flustered, and want to deflect the topic away from the sole topic at hand, healthcare access, and shows your real feelings about your employees- the same employees you claim to be concerned about. Sorry, Charlie.
Nice try, Sam. My name isn't Charlie, and you're doing a lousy job of representing my thoughts and beliefs. How about you stick to what you know rather than assigning motivation to my posts.
Earlier in this thread, I asked 2 pertinent questions, neither of which have been answered: 1. If you believe that it is an employer's responsibility to pay for all employees' healthcare, do you also believe that employers should be obligated to pay for employees' food, shelter, clothing and transportation? Why or why not? What is the difference between these expenses that are all essential to life and to successful employment?
2. How would employees be better off if a business was forced to close due to unsustainable healthcare costs? Is it not preferable to have income that enables one to purchase one's own healthcare than to lack both income and insurance?
I'm going to add a 3rd question: How does imposing prohibitive healthcare costs on employers further Obama's stated goal of disassociating health care coverage from employment?
In my company, ALL nurses are considered per diem regardless of hours (the norm is 48 hrs/wk). It's odd, because we have stable schedules and even accrue vacation time, but by labeling us "per diem," they have circumvented the ACA...
Obama unilaterally delayed the enforcement of the employer mandate for this year. It should have gone into effect on Jan. 1, but now will be delayed until after the midterm elections in November. Once in effect, it will require your employer to provide employer paid health insurance to every employee who averages 30 hours or more per week. It won't matter whether your official status is FT, PT, per diem or casual. All thst will matter is your average number of hours worked per week.
Be prepared for that to happen on January 1, 2015, unless Obama decides to change the rules again.
Nice try Sam. My name isn't Charlie, and you're doing a lousy job of representing my thoughts and beliefs. How about you stick to what you know rather than assigning motivation to my posts. Earlier in this thread, I asked 2 pertinent questions, neither of which have been answered: 1. If you believe that it is an employer's responsibility to pay for all employees' healthcare, do you also believe that employers should be obligated to pay for employees' food, shelter, clothing and transportation? Why or why not? What is the difference between these expenses that are all essential to life and to successful employment? 2. How would employees be better off if a business was forced to close due to unsustainable healthcare costs? Is it not preferable to have income that enables one to purchase one's own healthcare than to lack both income and insurance? I'm going to add a 3rd question: How does imposing prohibitive healthcare costs on employers further Obama's stated goal of disassociating health care coverage from employment?[/quote']
Hi Jolie, i see your point of view on trying to contain costs in order to keep your business profitable and be able to expand. The discussion on this topic is not black and white, there is some gray areas.
Now in reference to your question about what should you provide to your employees... It varies from industry to industry, depends on regions too. The major factor is supply and demand of labor force, if you were to locate your business in an area with extremely low unemployment then your supply of labor would be small and the competition for qualified individuals will be great among employers. If your company did not provided benefits in such a labor environment you would be out of business in less that it takes to fry an egg, ( no able body would work for you if other employers were offering better pay and benefits). As for food and shelter, there are companies that provide those benefits in order to attract and retain employees ( Example would be companies in the oil fields in North Dakota) , it all depends again in your current labor market situation. So yes some employers offer a wide arrangements of benefits to attract and retain employees.
You ask if it is an employer responsibility to provide housing, food , shelter, benefits , etc. Ethically this is a complicated matter, employers have a social responsibility with their communities and employees, they also have the responsibility to obtain a profit, if profit wasn't a motive , then we wouldn't have a capitalist system, and we all know how bad socialist systems are. To keep it short , remember the employees of any business are human beings, they laugh,cry, feel pain, fear, etc. Employers are humans too, and if the tables were turned, you will be treated the same way that you treated them.
I don't have the accounting details of your business, so it would be impossible to say for certain that you could provide or not health benefits for your employees. But perhaps you need to look into it and make some sacrifices so your workforce is motivated, healthy and loyal to the business. Remember in numbers it may seem like loosing money, but the long term effects of a workforce that is taken care of will pay off with less people leaving, more productive employees ( a happy employee is an extra productive one) , and at the end you will reap in the rewards. Think about the human beings that you provide work too, and remember that without them your business is just an idea , and would be non existent with those that work for you.
Nice try, Sam. My name isn't Charlie, and you're doing a lousy job of representing my thoughts and beliefs. How about you stick to what you know rather than assigning motivation to my posts.
Sam was pretty clearly representing his own thoughts and beliefs and was responding to your comments, not trying to represent yours.
Earlier in this thread, I asked 2 pertinent questions, neither of which have been answered: 1. If you believe that it is an employer's responsibility to pay for all employees' healthcare, do you also believe that employers should be obligated to pay for employees' food, shelter, clothing and transportation? Why or why not? What is the difference between these expenses that are all essential to life and to successful employment?
It is the responsibility of the employer to pay the basic costs of the services they are utilizing. If I utilize equipment, or instance, for my business I am responsible for the basic upkeep of that equipment, if I can't afford that then I don't get to use the equipment, there are basic costs that go along with employees as well.
2. How would employees be better off if a business was forced to close due to unsustainable healthcare costs? Is it not preferable to have income that enables one to purchase one's own healthcare than to lack both income and insurance?
Not only are employees better off, but society is better off if employers that refuse to maintain there basic responsibilities are weeded out to make room for those that are willing to be responsible.
I'm going to add a 3rd question: How does imposing prohibitive healthcare costs on employers further Obama's stated goal of disassociating health care coverage from employment?
Maybe you can refer me to this "stated goal" of Obama's. I would argue that health insurance shouldn't be tied to your employer (which apparently you agree with), although I am unaware of when Obama has listed this as a "Stated goal", particularly since Obamacare reinforces employer-provided-healthcare.
Nice try, Sam. My name isn't Charlie, and you're doing a lousy job of representing my thoughts and beliefs. How about you stick to what you know rather than assigning motivation to my posts.
Earlier in this thread, I asked 2 pertinent questions, neither of which have been answered: 1. If you believe that it is an employer's responsibility to pay for all employees' healthcare, do you also believe that employers should be obligated to pay for employees' food, shelter, clothing and transportation? Why or why not? What is the difference between these expenses that are all essential to life and to successful employment?
2. How would employees be better off if a business was forced to close due to unsustainable healthcare costs? Is it not preferable to have income that enables one to purchase one's own healthcare than to lack both income and insurance?
I'm going to add a 3rd question: How does imposing prohibitive healthcare costs on employers further Obama's stated goal of disassociating health care coverage from employment?
You mixed it up by asking if you should also feed and house your employees. If you keep to the health care issue you wouldn't confuse me so much. Glad to hear you're a liberal- that means I like you!
Back on topic, I completely agree that health insurance shouldn't be tied to your job, it's what we should do instead where there doesn't seem to be much consensus.
With the exchanges, many if not most part time workers are actually better off if they aren't offered any health insurance at all so they can get an exchange plan, which will often cost them less than what their employee contribution would be through an employers plan.
Obama unilaterally delayed the enforcement of the employer mandate for this year. It should have gone into effect on Jan. 1, but now will be delayed until after the midterm elections in November. Once in effect, it will require your employer to provide employer paid health insurance to every employee who averages 30 hours or more per week. It won't matter whether your official status is FT, PT, per diem or casual. All thst will matter is your average number of hours worked per week.
Be prepared for that to happen on January 1, 2015, unless Obama decides to change the rules again.
I re-checked with my employer to see if they would be offering benefits next year, but they have elected to pay the fine instead, and continue to only offer insurance to janitors, office staff and non-nurses only. But our company still does everything on paper and issues paper checks only due to expenses involved in upgrades, so I'm not surprised.
Specializes in Management, Med/Surg, Clinical Trainer.
Correction this just changed today. The Obama Admin has decided to delay enforcement of the employee mandate, as long as the employer has 99 or less employees. This provision will now start in 2016.
Or maybe PRN jobs are advantageous to people, such as myself, who would rather provide their own low premium, high deductible health insurance because, we, you,know, take care of ourselves. It's ridiculous that healthy people have to subsidize healthcare for overweight, diabetic people who don't take care of themselves. But sadly, there's no financial incentive for being healthy and taking care of our bodies.
Yeah, and I'm sure that when fire safety laws and child labor laws came into being employers rent their clothes and gnashed their teeth and claimed they couldn't absorb extra cost then, too.
ixchel
4,547 Posts