More Destruction From Obamacare

Healthcare

So, the carnage resulting from Obamacare continues to mount:

The nation’s largest movie theater chain has cut the hours of thousands of employees, saying in a company memo that ObamaCare requirements are to blame.

Regal Entertainment Group, which operates more than 500 theaters in 38 states, last month rolled back shifts for non-salaried workers to 30 hours per week, putting them under the threshold at which employers are required to provide health insurance. The Nashville-based company said in a letter to managers that the move was a direct result of ObamaCare.

Hope and Change people, Hope and Change.

11 responses to “More Destruction From Obamacare

  1. I blame the companies. I’d impose German like rules and they wouldn’t be able to pull crap like that! But that’s my European way of thinking coming out 😉

  2. Poor, poor Regal. However will they give bonuses to executives in a time of unrivaled growth if they have to also provide some kind of basic health benefit?!?!

    • Poor, poor Regal.

      They are acting to incentives in a rational way. In the same way that you don’t buy milk of the same value at more expensive prices, why would Regal not respond in kind?

      Even Obama does it: See Income Tax

      However will they give bonuses to executives in a time of unrivaled growth if they have to also provide some kind of basic health benefit?!?!

      I would imagine that bonuses to execs will increase as they continue to deliver shareholder value.

      Interesting irony that the healthcare law, legislation meant to help those most in need, ends up hurting them. And, simultaneously helping those who didn’t need the help to begin with.

  3. Sure, a company can make their employees lives miserable and treat them with no respect in order to maximize profit. A company can do so without any fear of recourse in an economy where those employees are unlikely to get other jobs. The choice we make as a society is how low of a bar we allow those companies to set before we say “no more”. Your approach has consistently been “how low can we go”. Is there anything a company could do to degrade its employees’ quality of life that you would oppose, even if that company could prove that it was saving money by doing so?

    • Sure, a company can make their employees lives miserable and treat them with no respect in order to maximize profit.

      Wait. The company is responding to outside influences. I’m sure that they would rather be able to employ the same employ for 40 hours rather than hire more employees at 28 hours. But they were told they couldn’t do that, or rather, if they did, they would have to pay a massive fine.

      Government made the lives of these employees miserable, not Regal.

      Remember, corporations see two things as it pertains to employees:

      1. The value of the production of the employee
      2. The total cost of the compensation for that employee

      This is why even the corporation’s share of FICA is really a tax on the worker.

      A company can do so without any fear of recourse in an economy where those employees are unlikely to get other jobs.

      Yes. Fewer jobs or more unemployed workers exerts downward pressures on compensation.

      The choice we make as a society is how low of a bar we allow those companies to set before we say “no more”.

      Sure. But what you are *really* saying is that YOU have hit that bar and just voted to force Regal to agree with you.

      They’ve clearly said that they don’t.

      A better way of handling this would be to convince people, corporations and society to do the right thing. Not legislate it.

      Your approach has consistently been “how low can we go”.

      Well, and from the point of the employee, “How HIGH can you go?”

      Is there anything a company could do to degrade its employees’ quality of life that you would oppose, even if that company could prove that it was saving money by doing so?

      Yes.

      Compulsion.

      Who am I to input my opinion on what one man is willing to accept as compensation for services rendered? For example, I’m available to my company 7×24 via cell phone. How many people would consider that degrading that I be forced to leave a movie, a kid’s soccer game or the circus just because the boss called? I’d take more money, but am happy with the trade-off as it exists.

      • Who am I to input my opinion on what one man is willing to accept as compensation for services rendered? For example, I’m available to my company 7×24 via cell phone. How many people would consider that degrading that I be forced to leave a movie, a kid’s soccer game or the circus just because the boss called? I’d take more money, but am happy with the trade-off as it exists.

        This is really the crux of the debate. You view this as a purely logical decision and negotiation between employee and employer, which simply isn’t true in a world with rampant unemployment. The employer has a massive advantage in bargaining power here, and they exercise it without any fear of reprisal. That breaks down the “fairly reached bargain” that you view this as.

        A lot of people choose not to be on-call 24×7, yes, and they take lower pay as a result. That’s a quality of life decision they can make, but that’s because people in those types of jobs typically can find that alternative job with slightly lower pay. If your job told you suddenly that you had to be on call 24×7, and you looked around and couldn’t find an alternative even at lower pay, would you stay in that job despite not wanting that new condition of employment? Of course you would.

        Remember when “Papa John” had to run away from his implications that his chain would be cutting back hours for the exact same reason? Regal will almost certainly be doing the same in the next month.

        • This is really the crux of the debate. You view this as a purely logical decision and negotiation between employee and employer, which simply isn’t true in a world with rampant unemployment.

          I totally agree with you.

          An employer floats work; she needs to sell tickets or burgers or computers or legal advice. Based on what she expects to be paid in the market place, she likewise prices her compensation for that service to be rendered.

          The employer has a massive advantage in bargaining power here, and they exercise it without any fear of reprisal.

          In light of today’s regulations regarding pay, I agree. But if there were no minimum wage laws and what not, the market would favor neither employer nor employee.

          I’m not sure if you have been to a McDonalds, Wal-Mart or movie theater lately, but have you SEEN the level of service being provided?

          Jeepers.

          If your job told you suddenly that you had to be on call 24×7, and you looked around and couldn’t find an alternative even at lower pay, would you stay in that job despite not wanting that new condition of employment? Of course you would.

          I agree; I would keep the job.

          But remember, the alternative is self sufficiency. We live in a society that provides work opportunities at clearing wages. That clearing wage, or more accurately compensation, doesn’t change just because congress passes a bill signed into law.

          Remember when “Papa John” had to run away from his implications that his chain would be cutting back hours for the exact same reason? Regal will almost certainly be doing the same in the next month.

          And I support such actions against Regal. The market is a bitch.

          Ask this. Given that most Regal employees are young people, do you think they would rather have:

          1. 30+ hours and the option to purchase a $50 a month catastrophic policy -TRUE insurance mind you.

          or

          2. No insurance and 28 hours?

  4. Damn companies will not respond in a socialist responsible way. Funny how the real world don’t work the way our Central Planners plan. Well we all know the answer to that, just order them to do what you want. If they don’t, lock them up. It works in all the Workers Paradises such as Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea.

    Sometimes even Democrats escape from the thought police Gulags to tell the truth. Max Baucus said ObamaCare is headed for a huge train wreck. Out of the mouths of bablers. Who could have thunk it?

    • Do you REALLY think that all regulation is socialism? Or is it simply health care that somehow becomes socialist?

      Or do you simply react with the word “socialism” whenever it’s something you hate? If Obama prosecuted abortion providers for price fixing, would you scream socialism there, too? Or would you find a new bogeyman to scream about?

  5. nickgb,

    Of course not ‘ all ‘ regulating is socialism. I’d like a little more regulating on the borders. Or a bit more at the voting booth.

    I’ve thought about one area where socialism works well. Combating obesity. I am always amazed at how slim and trim every North Korean is that I see in news pictures. The one exception being the dear leader Kim Jong-un, who seems to be the only guy in the country drinking big gulps.

Leave a Reply to nickgb Cancel reply