Taco Bell Franchise Cuts Single Mom's Hours Because Of Obamacare

[phantom power]

A Taco Bell employee in Guthrie, Okla., is speaking out after the fast-food franchise cut her hours to avoid costs associated with Obamacare, reports News9.

For Johnna Davis, a single mother of three who saw her hours fall in December to 28 hours a week, the change not only means a smaller paycheck. It also strips her of the right to receive health benefits from Taco Bell, a right that would have kicked in under Obamacare in 2014 had the franchise continued to give Davis a full-time schedule of hours.

Owners of fast-food franchises across the nation are blind-siding hourly employees by cutting their weekly hours -- and, in turn, their paychecks -- to dodge Obamacare costs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/taco-bell-obamacare_n_2433947.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

[RetroGamer1971]

1. Do you want sick food workers?

I'm sorry, Taco Bell but I want the person making my fast food to be as healthy as possible.

[atreides1]

2. Oklahoma

Profits before people...

[earthside]

3. The HUGE Mistake of Obama's health insurance reform.

Not enacting single-payer was a tremendous mistake.

By staying with the employer-based health care insurance system, we are going to see this all over the place -- especially in low-wage jobs.

This is why nut-jobs like the owner and CEO of Hobby Lobby are suing ... because the insurance is mandated from the employer. If health care was a single-sourced-government system, then so-called 'religious' beliefs would be a moot point.

Nevertheless, does it make me mad that these greedy, callous corporations are doing this? Of course.

But if Obamacare gets messed-up and doesn't deliver, we're going to have a heck of a time going back and getting the 'Meidcare for ALL' that we should have fought for in the first place.

[madville]

5. I hate healthcare tied to employment

Employer provided health coverage should be an optional benefit. Everyone should have a government run option available/provided. Mandating employers provide coverage to employess who work more than 30 hours is going to make employers reduce hours on low income earners, who honestly thought it wouldn't?

[Yo_Mama]

7. People who don't understand the economics of the business

A lot of people really thought this wouldn't happen much. Instead it is going to happen to millions, perhaps even 15 or 20 million employees, over the course of 2013/2014.

And then what happens to people like her? The individual mandate is going to kick in for a lot of these people, who won't be able to afford to buy insurance that is useful, but will now be subject to fines.

It was always wishful thinking - a giveaway to the higher-paid workers in the US who would pay more under a single-payer system. That is the only way to get real health coverage, though.

[Yo_Mama]

6. I agree with you

But from DU discussions at the time, we were in the distinct minority here. So I don't think passing single-payer was a politically viable option.

Our politicians are not dictators - they do respond to the will of the people.

I do think this is going to be a real problem this year and into the next. The lookback period for figuring out which employees would cause a fine starts now - it can be less than 12 months, but it is very advantageous for some businesses to use the 12 month period - so a bunch of workers are going to be hit with less hours this year, combined with the 2% payroll tax increase.

Don't look for food stamp usage and Medicaid costs to go down! This will cost us all in unforeseen ways.

[99Forever]

4. If I did eat their crappy...

... junk, I'd stop. Unfortunately it's so bad, I wouldn't eat there on a bet anyway.

[LisaLynne]

8. It is NOT because of Obamacare.

It is because these corporations want to spend as little as possible on their own employees. They said the same thing every time minimum wage is raised and that is why it has remained as pathetically low as it is. It is NOT about Obamacare. It is about hateful, greedy-ass shareholders.

[phantom power]

9. I agree...

although if I were to be an unkind hard-ass, ideally legislation wants to anticipate possible efforts to subvert it. My recollection is that hostile employer reactions were considered as part of critiques. As I pointed out multiple times, this is a game with opponents.

Anyway, these people are clearly being enormous dicks, but it didn't take them long to figure out an easy way to end-run the legislation.

[LisaLynne]

10. Well, that is true that ...

it would have been smart to anticipate this reaction in the legislation. OTOH, to act as though employers weren't keeping people under "full time" status before Obamacare isn't true, either. I've been watching that happen for a long time.

[madville]

11. These instances are because of the ACA

It made no difference before if the person had 28 or 38 hours, it cost the employers no more per man hour, they have to hae bodies on a shift. With the new requirements anything over something like a 30 hour/week average for a three month period requires the employer to offer health coverage.

We're going to see much more of this. It will cause places to have more part-time positions available so at least more people can work, like students, that would be a small upside.