Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.
While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.
The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch.
“At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries,” the study says.
Now we’re going to get what we voted for, unless the Republicans get in all the way in 2012.
Nearly 40 years after New York emptied its scandal-ridden warehouses for the developmentally disabled, the far-flung network of small group homes that replaced them operates with scant oversight and few consequences for employees who abuse the vulnerable population.
A New York Times investigation over the past year has found widespread problems in the more than 2,000 state-run homes. In hundreds of cases reviewed by The Times, employees who sexually abused, beat or taunted residents were rarely fired, even after repeated offenses, and in many cases, were simply transferred to other group homes run by the state.
And, despite a state law requiring that incidents in which a crime may have been committed be reported to law enforcement, such referrals are rare: State records show that of some 13,000 allegations of abuse in 2009 within state-operated and licensed homes, fewer than 5 percent were referred to law enforcement. The hundreds of files examined by The Times contained shocking examples of abuse of residents with conditions like Down syndrome, autism and cerebral palsy.
[…]The Times reviewed 399 disciplinary cases involving 233 state workers who were accused of one of seven serious offenses, including physical abuse and neglect, since 2008. In each of the cases examined, the agency had substantiated the charges, and the worker had been previously disciplined at least once.
In 25 percent of the cases involving physical, sexual or psychological abuse, the state employees were transferred to other homes.
The state initiated termination proceedings in 129 of the cases reviewed but succeeded in just 30 of them, in large part because the workers’ union, the Civil Service Employees Association, aggressively resisted firings in almost every case. A few employees resigned, even though the state sought only suspensions.
In the remainder of the cases, employees accused of abuse — whether beating the disabled, using racial slurs or neglecting their care — either were suspended, were fined or had their vacation time reduced.
[…]In some cases, not even criminal convictions are disqualifying. Henry Marrero, an employee at a group home in Utica, was convicted of beating a 99-year-old man while moonlighting at a nursing home — slapping the man three times in the face and once on the stomach. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and was barred from participating in federally financed health care programs. But he kept his state job working with the developmentally disabled.
[…]The Civil Service Employees Association, one of the most powerful unions in Albany, makes no apologies for its vigorous defense of the group-home workers it represents.
But the union’s approach — contesting just about every charge leveled at a worker — has contributed to a system in which firings of even the most abusive employees are rare. Most disciplinary measures represent a compromise between management and the union, often reached at the urging of an arbitrator chosen by both sides.
This article really has to be read in full to be understood. Solid investigative work by the New York Times.
If the government has its way, private companies will no longer be able to hire employees without first considering people listed on a government database of unemployed South Africans.
Failure to do so could result in heavy fines for companies.
This is according to the Employment Services Bill gazetted in December last year.
According to the proposed bill, the government intends to establish a public employment service, whose task will be to create a database of all unemployed people in the country. The employment service will then link job seekers to companies that have vacancies.
The bill, one of four tabled last year, also stipulates that employers will have to register all their vacancies with the service in 14 days.
The government will then provide the companies with the names of possible candidates to fill those posts.
According to the proposed bill, if companies fail to appoint candidates from the database who meet the requirements, they will need to provide written reasons for their actions.
The bill also proposes conditional employment of foreigners. If a company employs a foreigner, it will have to prove to the employment service that it was unable to find a suitable local candidate, including those provided by the government.
The government has also vowed to deal with recruitment agencies that charge job seekers fees. It has proposed that all agencies be registered or face punitive measures.
The bill proposes that the agencies must charge employers the fees instead.
In addition, the bill provides for temporary workers to be paid at the same rate as permanent workers.
This may be the most anti-jobs policy I have EVER heard of. If Satan himself wanted to design a policy to destroy jobs and stop businesses from hiring, then he could not do more to raise the unemployment rate than this evil, evil job-killing policy.
Let’s take a closer look:
first, government has no money of its own – it must steal money from productive businesses. Businesses who create products and services that consumers actually want. That means that the money that is used for this database and the government employees will take money away from businesses. When businesses have less money, they hire fewer workers. Therefore, this policy will raise the unemployment rate.
second, government will fine companies who do not waste time and money complying with this new regulation. Complying with the regulation not only requires time to query the database, but also to interview candidates who match the job requirements, and then to provide written reasons why they did not hire those candidates. The time spent complying with these regulations will cost the company money, reducing the amount of money that is available to hire workers. Therefore, this policy will raise the unemployment rate.
Third, the fee for hiring foreign workers will cause companies to settle for a local employee, who may not be as skilled as the foreign worker. The extra paperwork to hire a better-qualified foreign worker will cost the company money, reducing the amount of money that is available to hire workers. Therefore, this policy will raise the unemployment rate.
Fourth, in the case where the employer has to pay an extra fee to hire a worker who has been found by a headhunter, it just raises the cost of hiring this person and may cause the company NOT to hire this worker. Whereas before, a company would have to pay X to hire a worker P, now they will have to pay X + some fee in order to hire worker P. This extra fee will cost the company money, reducing the amount of money that is available to hire workers. Therefore, this policy will raise the unemployment rate.
Since the stated “good intention” of this bill is to reduce unemployment, I can only conclude that the ANC is a party of diabolical liars, or that they are not competent enough to run a lemonade stand. When you raise the cost of employees, either through fees or through fines or through paperwork, then you get fewer employees hired. What will happen is that more South African businesses will ship their jobs overseas. This is where outsourcing comes from – from stupid anti-business policies.
But wait! What about Obama? Isn’t he economically illiterate, too?
President Barack Obama’s budget proposal is expected to give states a way to collect more payroll taxes from businesses, in an effort to replenish the unemployment-insurance program. The plan could cause controversy at a time when the administration is seeking to mend fences with corporate America.
The proposal would aim to restock strained state unemployment-insurance trust funds by raising the amount of wages on which companies must pay unemployment taxes to $15,000, more than double the $7,000 in place since 1983.
The plan, which would take effect in 2014, could increase payroll taxes by as much as $100 billion over a decade, according to a person involved in its construction.
By proposing to enlarge the pool of wages subject to unemployment taxes, the White House appears to be offering states a more politically palatable way to raise revenues than to boost tax rates. States could keep the tax rates they have, or even lower them somewhat, and still raise considerably more revenue than they are raising now.
…To avoid hitting businesses with a tax increase during the economic recovery, the proposal would delay the new rules until 2014. The plan is expected to be included in Mr. Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal 2012, to be released Monday.
Any proposal would need congressional approval.
Michelle Malkin explains:
Just remember: There is no such thing as a “free” government benefit. Who pays? Dentists, tavern owners, maid services, mom-and-pop shops — small businesses that are the backbone of the American economy. And the businesses that have the lowest claims histories are getting punished the most to make up the jobless benefits fund deficit.
So much for Do No Harm.
This policy will basically raise the cost of hiring an employee. It is nothing but a new tax on businesses who hire employees. Businesses will have to pay the government more money for every employee they hire. Their only way out is to not hire anyone (here), but to move their businesses abroad, away from Obama and his anti-business regulations and taxes.
Remember what happened to the unemployment rate since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007:
WINTERY KNIGHT 