Restaurants cutting workers hours
 

My son is visiting from Spain this month. He used to cook in one of the Country Clubs and at one of the Sumter Landing restaurants, and has been spending time with some of his old friends.

Several long term employees he has talked to have had their hours reduced to 29 per week. They refer to themselves as being affected by future national health care requirements because employers don't have to offer health insurance to workers under 30 hours per week.

Can't make for very happy employees.

Could this be in part due to the retreat of all of the snowbirds? I imagine there are cuts to restaurant staff every year after the high season.

Shame on these country clubs and restaurants for not wanting their employees to have affordable health care. The owners have theirs, but no one else deserves health care.

They can't even know what this is going to cost them since the health exchanges are not being set up until October.

What are they going to do when the season rolls around and they need help?

I agree, has to be more to this than the suggested reason.

The topic is reduction in restaurant workers hours and possible reasons for this. Please do not stray into political opinion territory or the thread will be closed.

The reduction in workers and hours is happening in all fields of business in Charlotte as well.

They will hire additional Part-Time employees.

Many reasons for this (National health care, snow birds gone, competition, etc) . . . it is almost a crime for the workers but this is Florida - a right to work state! They will have no problems getting replacement workers because in 18 months the houses will be built out in The Villages and we will have a lot of unemployed looking for any kind of work.

bob evans has for years transfered out employees out of TV to other areas when the snowbirds left..during high season you can transfer in, not trying to drop down to less than 30.... there is just not enough clients to support the staff

Before National health care so many
businesses only hired PT so they wouldn't have to pay any benefits at all! This has been going on for years! Especially in those "right to work states" like VA where I moved from. I believe it is because of the snowbirds returning north!

The OP stated that the workers told the OP's son that their hours were reduced bc the employer wanted to avoid the impending impact of the national healthcare plan, not bc of the lack of snowbird business.

Consequently, my inference is that the workers do not currently have health insurance coverage, and that their comments to the OP's son weren't that they lost health insurance coverage but instead that they lost income.

Yup.

Workers at many businesses, WalMart being the most notable, have had their hours played with for years to avoid giving them benefits.

Now that they have a scapegoat, it becomes even easier to justify in the minds of those whose primary attitude is one of; "I got mine...screw you."

Why would it be surprising, given some the stories about management documented here, that the country clubs are trying to do the same?

What's really ironic, is the fact that Spain already has a national health system.

.

This is so true. This is one of the worst states to work in. They can cut your hours for no reason and they can fire you for any reason they choose. I have been out of work for 3 months now. I was fired from my last job because I was I had the audacity to ask for help lifting a 250 pound container! When one job opens around here, there are 500 applicants for it.

I also worked at Michael's for awhile until they cut my hours from 35 to 8 a week, claiming business was slow. Who can afford that?

Its all about the bottom line to stay afloat.

gocubsgo: First I am sorry your lost your job. However perhaps it would help if you knew that Employment Law (Employment At Will ) pretty much operates the same in every state. An employer can let you go with no reason. However if an emplyer states a reason it has the obligation to support its conclusions. There are exceptions. Federal State , Muncipal workers and private unions are some of th notable exceptions owing to their contracts. There are some fundamental differences such as in New York a worker can work until infinity whereas in many of the states a worker must retire at 70 1/2. The battle with social security, etc is moving those lines as we speak.

It is true that employers have for a long time intentionally cut working hours in order to reduce benefit payouts. It is usually a result of congress's passing benefit bills that employers simply cannot afford. For instance for smaller companies the Family Leave Act could send them bankrupt because they do not have sufficient workforce to leave open a job for any length of time. So many employers established office with under 50 employees so that they would be exempt. All of what I have said is subject to change because we are discussing a dynamic and ever changing environment

The misnomer Affordable Patients Act is playing havoc with many employers and they face less costs by accepting the penalty than they will in providing healthcare. Also Florida is one of those states with a shifting population owing to the number of seasonal residents. I am amazed by how these employers manage to adjust to this shifting population change.

Perpetutity of the company is the responsiblity of senior officers and directors and they will react in any manner they choose to preserve their profitability. It is ugly I agree but it is also natural law at work

My daughter worked in the movie industry in California for about 15 years.
Except for a few major outfits (like Dreamworks) the standard procedure is that you are given a 3 month, 6 month or 9 month contract, so not to be eligible for benefits. This allows for major expenditures elsewhere, and a bonus to the hiring person if they keep the salary numbers down.

She has a friend who is a valued and sought after lighting tech. He has had his 'contract' renewed without break by his company, for the last 15 years. He often works 7 days a week for months at a time but gets no benefits. He gets tons of offers to go elsewhere, but the terms are the same.
It is part and parcel of the industry, unless you are in the highest echelon. There is always someone waiting who will jump at taking your place if you find it unacceptable.

My daughter now works for a not for profit environmental restoration organization. She gets some few benefits, but earns substantially less money. Not sure if it is an even exchange and she does have the satisfaction of the work, but that doesn't guarantee paying the electric bill and getting your teeth cleaned in the same week.
Many of our young people live in a different world now than we did then.

We could leave the house in the morning and find a decent job the same day. It might not have been the one we would keep forever, but we could always find a way to meet our basics without too much struggle, on our way to better and better. Companies groomed us once we were hired and invested in our futures with them if we showed the least amount of interest.

My bosses were ever my mentors, but that for the most part has changed today. For many young people, it is every man for himself, with an eye kept at their backside. I am glad I came up when I did.

It's not just the country clubs. My kid is a manger at a local restaurant and they have done the same, even through the high season. It's the nature of that business. Let's face it, it is unskilled labor and there are not many jobs that offer security or benefits for unskilled labor. Why do you think The Villages have so many part-time positions? Even the bank and other entities have been exploiting this opportunity.

Sadly, most of the people in these jobs make so little that they could have qualified for Medicaid if the Florida Legislature had not refused to accept the expansion, which would have covered almost one million uninsured Floridians.


So now, that 51 billion of federal dollars, earmarked for Florida, will go to other states to expand their Medicaid programs in the next ten years, while the legislators that rejected this money continue to pay $8 per month for their health insurance (or $30 per month for their entire family).

Benefits are a major factor for companies. Benefits ae expensive because they are subject to inflation and if given carry a liaibilit long fer employees leave their employ The liability aspect has played heavily on state/muncipal employees and is one reason why so many states and cities re running into bankruptcy issues. Even chicago's mayor is getting heat from public employees because he is attempting to bring Chicago's spnding under control.

In my day I took less pay (i.e. ignored the higher paying companies) because the benefits offerd by my company were really good. It has paid off

Someone has to pay for things.

By the way the clubs are owned by the developer but rented/leased to the businesses that run them.

And when the restaurant expenses go up, so will our meal prices..

That is how it works.

We can't have it both ways.

A company pays employees however much it can afford, taking into account the value of the work accomplished by the employee, and the need to stay competitive so the company can be profitable- not enough profits and no one has a job. Benefits are part of the total compensation package given to every employee according to how much the employee is worth to the company. Therefore, all benefits theoretically lowers your gross compensation- whether it is a retirement benefit, health insurance, vacation or sick pay, it all accumulates into your total compensation package.

The question of why employers are expected to cover their employee's health insurance at all is interesting. After all, employers don't pay for their employee's groceries, mortgage, clothing etc. Why is insurance singled out? My first response has always been that it is the HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES who have conspired to keep it this way. It has to be majorally cost effective for insurance companies to bill businesses once a month to cover thousands, or hundreds and even just a few insureds all at once instead of individually. And many employees, especially lower income employees, would put health insurance at the bottom of their list of bills to pay each month. By having the premiums be part of their compensation package, they never see the money and never have control over it. Employees never make the choice of whether to pay the bill and pay it on time. I would think most employers have their health insurance bills at the TOP of their priorities since non-payment would effect all their employees, including themselves.

Now suddenly things are changing for employers who have never been able to afford paying for a portion of their employees health insurance. The affordable care act is very complex and I don't understand very much of it, but I think employees will be required to cover a portion of the single rate of health insurance. For many employees, this is equivalent to either getting a large raise, (not always possible for the employer) or accepting a theoretical cut in pay (not acceptable to the ego of the employee) for something they may you may not currently have or feel they should be forced into having (health insurance).

I can understand why this situation is especially difficult for restaurants where much of employee's pay is in tips and they don't even get minimum wage. To suddenly have to cover a portion of employee's health insurance could be a huge increase in business expenses.

Another part of the affordable care act includes credits for health insurance to low wage employees by the government. This credit will be deducted by the health insurance company before the insured is billed. I am not sure if this credit will be available to insureds in an employer sponsored plan. If it is not, then it would make sense economically for employers of part time lower wage employees to keep their hours under 30/week.

Absolutely correct. Companies long ago figured out that it is cheaper to have 2 part time employees without benefits than it is to have one full timer with benefits. Sometimes the free market isn't very pretty.

From what I have observed the wage scales in The Villages are kept low because of:
1. the large number of volunteer positions (no pay) that Villages residents occupy.
2. the large number of Villages residents who are willing to work for very low wages because they have other incomes and 'just want to have something to do'.
3. and employers who pay low wages because of a large available unskilled labor pool.

and I have not even suggested benefits and the part that they might play in this scenario.

Bankruptcy "isn't pretty" either.

Does anyone think about how much a restaurant would have to charge per plate, in order to pay $700-800/month per person, or more, for all the employees' health insurance????????????

"Affordable Care" has to first be "affordable" to an employer before it can be bought at group rates for an employee, even with them paying a portion of the premium!

There's more about this in this article linked.

Florida Senate Republicans Vote to Expand Obamacare and Medicaid, Rejecting House's Free-Market Alternative - Forbes

Agree with your statement. Businesses are not social welfare agencies. They must make ends meet plus a little profit to make it worth their efforts. The same people who want all workers to get full health benefits and higher pay are the same ones that will complain of high prices for meals and take their business to a lower priced business that has mostly low payed part time employees. We cannot have it both ways.

The Florida Senate was in favor of expanding medicaid, as was the governor, the hospitals, the Chamber of Commerce, but the Florida House said no.

The Florida Senate also pays more for their health insurance, but the House would not vote to raise their $8.24 per month tax-payer subsidized premiums.

But yet another example, of the attitude so often displayed by so many of: "I got mine...screw you."




As far as would I be willing to pay more, knowing a company was treating their employees decently?

You're damned right I would. :thumbup:

I think any decent person would too.


.

I think it's call the " Affordable Care Act" Because you are supposed to be able to afford it ,no??? So if it is so affordable let everyone pay for their own!! Case closed.

Season is over...happens every year.

I feel that those of us that have been fortunate enough to afford our own, should financially help those in our communities like waiters and waitresses and any other low paying jobs that simply do not make enough to buy their own. Otherwise on target is right its: Screw you I got mine. I tip the wait staff 25 % or more for every meal we buy out. I would rather see every meal raised 30% with no tips allowed. Then the restaurant could afford to pay the wait staff a living wage and health insurance. That would bring better faster service and we could all be happy. It would also make the bad tippers fess up and become part of the solution rather than the problem.

:BigApplause:



We have a neighbor who was bragging that the server forgot to bring her bill during a luncheon....and she didn't have to pay for her meal.

Like that's something to brag about? :mad:


.

The next time you see your neighbor, maybe you can explain to her that the waitress paid for her meal -- standard policy in restaurants in TV and many elsewhere. The restaurant didn't lose a dime.

As to the lowering of hours, yes, it is standard that employees get less hours, but it is usually cut down to 30 hours, not 25-29. When you're living on below-minimum wage and so-so tips that are now even less, frequently with children to support, that additional cut makes a huge difference.

Usually, several servers are put on hiatus until next season. This year, more have been kept on so that restaurants will be fully staffed with employees working less than 30 hours.

Life ain't fair and this certainly isn't, but I don't know what the answer is. Reality is restaurants need to make a profit and health insurance (and other benefits) are not something employees are going to get, no matter how much it is needed -- it's just not structured to happen.

I suppose customers could be asked to make up the difference so servers can get some sort of private insurance by including gratuities in the tab (the 18% they automatically deduct), with a recommendation that people leave additional tips for great service. Odds are that isn't going to happen, either. So, .........

Lower hours, less pay means bad morale, which in turn translates to possible slower, less attentive workers and oh boy here comes the crummy food stories. Just like the Marriage story Happy Wife =Happy Life.

Fairness in all employment is very hard if not impossible to legislate unless we switch from democracy and the free market. I like democracy so that means if a server isn't secure, perhaps they should consider another kind of job.

We do what we can personally to always tip fairly or a little more. They are people who are working very hard and are to be admired just as most of us worked very hard and did our very best to take care of ourselves and our families.

Many of us have worked as servers at one time or another and so have our kids.

The problems of this world are very complex and we each think we know how they should be solved. That is the reason that we care so deeply and we have differences of opinions. We won't ever agree. Some of us are good to the core and some of us are selfish. And some like me are trying to improve.

1. Healthcare should be a right, not subject to your employer.

2. Folks without heath insurance use the emergency room...it's expensive and you pay when you go to the hospital - hence a 200.00 dollar box of nose tissues.

3. Obamamcare is a wussy move to national healthcare. The french love their health system - the brits, too. Wanna have more options than government ones....buy a supplemental policy.

4. The major issue is that the gov tries to shave cost by shaving payments to docs. Docs make you pay because they go into great debt for their training. Maybe we should re-think this model.

One way or the other everyone gets treatment. Some better - some worse. Folks with assets always pay and maybe this is right and a just thing. I feel for the folks with serious conditions that will take their life - but, we pay a premium price to give them a band aide. There has got to be a better way.