100% correct.

 

Now that is some Hope and Change I can get behind !

Keep them crossed, fingers and toes, it is going to be a nail biter.

 

Would have been real good if Obummers mama would have used a trampoline...........

 

sscully--Your whole argument falls flat when you look at what has happened in the past. Prior to the Health Insurance law passed by Obama private companies could cut anything they wanted out of their health insurance package, but they didn't. Why didn't they? It would result in a lower employee compensation and lower retention/hiring. Basically it was the free market that was keeping health insurance the way it was. The Catholic church did not have the benefit in their insurance policy prior to the law and they should not be made to purchase and support things completely against their religious beliefs. As others have pointed out many who work for a church are a member of that faith and subscribe to the tenets of that faith.

 

Huh ? Might want to look at what the SMB has been doing for the past 3+ years. They have been canceling insurance plans to cut costs. One I know had theirs end in DEC-2011. His answer, need to be in business to worry about a new law that I have to follow. My pontification, he is going to go to the bitter end, and then RIF employees to get below the min for supplying affordable health insurance.

The other thing you forget, the increases ( that have been child's play to date ) that are hitting these employers did not start in earnest until after the law was signed.

Now, for those that cannot get below the min, the policy they have cannot have lifetime and annual limits on most items. If something is not covered, the employer does not have to worry about paying for insurance that is without limits.

If you had a choice between no job and a job without health care, which would you take ?
I know you post like you are at the bottom end of just getting by, but take a look at the real unemployment numbers and tell me what can these employees do about having less coverage or higher employee payments ?

I am only addressing the potential case presidence being set here, by one employer, and what it could mean to coverage for those that are really just getting by with their employer.

Don't want to believe it, wait until things are full swing in 2014.
You posted about how your benefits are being cut already, and what did it do to lower retention/hiring ?

 

You're addressing worst cas scenerio as if it were going to be the mainstream.

I know when this law is finally fully implemented it is going to be very bad for business. Especially manufacturing, since they are competing with foreign companies.

The only thing that has passed as far as my benefits is concerned is no pay raise. As to retention, there have been many who were planning to hang in for a few more years who decided to retire now because of the uncertainty. That trend will continue for the next 5 or so years. If some of the laws pass that have been proposed for federal workers expect an exodus when/if the economy returns.

As the system is set up now the low skill/knowledge employee is getting over paid, while the high skill/knowledge employee is being under compensated. I know a microbiologist who works for the DoD who is being paid roughly 60k per year. Sounds good until you figure she had to go to school and get her Ph.D and could easily be making double that in the private sector for a pharmaceutical company. She probably won't leave, but it is going to be tough to find someone wanting to do her job when she retires. Congress in their "bull in the china shop" methodology is going to further cut the pay of those already under compensated while cutting the pay of the low skill/knowledge employee.

One bill has people in my job paying over 10% of their pay for their retirement annuity. Just a quick figuring for that works out to a very bad retirement program. To equal the same amount of retirement income from the new system and market returns I would have to invest 575 per month for my entire career. Essentially the annuity would be worse than no retirement, since I could get better returns by investing in an IRA and there is no ability to opt out of the annuity. Congress would essentially take one leg of the "three legged stool" retirement out. Retirement doesn't help in recruiting, but it is a big factor in retention. If the government decides they would rather train new hires than pay retirement for old fogies, this is the way to do it. Few who are hired will stick around, since there is no incentive to stay. When people talk about federal employees they never hit on the negatives of the jobs. They are: incompetent people being promoted to get them out of an office (private sector a person is promoted until they can no longer do their job effectively gov't promotes those who are most incompetent so their manager doesn't have to deal with them), managers who believe they are politicians and will only do things for political reasons not furthering the mission, having your life examined under a microscope every 5-10 years by your boss and if they don't like what they see you can be fired, people with no experience in their appointed position being appointed to senior management positions as a result of politicians in Washington (The wife's current state director was an office manager prior to running the state), difficulty in firing employees who were hired due to politics (the wife's current agency has a racist running it and it will take 15-20 years for the damage she has caused to be corrected. My wife was hired because they thought she was black), agencies being run on political considerations (which change every election) rather than a single bottom line, being forced to comply with stupid regulations (like the one you pointed out with social security, "here's the form read it and figure it out for yourself. I can't help you"). My wife has worked for some rather large organizations and they never had the amount of politics, back room deals, or oppressive structure as are in the federal government. The people who are hired and stay will be those who will have a hard time getting a job any place else.

Going back to my wife's experience. She recently applied for a position as a bank examiner for the FDIC. She has performed most of that job for a mortgage bank 10 years ago. Her starting pay when she did the job was roughly $79900 in today's dollars. The pay at the FDIC is roughly 59900. The biggest difference between the jobs is for the FDIC she would have to know not only mortgage banking but all aspects of banking. So she would have to know a lot more information and be paid less. How long do you think a bank examiner will stay on the job for the feds when there is no incentive to stay and retire? The only incentive would be pay (insurance will be the same no matter where you go except religious organizations). After getting the examining experience and certifications from the FDIC any bank will pay low/mid six figures to hire you because you have been trained by those will will assess your fines.

Basic management states if you want to hire and retain good employees you have to compensate them adequately. As the system is set up now the people in the high skill/knowledge jobs are being under compensated when compared to their private sector counterparts. ALL of the bills currently being considered are going to lower their compensation as well as the low skill/knowledge employees. If these bills pass expect your frustration with the federal government to grow. Two things will happen. You will see a brain drain as older employees run for the exits and the federal government will not be able to hire and retain quality employees to replace them. So the people taking the jobs will be the lower quality employee. Last year federal retirements were up 25% over 2010 that trend will continue for the next several years.

 

How long did it take for AT&T's saber rattling for it to become mainstream ?

Not long at all ( think it was ~9 months ), and to the tune of ~ $ 150M in revenue short fall to pay for the Health Care Law to be implemented.

In other words, for those that would go find another job, zero impact on retention.
Seems govt sector have a bit of catching up to be where the private sector is today. You have only had happen; what happened with them in 2008, and it has gotten worse since that time.

Going to be a rude awaking for them if/when they do. The private sector has been hammered pretty hard since 2008, and it is only going to get worse before it gets better.
If they are waiting until the economy returns, it would have to be when the labor market is getting tight, for this tide to go past the level to a reverse of action ( raises common place, and companies making enough on a regular basis to eat more the benefit costs ).
At it stands now, that would not happen until 2019, and that is a big if depending on how states fix their state retirement fund shortages ( could cause the level to be level for a long time ), and that is if Europe does not crater trying to carry Greece; and Italy and Spain don't become the next in line to play the part of Greece.
- Let's not forget Greece's Prime Minister saw his shadow on 2-FEB which means there is going to be 6 more weeks of negotiations.

2 things.
1. Someone has to be last in their class. And what do we call the guy that finished last ( with a 2.8 average ), in this case ? Doctor.
2. Which pharmaceutical company ?
- Which one do you think is hiring ? Pharmaceutical companies are having an issue at this point in time; of reduced revenue from drugs coming off patent, and needing to subsidize costs with programs run by the drug company, to get them to keep buying.
No big hiring going on there. It is nice to pontificate that they could make more in the private sector, but the same thing applies with pharmaceutical companies as others, they are not hiring in droves, and can pick and choose from candidates that have the exact work background they are looking for. They don't need to take general field of knowledge candidates. At lot of companies are doing this today, the other side of the pendulum from the late 90s.

You seem to forget: No job or a job that does not pay the greatest and have solid gold benefits.
- Which is better ?
There are all sorts of people out of work, not just the "unskilled" ones.

The private sector can put up to 15%, but it is an account with a fixed amount, not an annuity. What the private sector person does with that cash is up to them, and when it is gone, it is gone. No annuity payments.

A lot of companies do not offer a 2 leg stool, most are 1 leg, save what you can, it is up to you ( i.e. no matching ).

True, if the job market was on a level run rate.
In the late 90s labor market was tight, so pay went out of control and things like this mattered.
Starting in 2002, it leveled off a bit, and by 2007 it was in a nose dive, the pendulum has swung the other way and it is to the companies benefit when it comes to hiring.

Not really, there are enough good employees on the street now. UE does not mean bad employee, that means the company needed to cut costs, and they got it. Been this way since 2009, and is only getting worse.

 

You're talking about a company cutting health insurance AFTER the law was implemented. I'm talking about a company cutting health insurance to the level you are in a free market.


Every work I know of is still actively looking or another job, except me. I've done all the high speed stuff and gone out and fought every weekend. I don't give a crap if I walk from my house because of pay cuts, because even that is temporary. I don't have the option that many are doing of a voluntary foreclosure, because I will lose my job by doing that. You don't see people being fired in the private sector due to walking from their houses.

[QUOTE=SSCULLY;4778309]Seems govt sector have a bit of catching up to be where the private sector is today. You have only had happen; what happened with them in 2008, and it has gotten worse since that time.[quote]

Yup we sure do since we were falling behind every year in the 90's. 2001 (the year of the first recent meltdown) we started making up, but that only lasted a couple years then the private sector took off and left the gov't sector again.

Are you seriously comparing a researcher with years of experience and a 3.5 to a researcher who graduated last in their class. Truth be told the only place the person who finished last will find a job is the bottom tier of their field. The government is quickly becoming that tier and you're cheering it on. I agree the lower level workers don't need to be all that, but the people doing the research, and making the decision need to be upper tier when it comes to skill/knowledge/abilities.


I understand this. My point was WE have no choice. WE cannot decide to only invest in an IRA. WE are being forced to give back over 10% of our income and are only receiving 2-3% on it at best. I can get better returns by locking my money into a CD IRA for 5 years. You can compare the government to small business all you want, but it is not a valid comparison. the government is large and should be compared to large companies.

The problem with it is, the good employees will not find government service worthy of them. They might take the job for a short term resolution, but they will be out the door as soon as they can. There is little keeping people working for the government. The pay is ok for low skill/knowledge workers. The pay is horrible for skilled/knowledgeable workers. The benefits are no better than private industry. Yes we can earn up to 6 weeks vacation, after 15 years service, but in my experience most large companies will give you 4 weeks per year after you have been there a while. So we have them beat on the vacation. The retirement (again going with large business) is better at a large company. Hell the retirement is better at a small company if the bills being considered are passed.

 

One of the things killing the small companies is the unemployment tax. It used to be pretty minimal and you never gave it any thought. In Texas, ours went from .6% to 2.76%. Not because we were laying off, we are hiring, but because the unemployed have drained the fund.

We have about 150 employees, and last year after the insurance companies adjusted for the effect of Obamacare, or premiums went up 22% over the previous year and we had to change providers to get it that low. This year, they proposed a 33% increase over last year and our agent started hammering them with reasons why that was too much, plus, we cut the benefits of the policy quite a bit. We finally got the increase down to 6% on what is basically a pretty lousy policy. So, our premiums have gone up over 30% in two years time, for much less desirable coverage. We have some employees opting out now as they can not afford their part of the premium.

 

Yes, AFTER, that is where we are at now.

Again, how quick do you think it will take for the flood gates to open ?

My opinion ( and what I have seen in one specific case ) is SMB would be the front runner for using presidence set by one employer ( and that is what they are , and employer ) to cut costs, by eliminating sections.
As AT&T proved, I could be wrong. F-100 could stand to cut quite a bit of costs by cutting out covered sections, and still provide the min required to satisfy the law.


Catch up as in cuts. 2008 is when this started for the private sector ( again after 2002-2003 cuts ). Might have had 5 years of a level ground, raises where not 5%. 2% or 3% were considered good raises from 2003 to 2008.
Last wage report in The Economist has govt workers on par or slightly above private sector in total compensation, in the US.

Could be 3.5 is in the bottom half for all either of us know, and the only reason she has years of experience is due to the avg paying job she was qualified for.
If this PhD is so great, why did she take a govt job in the 1st place ?
Something got her there to start with, and when she leaves there is another right behind her to fill the void. Last place that year might have been a 3.4 for all either of us know, the number does not tell the whole story.

Not really. This is a K-Mac type statement, just because someone got a degree or performs a specific task, does not mean they should be paid a minimum amount. You get what you negotiate not what you deserve.
If the negotiating point is bottom half of the class with a 3.5 and no direct experience, you get an average paying job, be it public or private sector.

The F-500 list have the same 2 leg stool and a few a 1 leg stool.

Into what ? The Private sector is not going to be any better for the next 10 years minimum. Couple in what could happen if presidence is set on the benefits side with insurance.

not too sure where you get this from. Since 2009, benefits have been cut and employee amounts have gone up. So you get to pay more for less.
You said yours have not been touched. That is no better ???

Some percentage of private sector ( I see it a lot now - but that is my little circle ) converted to PTO ( Paid Time Off ) some years back.
15 days per year, that is all you get for vacation and stick time.
20 after 5 years of service.
If you use it all and get sick at the end of the year, you have up to 5 days of no pay before STD kicks in ( which common for STD is 75% of pay ).
If you hold the 5 days "just in case" you are forced to use them before the end of Q1 of the next year or they are gone ( removed, no pay for them, no other credit, no accruing ).

Not sure where you get some private have better retirement packages, it is a 401(k) invest at your own risk what ever amount you feel like. When you retire, that money is all you have, no annuity.
The only way this is better is if you are forced to pay and get zero in return.

 

That's becaause the majority of positions are near the bottom of the skill/knowledge level.

She started there because she was raised in the military and saw teh sacrifices her father had to put up with (like horrible health care), and wanted to serve those who are serving. She stayed there because of the retirement.


You can not negotiate your pay or benefits from the government. They are prescribed in law and nobody can deviate from them. A job's grade is determined based on several factors. If it is a developmental type job (think criminal investigators) they start at one level (at the academy)and go to a final grade (Once they have proven themselves and have the experience). Even then the grade is not accurately given. For example, an investigator for an IG. They might have been a detective for a local agency and worked as an accountant on the side. Their entry pay will be a GS-7 (and they still have to go to the academy) whereas if they had no experience they would be a GS-5. They do not negotiate this pay grade they write up their qualifications (normally with their resume although more in depth info might be requested during the hiring process) and an HR person determines their grade. They might have the qualifications to be at full performance level, but all they get is a 7. Some positions are not classified as developmental, but they also have a grade range. My wife's current job has a grade range of GS-5, 7, and 9. Very few people receive the 9 (and I'll explain in a minute). If she had been hired as a 5 she would stay a 5 until her boss decides she is good enough for a 7 (at least a year), then she receives a promotion. The 9s are not filled because they are for political purposes. If someone is in the clique (hang out together, go to church together, have the same racial make up, etc), their boss can have their position upgraded to a 9 and assign duties from the next job classification up. When a position in the next job classification up (GS-9, 11, and 12) comes open that person can be hired using alternative staffing rules (basically promoted from one job to another without posting it anywhere) and the director does not have to obey any of the civil service rules for hiring.

I’m not saying if a person does x,y,z they need to get paid a minimum amount. What I am saying is that you have to look at private sector for the pay, especially for the people with more influence on what and how the government operates. If a janitor doesn’t do their job well the first time, they can be called back in with little drama when it is discovered they screwed up. The end result is a person had to come back and redo the job. When a senior manager or researcher does their job wrong they can affect a lot more of the country or economy. The end result can be catastrophic. Look at government’s response to Katrina. There were a lot of managers doing their jobs poorly.

Social Security is considered one of the legs of the federal retirement stool. So add a leg to those F-500 companies.

By STD I’m assuming your talking about short term disability. We don’t have that or long term disability as a government benefit, so once I’m out of leave I have to rely on the charity of others.

Where I get that having no retirement is better than the proposed government retirement is easy. If I compare the retirement amount in two scenarios the first being placing my money in an IRA with no employer matching and the second paying for the government annuity. I will have a better retirement from the IRA than the annuity. So my annuity, which people complain about, will be worse than having no retirement plan. It will cost me more for less benefit than I would receive if I had just invested the money in an IRA at a good brokerage. The problem is I cannot opt out of the retirement plan. The worst thing a government employee can do is receive shift differential. Differential is included in our retirement withholdings, but when they calculate our retirement benefit they do not include the differential. Using a quick assumption, over the course of a career a person would donate an extra $10-30k in differential and will see no increase in retirement benefit.

 

I think it was stupid for the government to try and push this mandate but at the same time contraception would lower abortion rates, but then you have have to take into account how lazy teens are when it comes to that and it just keeps going on and on...

 

One of the problems with teens is there are a lot of myths about pregnancy that goes around and not much in the way of accurate info. Mom and dad talking with thier kids about sex probably isn't going to happen, so the kids are stuck with what other kids tell them. That information is often incorrect. Think about it, when do most kids learn anything scientific about sex and pregnancy? They learn it in the 5th grade, if the parents sign off. At that age they don't know what they don't know, so they don't ask what they need to ask. If they had more accurate sex education in junior high and high school, the rampent myths would not be as rampent.

 

This is a typical way the government deals with an issue. The Catholic church doesn't believe in contraception or abortion so why target this group?

Now go to the airport and they will not screen young Muslim men, instead they go after the old woman in the wheel chair and hold her until she soils her diaper.

Seems kinda basakwards to me.