Deseret Industries Cuts Hours Ahead Of Obamacare Implementation

[BCSpace]

Mormon-owned DI cuts workers’ hours, avoids Obamacare rule

Published on May 28, 2013 05:11PM

As the nation anticipates further implementation in January 2014 of the Affordable Care Act, which requires companies with 50 or more employees to provide insurance for their full-time employees, LDS Church-owned Deseret Industries has cut its workers’ hours to fewer than 30.

In doing so, DI, as it is known, will not have to provide health coverage for these employees.

In recent years, the DI has become one of the premier places in Utah where refugees and others can find work.

Its one-year training program allows people fleeing from any number of war-torn countries to learn the skills, including English, to find better employment. The workers are given an hourly wage, starting at $7.25 and increasing incrementally depending on quickness at sorting clothes.

But they do not get health insurance, according to LDS Church spokeswoman Ruth Todd.

Todd explained the cuts as a way "to serve as many people as possible."

Reducing the trainees’ hours, she said, "has allowed for a dramatic increase in participants."

Other large employers — public and private — have been adjusting workers’ hours in advance of the Obamacare coverage requirement.

Granite School District, for instance, will be trimming the hours for hundreds of part-time workers. Granite officials note the district has never provided health benefits for part-time hourly workers, and they deemed the price tag too steep to begin doing so.

Judi Hilman, executive director of Utah Health Policy Project, said that refugees, like all citizens, are eligible for premium tax subsidies and Medicaid, depending on their income.

But, Hilman added, "we wish large employers would not do this."

Peggy Fletcher Stack

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56374475-180/workers-hours-health-cuts.html.csp

It's just good business sense and Economics 101. And that saves the most people though it often makes it tougher on them. Most of my clients are doing this. Don't blame the Church or the various companies. It's not their fault.

[volgadon]

So, more people making minimum wage are getting fewer hours and still no medical benefits, and this is held as a commendable move on the employer's part?

[rpn]

Commendable only to the extent that it saves jobs, and for the minimum wage worker who was probably eligible for medicaid anyway (at least in many states) doesn't change the insurance they get, just the employer's ability to spend their resources on their mission, and not what the government thinks their mission should be.

[Stargazer]

So, more people making minimum wage are getting fewer hours and still no medical benefits, and this is held as a commendable move on the employer's part?

It has the same effect of increasing the minimum wage, which is to make it more difficult for the employer to keep as many people on the payroll. And it's always the most marginal employees that are let go first. I.e. the ones who have the smaller skillset and hustle the least.

Commendable in your opinion would be to continue to pay wages that the employer cannot afford until it is forced to go out of business because it can no longer pay its expenses? Yes, that would help the employees the most, I suppose. Help more of them right into the unemployment office.

[Storm Rider]

I suspect that I am in the minority here, but I would prefer that there be a national health policy. What is important to me is that there is minimal care for all citizens and then there is insurance for the catastrophe and the chronically ill. It makes no sense to me that US citizens pay so much for drugs. The industry needs to be restructured so that medicine is not a pathway for riches for providers nor a system to be abused by those insured. I agree that the government is a very poor administrator and IF we ever do become a country that desires a minimum level of care for all its citizens, there still must be some degree of competition in order to prevent the industry from evolving into the service we common see at the Department of Transportation & Licensing or other similar government groups that could not care less about the people they serve.

[Stargazer]

I suspect that I am in the minority here, but I would prefer that there be a national health policy. What is important to me is that there is minimal care for all citizens and then there is insurance for the catastrophe and the chronically ill. It makes no sense to me that US citizens pay so much for drugs. The industry needs to be restructured so that medicine is not a pathway for riches for providers nor a system to be abused by those insured. I agree that the government is a very poor administrator and IF we ever do become a country that desires a minimum level of care for all its citizens, there still must be some degree of competition in order to prevent the industry from evolving into the service we common see at the Department of Transportation & Licensing or other similar government groups that could not care less about the people they serve.

The reason US citizens pay so much for drugs is because of the labyrinthine and over-complicated course of testing that the FDA mandates. The only way the drug companies can recap the costs of bringing a new drug to market is to maintain a patent and charge for the overhead, which is enormous. And most drugs never make it that far. European drug laws are apparently just as efficacious in keeping bad drugs off the market without making it overwhelmingly expensive to get good ones to market.

As to the huge costs of medical care, there are several reasons for it, and virtually none of it is because the government ISN'T already involved with the medical sector to the hilt.

• Insurance is great, but in and of itself it drives up prices, simply because where there is a lot of money chasing a limited commodity, prices naturally go up. Econ 101.
  
• Government, in a noble attempt to regulate the medical sector in order to ensure more positive and less negative outcomes, requires a horrendous amount of otherwise useless recordkeeping. Every hospital's and physician's staff must include an expensive and increasingly larger complement of employees whose sole job is to do all they can to ensure compliance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. The costs are of course passed along to consumers
  
• The American Medical Association, in a not-so-noble attempt to keep doctors' earnings high, does everything it can in order to provide barriers to entry to the profession (thus increasing scarcity and driving up prices). This includes making it hellishly difficult and expensive to get an MD and a license to practice in the first place (through various means including dominating and controlling every state's medical practice commissions)
  

What YOU are asking for is an even more complete takeover of the medical sector. The way we do it in the country, such would drive up costs even higher than they are now, and would result in actually worse health care for everyone -- except for the very richest of us, at least.

Nobody ever seems to consider the Law of Unintended Consequences, along with its corrolary, You Can't Do Just ONE Thing.

[Nemesis]

Let's be really careful on how politicized this thread becomes .

[bluebell]

I think some people forget that there is a difference between what is perfect in an ideal world, and what is practical and realistic in the world we live in. As Stargazer said, understanding the unintended consequences of our choices is difficult but they can't be ignored.

It's sad that DI can't offer health care for all of their employees, but when money to run a business is finite, then expenses must be kept under control. It doesn't matter what we wish a company was capable of, it is what it is. It does employees no good to be laid off from their job, or for a company to go out of business, in the name of providing health care. Especially considering that such health care is not provided for free, that the employee still must pay a share of the cost (usually a few hundred dollars a month), and that that share is typically more than a low pay worker can afford anyhow.

When I think of this stuff I think of Hostess, the company who did Sweetheart bread and twinkies. Twinkies were enourmously popular, along with many of their other products, and their wholesale sweetheart bakeries provided many different basic food items, including milk and bread, for extremely cheap prices. We had two in Billings and you could get bread there for 50 cents a loaf and it wasn't just bread but everything was much cheaper. Their employees decided though that they wanted more money (not a judgement on them but just stating the facts) and went on strike to get it. The result was that Hostess was forced to file bankruptcy and close shop, every one of their employees lost their jobs, and every whole sale bakery which provided a service for the public closed.

Regardless of what the employees believed they company should provide, the reality was that the company could not provide it and thousands of people became unemployeed.

Reality wins over 'that would be really great' every time.

And as for the health care system as a whole, we can't forget that the reason that America has one of the (if not the, i really don't know) most advanced medical systems in the world (as far as the treatments that are possible and the technology and drugs available) is because people are willing to put time and effort into developing such things when the reward can be great wealth. Greed is ultimately the reason that people come to America to get treated for illness and disease that no doctor in their own countries can help with because it's greed that caused people to spend the time and resources to develop the treatments (not only greed, i'm sure, but that's always in the equation for some aspect of the work, somewhere).

If you try to construct a system where the huge financial benefits are removed from the equation, health care will probably get cheaper, but it will also get worse. We wil have less doctors, less research into medical advancements, less drugs to treat disease, and become like other health care systems in the world that do not have the resources to keep up with health care demands, especially at the pace that we Americans are accustomed to.

[Darren10]

So, more people making minimum wage are getting fewer hours and still no medical benefits, and this is held as a commendable move on the employer's part?

What business do you run, Volgadon? If none, would you set up a buesiness based upon increasing employee hours and wage rates pending on significant upcoming increases in cost to run your business?

Personally, I do appreciate this post. Ive been curious as to how Obamacare would affect the LDS Church including industries run by the Church.

[blackstrap]

You gotta remember ,Darren10 , that Volgadon is a self described 'filthy socialist.' That said, I live in Canada which has universal health care and in a province that does not charge its citizens any health premiums. I have had several medical procedures which, had I lived in the US ,would have bankrupted me. If I need a doctor I get one . Now, there are increased waiting times and the system in increasingly expensive and ultimately unsustainable, mostly because of political interference . There are several countries which have better healthcare and a more sensible system of delivery but we can't seem to summon the political will to move out of our self-constructed rut.

[Duncan]

You gotta remember ,Darren10 , that Volgadon is a self described 'filthy socialist.' That said, I live in Canada which has universal health care and in a province that does not charge its citizens any health premiums. I have had several medical procedures which, had I lived in the US ,would have bankrupted me. If I need a doctor I get one . Now, there are increased waiting times and the system in increasingly expensive and ultimately unsustainable, mostly because of political interference . There are several countries which have better healthcare and a more sensible system of delivery but we can't seem to summon the political will to move out of our self-constructed rut.

exactley. We have a guy in our ward that had a double lung transplant, that's at least a million if not more bucks right there with everything (if he was living in the states) but it was all free. Mind you our city taxes are high and we get nothing in return for it...but that's not healthcare

[bluebell]

You gotta remember ,Darren10 , that Volgadon is a self described 'filthy socialist.' That said, I live in Canada which has universal health care and in a province that does not charge its citizens any health premiums. I have had several medical procedures which, had I lived in the US ,would have bankrupted me. If I need a doctor I get one . Now, there are increased waiting times and the system in increasingly expensive and ultimately unsustainable, mostly because of political interference . There are several countries which have better healthcare and a more sensible system of delivery but we can't seem to summon the political will to move out of our self-constructed rut.

I used to live in Montana, and i know we would occassionally get Canadians who needed health care the Canadian system couldn't provide (either because they did not have it, or it was not available in the time frame the person needed it). As an honest question (because i have no idea), do you believe Canada would be able to sustain it's health care system if the US wasn't available to take the overflow?

[Duncan]

I used to live in Montana, and i know we would occassionally get Canadians who needed health care the Canadian system couldn't provide (either because they did not have it, or it was not available in the time frame the person needed it). As an honest question (because i have no idea), do you believe Canada would be able to sustain it's health care system if the US wasn't available to take the overflow?

i'll take a stab at it. I think it has to do wth the "brain drain" Doctors are getting educated here but leaving for the States for the money so we don't have specialists here that do all everything. That puts pressure on the ones that do stay. I think Canada is trying to reverse it so we'll see what happens.I think we could sustain it, more people here more people paying taxes and paying down Gov't student loans, more money then is available for healthcare. There is another guy in my ward from Florida who was an MD and trained in the US and moved here. He said that in the States you are faced with these ethical dilemmas i.e you can't afford or shouldn't afford it and either don't get something done or incur huge debt. here it's bureacracy and redtape galore but it's free so I dunno what's worse. Mind you though anecdotally My dad is 80 and has had procedures done with no problems and I am fit as a fiddle so I got a doctor and it's fine.

[thesometimesaint]

DI is a 6 month training program. It is not a permanent employment. Its trainees are trained at less than 30 hours per week. They are eligible for medicaid, but some states are refusing to expand their medicaid rolls. Even though the Feds pick up 100% of the cost for the first three years, and 90% thereafter. This is more about politics and nothing to do with actually providing health care to their citizens.

Personally I don't visit any thrift store, and prefer the get my cheap Chinese crap elsewhere.

[Duncan]

DI is a 6 month training program. It is not a permanent employment. Its trainees are trained at less than 30 hours per week. They are eligible for medicaid, but some states are refusing to expand their medicaid rolls. Even though the Feds pick up 100% of the cost for the first three years, and 90% thereafter. This is more about politics and nothing to do with actually providing health care to their citizens.

Personally I don't visit any thrift store, and prefer the get my cheap Chinese crap elsewhere.

oh man!!! the BEST tie I have, the Pres. Monson red and blue stripe was bought for a measley .25c at a Heckhole of a heap in LA!!

[bluebell]

DI is a 6 month training program. It is not a permanent employment. Its trainees are trained at less than 30 hours per week. They are eligible for medicaid, but some states are refusing to expand their medicaid rolls. Even though the Feds pick up 100% of the cost for the first three years, and 90% thereafter. This is more about politics and nothing to do with actually providing health care to their citizens.

Personally I don't visit any thrift store, and prefer the get my cheap Chinese crap elsewhere.

If it's employees are getting less than 30 hours a week the topic of the OP shouldn't be an issue, as mandatory health coverage doesn't kick in under obamacare unless the employee is working 30 hours a week or more.

[bluebell]

i'll take a stab at it. I think it has to do wth the "brain drain" Doctors are getting educated here but leaving for the States for the money so we don't have specialists here that do all everything. That puts pressure on the ones that do stay. I think Canada is trying to reverse it so we'll see what happens.I think we could sustain it, more people here more people paying taxes and paying down Gov't student loans, more money then is available for healthcare. There is another guy in my ward from Florida who was an MD and trained in the US and moved here. He said that in the States you are faced with these ethical dilemmas i.e you can't afford or shouldn't afford it and either don't get something done or incur huge debt. here it's bureacracy and redtape galore but it's free so I dunno what's worse. Mind you though anecdotally My dad is 80 and has had procedures done with no problems and I am fit as a fiddle so I got a doctor and it's fine.

I've heard from a couple of Canadian friends that one of the issues right now is that drs don't make very much money, and so Canada has trouble getting people to become drs, or staying in Canada after they do.

It doesn't seem to matter which country is being discussed, there are always so many interrelated issues with health care costs and coverage, it's no wonder it's so difficult to make any system work well all the time.

[ERayR]

So, more people making minimum wage are getting fewer hours and still no medical benefits, and this is held as a commendable move on the employer's part?

Would you rather have more people out of a job so that the few can have more benefits. In the case of Deseret Industries employees local bishops serve their needs to health care through the Fast Offering program as needed and it doesn't make the insurance companies wealthy.

A prime example of government running amok.

[ERayR]

exactley. We have a guy in our ward that had a double lung transplant, that's at least a million if not more bucks right there with everything (if he was living in the states) but it was all free. Mind you our city taxes are high and we get nothing in return for it...but that's not healthcare

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[Darren10]

You gotta remember ,Darren10 , that Volgadon is a self described 'filthy socialist.' That said, I live in Canada which has universal health care and in a province that does not charge its citizens any health premiums. I have had several medical procedures which, had I lived in the US ,would have bankrupted me. If I need a doctor I get one . Now, there are increased waiting times and the system in increasingly expensive and ultimately unsustainable, mostly because of political interference . There are several countries which have better healthcare and a more sensible system of delivery but we can't seem to summon the political will to move out of our self-constructed rut.

My response will get political so I don't want to contniue this aspect of the dialogue beyond this post. First, I'm very happy that you got certain procedures done. they seem to be successful and I'm very glad. Second, yes, getting them done ad paying for it would hit your pocketbook deeply. That's unfortunate but a reality. Third, you are paying for those procedures via higher taxes. Forth, Canada is facing, as is every nation with universal healthcare, raising debt and a move towards restricting medical care and its practices. Currently, there are about 120,000 medical care catagories which docors must report under Obamacare (about 12,000 for today's medical insurance companies). There's already a push towards restricting medical care in the name of cutting cost and it'll only get worse. In the end, you are paying for your universal healthcare.

[Darren10]

exactley. We have a guy in our ward that had a double lung transplant, that's at least a million if not more bucks right there with everything (if he was living in the states) but it was all free. Mind you our city taxes are high and we get nothing in return for it...but that's not healthcare

There are plenty of charitable as well as government funded organizations in the US whose purpose is to help pay for most if not all of such a cost for someone.

Question: would you not donate extra money to your ward in order to help your ward member pay for the cost of his lung trasplants if needed? I think I know the answer and that's the source of blessings and personal growth, not government taking care of everyone. (Hope this helps to keep the thread as an LDS - based topic)

[Darren10]

do you believe Canada would be able to sustain it's health care system if the US wasn't available to take the overflow?

I don't believe it's sustainable now. Universal healthcare is based on debt funding. Tha'ts not practical, nor moral as per LDS financial teachings. If the US could no longer take in the Candian overflow, I think the Canadian healthcare system will continue but will definitely get hurt by that.

[volgadon]

What business do you run, Volgadon? If none, would you set up a buesiness based upon increasing employee hours and wage rates pending on significant upcoming increases in cost to run your business?

Personally, I do appreciate this post. Ive been curious as to how Obamacare would affect the LDS Church including industries run by the Church.

My issue is that it appears that DI has taken the least imaginative way out, one with the most impact on those who can afford it least. Do we know if DI has looked at reducing salaries and/or salaried positions? Do we know if they've considered other ways to reduce expenditure or waste? Do we know if they've tried unconventional means such as public appeals for support? I am not opposed to business or profit per se, I am opposed to attitudes that place workers low on the rung of priorities. It is particularly unbecoming in a company that tries to implement some of the ideals of Zion.

[Duncan]

There are plenty of charitable as well as government funded organizations in the US whose purpose is to help pay for most if not all of such a cost for someone.

Question: would you not donate extra money to your ward in order to help your ward member pay for the cost of his lung trasplants if needed? I think I know the answer and that's the source of blessings and personal growth, not government taking care of everyone. (Hope this helps to keep the thread as an LDS - based topic)

well, I have heard his treatment, if done in the States, would have been well over a million big ones and no one in my ward has that kinda scratch. I would give if I had it but I don't

[Duncan]

I've heard from a couple of Canadian friends that one of the issues right now is that drs don't make very much money, and so Canada has trouble getting people to become drs, or staying in Canada after they do.

It doesn't seem to matter which country is being discussed, there are always so many interrelated issues with health care costs and coverage, it's no wonder it's so difficult to make any system work well all the time.

I know a few people in med school now, I know they'll all get jobs but how much they make I don't know. The problem is if you make say 100k starting off in say Edmonton or you can make doing the same thing in Idaho at 200k it's a no brainer where you choose to live. Now I think they are tightening up on regulations, like you can move to the States but you need to do x amount of time here and there is such a need, especially for rural medicine. That's true, it's tough everywhere when money is involved