Deseret Industries Cuts Hours Ahead Of Obamacare Implementation

[Darren10]

No, it isn't. It is part of the Church's Welfare System.

I was thkning along the lines of the fact that people get paid to work there. But you are correct. It is a non profit organization. Calling it a business does not characterize it accurately. Thanks.

[Darren10]

Making a silk purse out of a sows ear is rarely successful.

And that's how heavily regulated businesses work. I'm still scratching my head as to who will be buying the Volt.

[Calm]

I was thkning along the lines of the fact that people get paid to work there. But you are correct. It is a non profit organization. Calling it a business does not characterize it accurately. Thanks.

Sorry if that came across as more condemning than clarifying...it's been a tough couple of days and I am too tired to watch my language as carefully as I should.

And thank you very much for taking it in good spirit and not assuming I was being a jerk.

[volgadon]

CFR please.

Really? As anecdotal evidence, I hometaught a lady who had a salaried position at DI. It was higher than minimum wage. That is the very nature of salaries as opposed to hourly wages. Also, consider the article itself saying that people who sort clothes faster get paid a bit more, and tell me that salaried positions are paid worse.

[volgadon]

DI is built on donations:

http://deseretindust...donate?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/e...encies?lang=eng

Also volunteer work: http://deseretindustries.lds.org/service?lang=eng

Also: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700142439/Mormon-welfare-services-Another-day-another-DI.html?pg=all

I was thinking mainly along monetary lines.

[tyler90az]

This has been fun reading the posts of all who are self-righteously condemning DI and the church. Evidently they think that support of socialist-style entitlements without regard to any other factors is the highest form of ethics and morality a person can have. On the other hand, this attitude of "I'll save them all that none will be lost" seems to be a bit incompatible with the principles of the gospel.

I seem to remember one of the posters in the past saying that his/her vote always went for the politician that promised the most benefits from the public trough. When asked about the concept of fiscal responsibility that rests upon all citizens, and who would pay for all of this, the answer was that it didn't matter. That would be the politicians problem; entitlements were promised and they better deliver.

Interesting how certain perspectives need to reject notions of common sense in order to be rationalized.

You fail to understand that by the church doing this taxpayers pick up the full burden of the employees healthcare. So again, how does your argument count as common sense?

[tyler90az]

I don't know but it would appear that more money gets into the hands of people as personal income for them to decide what to spend it on rather than a larger percentage having to go to government programs they may not have to take advantage of. If I am right, Wwhether or not it is better for money to go from employer to government for fifty people to take home $100 a week with $25 per person going to the government for potential benefits or money going directly to 75 people at $83 a week without any money going to the government for benefits...I think this is a personal decision.

Sorry not to be rude but can you elaborate a bit more. The employees are losing hours(money) and are not getting healthcare. The burden on the taxpayers is much higher when a company avoids Obamacare and allows them to go on medicaid.

[Darren10]

You fail to understand that by the church doing this taxpayers pick up the full burden of the employees healthcare. So again, how does your argument count as common sense?

Huh? Why can't those working get their own health insurance? Drop the federal regulations on them and you'll see them become much more affordable. And why should everyone have health insurance? The rules of Obamacare are that if you're alive, you have to purchase healthcare or mandate that others by it for you.

This helps taxpayers how?

[Darren10]

Sorry if that came across as more condemning than clarifying...it's been a tough couple of days and I am too tired to watch my language as carefully as I should.

And thank you very much for taking it in good spirit and not assuming I was being a jerk.

You rock, Calmoriah!!!

[Darren10]

If "production worker" are the employees in question for this thread, than, yes, it does seem that they make less than salaried workers at Deseret Industries which isn't that much to begin with.

http://www.careerbliss.com/deseret-industries/salaries/

[Darren10]

In regards to cutting these worker's hours:

Its one-year training program, for example, 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 their adeptness at sorting clothes.

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

Exactly. By avoiding the new mandates, more workers may stay employed at Deseret Industries. I'd say that the decision to cut worker's hours helps them overall, not hurt them. Repeal the mandates and the worker's hours may go back up.

http://www.sltrib.co...ranite.html.csp (A republishing of BCSpace's link)

And there's this from the same article:

Even so, it has been happening. 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.

[Calm]

Really? As anecdotal evidence, I hometaught a lady who had a salaried position at DI. It was higher than minimum wage. That is the very nature of salaries as opposed to hourly wages. Also, consider the article itself saying that people who sort clothes faster get paid a bit more, and tell me that salaried positions are paid worse.

Just looking for info.

[Calm]

I was thinking mainly along monetary lines.

I would assume that contributing to the Welfare System in general would be seen as likely helping out DI where necessary by most members. I think there are likely many who assume that any decision made in managing the Welfare System, whether it is altering how canneries do things or dealing with wages at DI are handled differently than even say Deseretbook which is a for profit business, I believe.

My experience---and perhaps it is different than others---is that while appeals for specifics in the humanitarian area of the Church's mission are made at times of disaster with massive acute needs created by such events, that ongoing projects such as the Perpetual Education Fund, the Clean Water Project, the Temple aid fund (don't know the official name, but one can contribute to help members attend the temple when they cannot afford it themselves) and other such projects are advertised from on occasion (such as their creation or something new coming up such as when the DN had the article on DI), but appeals for funds for specific projects don't go out on a constant basis or when things are generally stable.

If the Church looks on DI as more of a training ground than an organization designed to give people an ongoing comfortable living, I can see why the administration of DI might not see this as an emergency needing greater appeals for support beyond what they usually do (encouraging people to both shop and donate time and items through advertising such as billboards and the occasional article).

[Calm]

You fail to understand that by the church doing this taxpayers pick up the full burden of the employees healthcare.

But isn't what is happening is just that the Church is adjusting to policy changes so that they continue on with the same DI policy that was in place before? It is not like the Church is taking advantage of new law to save money where they weren't able to save it before. The Church wasn't paying for healthcare before for what are mostly temporary workers and it isn't now. They are not now shifting a burden they used to carry onto the taxpayers but rather allowing taxpayers to carry the burden they voted to carry by supporting Obama's healthcare proposal (if not specifically, through his reelection) and the laws requiring health insurance be covered by companies for 30 hours or more employees.

[Calm]

The employees are losing hours(money) and are not getting healthcare. The burden on the taxpayers is much higher when a company avoids Obamacare and allows them to go on medicaid.

But they didn't get healthcare before from the Church, did they? If they didn't, it would appear that is not a benefit that the Church feels they need to provide through DI---that they can help more people by not paying such and instead providing more opportunities at training for better jobs even if they only provide minimum wage along with that training. And if they are required to supply it for all employees that work 30 hours or more, than it seems to me they have made the choice between promoting training most over providing individuals with comfortable incomes. I would assume they see DI as a short term option for workers that provides the specific benefit of training with the minimum wage given to allow those who need the training to get it (since if they weren't paid at least that, they would look for other jobs at least at minimum wage that lacked the training benefit and did not give the potential for higher income in other jobs).

I am not saying they are wrong or right, but it seems to me that the decision was made (and I may be reading it completely wrong but I am basing my conclusions on how the mission of DI has been discussed in church articles and the DN reports) long ago to focus DI's welfare efforts not on providing jobs, but rather for providing training for jobs, the fact that they get paid is to allow them to get the training...it is a side benefit, not the major reason for DI. If I am right, then healthcare benefits would be viewed the same way, the Church is not intending to provide the workers with a sustainable lifestyle themselves, the intention is to provide education/training to allow the workers to get it from someone else.

If during the transition to higher paying jobs, DI lets the government cover healthcare cost, this is just continuing the same policy as before so it seems to me that it would be expected to do this as consistent with DI's stated mission. DI is not a for profit business or even a business set up to give workers a sustainable income in the sense that it provides it (such as businesses that sell native products on a wider market attempt to do). It is a training facility, I think of it as more of a school than an employer such as a hospital attached to a medical school that trains doctors by having them as residents and pays them much less than they would be paid for doing the same thing in a private practice. It seems to me that people are expecting for DI to operate as something different than it is set up to be.

Whether this is a good policy or not (both for DI and the hospitals), whether DI should change its mission as a welfare system training center to something else can certainly be debated.

[Calm]

You rock, Calmoriah!!!

Bless you, Darren. I needed that.

[Calm]

If "production worker" are the employees in question for this thread, than, yes, it does seem that they make less than salaried workers at Deseret Industries which isn't that much to begin with.

http://www.careerbli...tries/salaries/

Excellent info, but lacking in administrative positions which I bet is what most people think of when suggesting a cut in salary (because they are probably the highest in pay...assuming they are not volunteer positions held by service missionaries). I know one person who was called as a service missionary to be in charge of the building program of the whole church a couple of decades ago**** and my dad was asked to take over a BYU physical facilities job in the 90s as a volunteer (but he declined due to family obligations, he could have afforded to volunteer as he was retired on a good retirement income and has always been prudent with our family's living expenses), I have no clue if it is typical for such administrative positions to be held by volunteers or not these days.

****He was a retired military officer so financially independent, I would assume a younger man is more likely a paid or stipended position. I don't know what Brother Ebert's age is, he's held a lot of positions for the Church over the years in the Welfare system so I suspect he is paid though it may be seen as a calling held under the Presiding Bishopric and he is given a stipend similar to fulltime GAs.

[Calm]

By avoiding the new mandates, more workers may stay employed at Deseret Industries. I'd say that the decision to cut worker's hours helps them overall, not hurt them.

I would say that it helps workers in general in that it allows jobs not to be eliminated which would have been so that benefits could be afforded for the smaller amount that are kept on even if such would have been a benefit for those that had been able to keep their jobs. There are also more employees so there are more getting help, but if it is the same amount of pay going out to a larger number of individuals, there may be more helped, but they are being helped less. Hopefully that training side of things is not decreased significantly.

The Church's history has always been (as far as I am aware) to maintain self-sustainable programs in any longterm welfare project, going back to the Perpetual Emigration Fund. It would be out of character, imo, for it to begin to operate a welfare project at a significant loss. It would look for another way to fulfill the same function, I'm guessing, just as it has shifted from having some canneries do their own canning to providing the food precanned at the same costs.

Appeals to the public for donation of money may cover short term needs, but I don't see it as a viable approach for longterm efforts. It seems to me the Church looks to donations of money to expand their humanitarian programs, not to sustain them. Other employees being willing to take cuts in salaries would be a possibility, one would have to know how much they made as well as how much it would cost to pay for healthcare benefits to know whether it was a viable option even before approaching employees to see if they were willing to take the cuts or whether it would disrupt the functioning of DI too dramatically (finding new employees takes time and money and might cost more than what offering the job at a lower salary to someone qualified who was willing to take it or finding a service missionary to fill the job might cost).

[Darren10]

Texas is a right to work stater which is effective in limiting demands and mandates upon businesses. The Atlantic has a great article of Houston and jobs growth.

Texas is killing it.

It dominated the recession, crushed the recovery, and in a new analysis of jobs recovered since the downturn, its largest city stands apart as the most powerful job engine in the country -- by far.

The ten largest metros have recovered 98 percent of the jobs lost during the recession, on average. But Houston, the first major city to regain all the jobs lost in the downturn, has now added more than two jobs for every one it lost after the crash. That's incredible.

Houston Is Unstoppable: Why Texas' Juggernaut Is America's #1 Job Creator

From this article we see a chart showing ecomonic recovery:

Seems that protecting the worker does just to opposite of protecting them. It seems that if you really care for them than allowing businessmen to make smart business decisions is the way to go. I think this applies to Deseret Industries as per my #86 post.

[Darren10]

But isn't what is happening is just that the Church is adjusting to policy changes so that they continue on with the same DI policy that was in place before? It is not like the Church is taking advantage of new law to save money where they weren't able to save it before. The Church wasn't paying for healthcare before for what are mostly temporary workers and it isn't now. They are not now shifting a burden they used to carry onto the taxpayers but rather allowing taxpayers to carry the burden they voted to carry by supporting Obama's healthcare proposal (if not specifically, through his reelection) and the laws requiring health insurance be covered by companies for 30 hours or more employees.

You're absolutely correct, calmoriah. The irony though is the tax dollar support for Obamacare. How does one oppose tax money to fund poor worker's health insurance and at the same time purport that Obamacare will somehow save taxpayers money when the currect bill for Obamacare is over one trillion tax dollars?

And here's on discretionary funds:

A little-noticed part of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act channels some $12.5 billion into a vaguely defined “Prevention and Public Health Fund” over the next decade–and some of that money is going for everything from massage therapists who offer “calming techniques,” to groups advocating higher state and local taxes on tobacco and soda, and stricter zoning restrictions on fast-food restaurants.

The program, which is run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has raised alarms among congressional critics, who call it a “slush fund,” because the department can spend the money as it sees fit and without going through the congressional appropriations process. The sums involved are vast. By 2022, the department will be able to spend $2 billion per year at its sole discretion. In perpetuity.

Obamacare's Slush Fund Fuels A Broader Lobbying Controversy

12 and a half billion dollars just for spending. This includes 2 billion dollars per year for the Department of Health and Human Services alone. That's not a cheap tax bill, ya' know.

[ERayR]

But they didn't get healthcare before from the Church, did they? If they didn't, it would appear that is not a benefit that the Church feels they need to provide through DI---that they can help more people by not paying such and instead providing more opportunities at training for better jobs even if they only provide minimum wage along with that training. And if they are required to supply it for all employees that work 30 hours or more, than it seems to me they have made the choice between promoting training most over providing individuals with comfortable incomes. I would assume they see DI as a short term option for workers that provides the specific benefit of training with the minimum wage given to allow those who need the training to get it (since if they weren't paid at least that, they would look for other jobs at least at minimum wage that lacked the training benefit and did not give the potential for higher income in other jobs).

I am not saying they are wrong or right, but it seems to me that the decision was made (and I may be reading it completely wrong but I am basing my conclusions on how the mission of DI has been discussed in church articles and the DN reports) long ago to focus DI's welfare efforts not on providing jobs, but rather for providing training for jobs, the fact that they get paid is to allow them to get the training...it is a side benefit, not the major reason for DI. If I am right, then healthcare benefits would be viewed the same way, the Church is not intending to provide the workers with a sustainable lifestyle themselves, the intention is to provide education/training to allow the workers to get it from someone else.

If during the transition to higher paying jobs, DI lets the government cover healthcare cost, this is just continuing the same policy as before so it seems to me that it would be expected to do this as consistent with DI's stated mission. DI is not a for profit business or even a business set up to give workers a sustainable income in the sense that it provides it (such as businesses that sell native products on a wider market attempt to do). It is a training facility, I think of it as more of a school than an employer such as a hospital attached to a medical school that trains doctors by having them as residents and pays them much less than they would be paid for doing the same thing in a private practice. It seems to me that people are expecting for DI to operate as something different than it is set up to be.

Whether this is a good policy or not (both for DI and the hospitals), whether DI should change its mission as a welfare system training center to something else can certainly be debated.

Exactly. What some here are forgetting is that DI is not a for profit business per se. It is a training program to help the unskilled learn retail sales skills so they can be employable. It has been my experience that a good many of those working at DI not only get their wages but the bishop of their ward is helping them with food and sometimes utilities.

If one takes the stance that DI is a money making enterprise of the church I can see how you would expect higher wages and benefits. I would too. It is however, as stated. a welfare training program. I don't have any numbers but my guess is that DI is subsidized by the Church Welfare System.

[Darren10]

The Church's history has always been (as far as I am aware) to maintain self-sustainable programs in any longterm welfare project, going back to the Perpetual Emigration Fund. It would be out of character, imo, for it to begin to operate a welfare project at a significant loss. It would look for another way to fulfill the same function, I'm guessing, just as it has shifted from having some canneries do their own canning to providing the food precanned at the same costs.

Well put. Interesting how the LDS Church holds to financial firmness and subsequentially avoids Obamacare. I do not find that coincidental.

Appeals to the public for donation of money may cover short term needs, but I don't see it as a viable approach for longterm efforts.

I think I'm starting to get a grip as to what this means (I've never heard ior used the term before). If it more or less means that the public donates to help than I fully agree that it would be a very ineffective long-term solution to help others afford Obamacare.

[Calm]

Texas is a right to work stater which is effective in limiting demands and mandates upon businesses. The Atlantic has a great article of Houston and jobs growth.

Houston Is Unstoppable: Why Texas' Juggernaut Is America's #1 Job Creator

From this article we see a chart showing ecomonic recovery:

Seems that protecting the worker does just to opposite of protecting them. It seems that if you really care for them than allowing businessmen to make smart business decisions is the way to go. I think this applies to Deseret Industries as per my #86 post.

Question---are these the identical jobs or have they changed in some way, number of hours, amount of pay, benefits, etc....just pointing at the number of jobs increase doesn't give much info, they could have taken each job and divided it with two more people thus resulting in the triple job growth that they've noted...but that would be unlikely to drive other indicators of healthy economic growth.

[Calm]

Exactly. What some here are forgetting is that DI is not a for profit business per se. It is a training program to help the unskilled learn retail sales skills so they can be employable. It has been my experience that a good many of those working at DI not only get their wages but the bishop of their ward is helping them with food and sometimes utilities.

They also have access to LDS Employment Services and Family Counseling Services (whatever their name is) and I would assume with so many specialists helping out, suggestions flow free for any relevant other church or local program (through the Community Coordination or whatever the title is that DI is setting up in its communities and is supposed to be set up as well in nonDI communities where DI helps other charitable groups and the favour is returned, such as in the case of DI helping a group that gets children back into the homes of the parents by providing them with the requirements of the local Social Service when they removed the children due to an unsafe environment, DI accepts vouchers from other groups to give away beds, blankets, and other necessities stipulated by the state's laws.)

Many of the individuals that use the DI training facilities are refugees. I am wondering if the PEF or something similar applies to them (my understanding was the PEF applied only to those outside of the US and Canada, perhaps only in what is termed thirdworld countries)?

Anyway there are many programs the Church has establish for its Welfare System and DI is at the hub of it so it seems to be the perfect place to find out what type of help is out there for anyone in need and to make the connection...though it is then up to the individual to make it work.

[thesometimesaint]

Huh? Why can't those working get their own health insurance? Drop the federal regulations on them and you'll see them become much more affordable. And why should everyone have health insurance? The rules of Obamacare are that if you're alive, you have to purchase healthcare or mandate that others by it for you.

This helps taxpayers how?

It is simple to understand. They don't make make enough money to buy their own health insurance. My own health insurance costs my retirement system $1000 per month..At minimum wage working 30 hrs per week for 4 weeks per month. You'd earn less than $1000 per month. No money for a place to live, food in your stomach or anything else, but you'd get to go to the doctor when sick.

Where I live we're also mandated to buy automobile accident insurance to meet or exceed state minimums, if we drive on the public roads. So what if you're required to have medical insurance. So I don't have to pick up the cost of your accident.

The most expensive type of medical care is emergency room visits. By law they have to treat you. Whom do do think pays when they can't afford the insurance? About 4 years ago I had a very slight heart attack. It cost 10's of thousands of dollars. I'm fine now. Thank the doctors, God, and my Insurance company.

Yes I've heard it all before how much much you despise our government and the laws we make. How you'd love to reduce the size of government to that which you can drown our government, and the laws with it in a bathtub. You're just the type of man to do it. When you do and the Devil and his mortal servants turn and unleash the full fury of Hell on you. Where are you going to turn for succor?