Obama forbids firing employees?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/companies-must-justify-their-workforce-decisions-under-obama-s-latest

So is this right? Companies must justify letting employees go who appear to be doing so just to avoid the penalties for the ACA mandate?

And what if they are found to be guilty. What exactly is the IRS going to do about it.....um.......never mind.

God help them all. 😲

Wasn't this in the movie "Atlas Shrugged"?

Originally posted by whodey
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/companies-must-justify-their-workforce-decisions-under-obama-s-latest

So is this right? Companies must justify letting employees go who appear to be doing so just to avoid the penalties for the ACA mandate?

And what if they are found to be guilty. What exactly is the IRS going to do about it.....um.......never mind.

God help them all. 😲

Wasn't this in the movie "Atlas Shrugged"?

This is part of that "waiver dictatorship" I was talking about on the other thread.

Under the law as written, employers with less than 50 employees don't face the penalty if they don't provide coverage. Obama's latest decree doesn't affect those that drop below 50 because they can already avoid the penalty.

But, those that drop from 100 or more down to 50-99 can now get a waiver from paying the penalty. They are the ones that must justify to the IRS. According to another news site, they'd do so by signing a statement that they didn't reduce below 100 to avoid the penalty.

After signing the statement, if they then tell reporters, or even employees that they fired people because of ObamaCare, they can be found guilty of perjury.

So Obama has effectively made a law that firms that drop employees because of ObamaCare must remain silent about it and not say anything that would harm election chances for democrats.

Consider these three possibilities:

1. Company with 50-99 employees fires people to get below 50 because of ObamaCare

Result: Story doesn't make Obama look bad because the company had the option to keep their employees and not pay a fine.

2. Company with 100 or more employees fires employees to get down to 99 employees in order to get a waiver.

Result: Employer cannot tell anyone. Employer does not get the waiver if he doesn't swear to the IRS that his cuts weren't motivated by ObamaCare. In the end, this will not make Obama look bad because the employer won't be telling anyone about it and the mainstream media won't even consider this possibility too seriously.

3. Company with 100 or more fires people to get down to 49 employees.

Result: No damage to Obama. If the employer says it was because of ObamaCare, then everyone will wonder why he didn't keep 99 employees and get the waiver. Everyone will blame the employer, not Obama. If the employer says it wasn't because of ObamaCare, well that's not going to be a problem for Obama anyway.

Ultimately, you'd expect a number of companies to either not hire additional people, or to lay off a few people to get below the ObamaCare penalty threshold. You know that and I know that. But now, the democrats have cover. The media won't look too closely because it risks making the democrats look bad. And no company CEO is going to be able to publicly blame any cuts on ObamaCare.

As insidious as this is, you have to step back and admire how well Obama is playing the political game.

I would add one other point.

ObamaCare could was written so that employers with less than 100 employees were exempt. But that would not give Obama the same "waiver dictatorship" he has now.

What they've done is written the law such that the limit is 49 employees. Now they can grant a waiver up to 99 employee and dictate any additional requirements whatsoever. They can even grant waivers on a company by company basis resulting in great power to raise campaign contributes. They can require you to swear your cuts are not ObamaCare cost motivated, essentially forcing your silence if the costs actually are ObamaCare relatd.

If they had written the law such that the limit was 99 employees, Obama wouldn't have the same power.

But I'm sure all the liberals out there trust the integrity of Obama and are going to pretend they're insulted that anyone would fear a politician would use his great power dishonestly.

Originally posted by techsouth
Consider these three possibilities:

1. Company with 50-99 employees fires people to get below 50 because of ObamaCare

Result: Story doesn't make Obama look bad because the company had the option to keep their employees and not pay a fine.

2. Company with 100 or more employees fires employees to get down to 99 employees in order to get a waiver.
...[text shortened]... dious as this is, you have to step back and admire how well Obama is playing the political game.

4. Company gets health care for its employees.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
4. Company gets health care for its employees.

This is largely a thread about Obama's tactics.

Can I assume you approve of Obama's "waiver dictatorship" tactics?

Originally posted by techsouth
This is largely a thread about Obama's tactics.

Can I assume you approve of Obama's "waiver dictatorship" tactics?

I think the American political system is a joke. Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think the American political system is a joke.

Hmmmm, did we finally find something on which we can all agree?

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Hmmmm, did we finally find something on which we can all agree?

I think we could and will write a thread every week till the end of time about this legislation.

This is just nutty.

Originally posted by whodey
I think we could and will write a thread every week till the end of time about this legislation.

A lot of us would bet that you might just do exactly that whodey.

Originally posted by techsouth
This is largely a thread about Obama's tactics.

Can I assume you approve of Obama's "waiver dictatorship" tactics?

For Obama to be a "waiver" dictator requires one of three options:

1. The executive waivers are allowed in the ACA, or
2. Nobody in congress has looked for this in the ACA, or
3. Congress knows they're illegal and is in on the deal.

In any case, if the waiver's are illegal I don't see congress as free of responsibility. So why is Obama... oh never mind.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
4. Company gets health care for its employees.

That is of course possible, but not without costs. It presumes the government knows better than the company its financials, and the ability to insure employees.

In the competitive world of hiring, the first thing out there is the rate of pay. Consideration of fringe benefits is....well fringe.

Originally posted by JS357
For Obama to be a "waiver" dictator requires one of three options:

1. The executive waivers are allowed in the ACA, or
2. Nobody in congress has looked for this in the ACA, or
3. Congress knows they're illegal and is in on the deal.

In any case, if the waiver's are illegal I don't see congress as free of responsibility. So why is Obama... oh never mind.

I think the media complacency plays a role in all this.

Could you imagine the media firestorm that would reign down on a judge actually declaring ObamaCare illegal. And even for a congressman, there are limits to how much fuss can be made before the media is going to destroy the person that opposes Obama.

To be fair to congress, some members have pointed out that what Obama is doing is illegal. But since the media doesn't care, what else can they do? Pull a gun on him and take him into custody. The democrats have this covered. Unless they decide to stop it, Obama can do whatever he wants.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think the American political system is a joke. Does that answer your question?

It has become that.

It wasn't always that way.

Originally posted by techsouth
It has become that.

It wasn't always that way.

The system was crappy in in the 18th and 19th centuries as well - it just happened to be the case that all (or at least most) of the other systems at that time were crappier.