Dunkin' takes shot at modifying Obamacare
The company is lobbying the government to narrow the Affordable Care Act's definition of 'full time,' which would mean fewer employees for it insure.
The question of who counts as a full-time worker is coming under fire from Dunkin' Brands (DNKN), which wants the government to narrow its definition under Obamacare. That's because it wants to avoid paying health insurance for Dunkin' Donuts employees who work as little as 30 hours a week.
Dunkin' Brands is lobbying the government to change the U.S. Affordable Care Act's definition of "full-time" to employees working at least 40 hours a week, instead of the 30 hours currently written into the law, Chief Executive Nigel Travis told the Financial Times.
The latest volley from an iconic U.S. business comes as the ACA is set to go into effect next year. The law will require employers with 50 or more full-time employees (30 hours or more) to offer those workers "minimum essential" healthcare insurance.
Dunkin' Brands, which also owns Baskin-Robbins, operates on a franchise model. The parent company, excluding workers at its company-owned restaurants, employed more than 1,120 people at the end of 2011, according to its annual report.
But the real benefit would likely go to Dunkin's franchisees, who operate more than 10,000 Dunkin' Donuts locations and almost 7,000 Baskin-Robbins restaurants.
Other big businesses are lashing out at the costs of the plan. Supermarket chain Kroger (KR) told the FT that some companies might decide to pay the government-mandated penalty for failing to insure employees simply because it's cheaper than buying insurance.
Small-business owners are also reacting. As previously reported by MSN moneyNOW, one Wendy's franchise in Nebraska is cutting back the hours of non-management employees to avoid paying health benefits. The local franchise vice president said his company couldn't afford to pay for health insurance and instead is cutting hours of about 100 Wendy's workers.
Other businesses are keeping their employee count under 50, the FT notes.
The average cost to employers of providing insurance for a single worker is $4,664 and $11,329 for a family, the FT notes, citing the Kaiser Family Foundation. The penalty for not insuring employees under Obamacare, meanwhile, is $2,000 per worker.
"If you look through the economics of the penalty the companies pay versus the cost to provide coverage, the penalty's too low, or the cost of coverage is too high, or the combination is wrong," Kroger Chief Executive David Dillon told the newspaper.
i am indepence but what obama try to do here is destroying USA, in ASIAN country there is no health care ( none) , so every one need to work for there own health care fee. but every one get full time job and happy. all business boomming now.
every one who vote for obama will pay for his leader (obama) fail policy. and finnaly more low income people even more low income or none cause of the job hours cut. I have a business in USA . I put every one on part time base now ( less then 30 hours ). save money for business survival. my buisness at asian , i put every one under contract yearly ( almost like independence contarctor) worker pay there own health care and benefit and tax.
As a business owner, I solved the health insurance problem 15 years ago (after constant premium increases that employees never recognized the cost of). I cut out health insurance, gave all my employees a raise equivalent to the health insurance that they just lost and told them to buy health inurance with it , or food, or clothes, or beer.... Just don't ever ask me for health insurance fringes ever again - their choice and no longer my responsibility.
Wise up America, just because someone is in business doesn't mean they can abosrb all their employees personal costs - nor should they.
If my pay level is so low why aren't they quitting and going somewhere else to work? Oh Yaaah, I forgot 'cuz Dumbama will look out for them and force me to pay them more. I'll just take a personal pay cut to cover it. Problem solved.
Chuckle, chuckle, hahaha. Actually, the joke is on the foolish citizens that actually believe Obama's policies are going to hand them a better life at the expense of the businesses.
Ahh yes, just another example of the dumbing down of America. It's still illegal to rob a bank or break into your neighbors home, but vote for Dumbama and he will pass a law to take from the rich (we need to penalize the successful people that are doing something right ) and redistribute it to the "more deserving."
Stealing really is "ok" so long as we do it indirectly with Dumbama's new laws. You can't do it directly, but it's "ok" to do it indirectly. America is decaying because its people have no pride, ambition or ethics, nor willingness to stand up and fight this fool.
Lets see, if I take (steal) from the top 2 people and give it to the bottom eight, I'll get enough votes to one day become president. Unfortunately the bottom eight are fools who elected one of their own. They may have won the election but are to stupid to look far enough into the future to know that he is destroying the middle and lower class. They will be forever be beholden to the Gov't for their station in life. This country is currently experiencing the largest transfer of wealth that it has ever experienced - mostly from the underclass to those with savings (capital) and lendability. They are becoming renters for life (translation: can't afford to buy their own home, but they can buy mine). THANK YOU BARACK!
businesses will be able to write off some of these benefits as well as employees (if they end up paying).
I am grateful to MSN for informing of the companies that want to penalize their workers because Obama won re-election. That way, I can stop patronizing these places. If these corporations cannot support their fellow countrymen, I see no reason why I should support them.
Once again blame the President. When govenors, state legislators,and businesses are all to blame. Governors and States Legislators are refusing to implement ACA. Businesses are cutting their employees wages, so they can earn bigger profits and get bigger bonus. What a wonderful ethic that is. I know small business owners who have paid their employees full time and offered medical benefits, because it was the moral thing to do. They were willing to earn less, so that their workers could have some comforts. These are businesses with less than 50 people.
I know, I know, I must be a socialist right?
still waiting on the zombie apokolypse
Some but not all businesses will take better care of a rented mule than workers who work like a rented mule for less than a living wage.
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
Tired of constantly dying batteries, she came up with a device that could revolutionize energy storage -- and won $50,000 from Intel.
- Detroit in hot water over proposal to sell art
- Sears spirals toward oblivion
- Why aren't heads rolling at the IRS?
- Do we pay attention to roads and bridges now?
- Yahoo may be going after Hulu
- Apple's first computer could fetch $450,000
- AT&T adds sneaky fee onto its wireless bills
- Soaring ER use adds more pain to health costs
- Netflix gets 'Arrested Development' stars cheap
[BRIEFING.COM] Stocks entered the weekend on a mixed note as the S&P 500 shed 0.1% while the Dow ended with a gain of 0.1%.
The major averages began the day on a lower note as nine of ten sectors saw losses of more than 0.5%.
The consumer staples sector was the lone exception as the group spent the entire day in positive territory thanks to the relative strength of Dow component Procter & Gamble (PG 81.89, +3.19). The second-largest staple stock advanced ... More
More Market News
Try as the bears might, they couldn't break U.S. stocks. But investors still face frothy prices and considerable headwinds.