Subject: The new jobs math. True story.
Darren Scott's "small" business employed 58 people at the end of 2012. His CPA notified him at the end of January that his mechanical engineering firm would be subject to the Affordable Care Act mandate due to the head count at his company. Darren told his CPA "I have all the staff I need but I need all the staff I have."
His CPA asked him "Do you need those SPECIFIC people or are the hours needed to complete your projects more important?" Darren said it is man hours that count and he had turned down other job seekers recently.
CPA's idea: move 9 employees to 30 hours per week and hire 3 new 30 hours per week employees. By doing this your company will only have 49 full time workers and your company will no longer be subject to the mandate and you will have the same man hours for projects as you did before. Potential annual healthcare savings for Darren's company: $243,500.
Let's look at the impact on jobs counted by the BLS. 9 full time workers are now part time BUT are still employed. 3 unemployed people are now employed "creating" 3 new jobs. Impact on national income: zero. Impact on national hours worked: zero. Impact on the 9 employees moved to part time: loss of 25% of income and now responsible for OWN healthcare insurance. Impact on 3 new part time employees: 100% increase in income MINUS social benefits paid during unemployment (including low/no income subsidized healthcare insurance.
Who wins? Darren as his payroll hours costs are stable but saves $243,500 pretax on healthcare premiums. Who wins even bigger? Uncle Sam as 3 families drop off the social benefits rolls along with an assumed 20% of now all 61 of Darren's employees paying to the US Treasury the cheaper alternative penalty for not buying individual healthcare coverage. Plus the government can claim that 3 "new" jobs were created in the month the shuffling/hires takes place.
No comment as to fairness of this situation. This is just reality across this country today.