STUNNING: Obama decrees that employers may not fire workers under Obamacare

[Little-Acorn]

I know, it sounds like something out of George Orwell's "1984", or maybe out of an Ayn Rand book.

But it's there in black and white.

Obama has once again changed the Obamacare law without benefit of any vote of Congress, moving the Employer mandate back yet another year to 2016. And he's also added something never before seen in the history of the United States: Employers who want to lay off or fire workers, must first justify to the IRS that he has "bona fide" reasons for doing so.

Even in Ayn Rand's wildest fancies, the governments in her novels never did this until just before the total collapse of the country.

And her novels were fiction. But in the United States under Barack Obama, they are now fact.

You voted for it, America. Or at least, you voted for Obama, and trusted him.

And voting his party out of Congress this November, will no longer help. He isn't waiting for Congress to send bills to his desk. He has a pen, and a phone. And he seems to feel he needs nothing else.

From the IRS website, hot off the presses:


http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-Employer-Shared-Responsibility-Provisions-Under-the-Affordable-Care-Act

34. Is additional transition relief available for employers with at least 50 but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents)?

(snip)

In order to be eligible for the relief, an employer must certify that it meets the following conditions:

(snip)

During the period beginning on Febr. 9, 2014 and ending on Dec. 31, 2014, the employer may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to qualify for the transition relief. However, an employer that reduces workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons is still eligible for the relief.

Yep. That just started this last Sunday. With no warning or notification. And it's in effect NOW.

Admittedly, I'm getting old, and my copy of the Constitution is sort of old and tattered, and can be hard to read at times.

Can someone point out to me where it says that the Fed govt has the power to forbid employers to lay off people or fire them?

After decades of jeering and screechig from our brethern of the southpaw persuasion... it turns out that Ayn Rand was right.

[fj1200]

^You do realize that the IRS is drafting rules related to eligibility of transition relief don't you?

[SassyLady]

In CA if your hours are cut back you can file for unemployment on the difference. So, if we can't fire them and cut hours back instead, we are still paying for everything in the long run ... unemployment taxes.....


In Benefit Decision 6407, the Board considered the case of a claimant whose hours were reduced by his employer from 40 hours each week to 40 hours each alternate week. The Board held that the claimant was entitled to benefits as a partially unemployed individual since he met all of the criteria set forth in the Title 22 regulations. The Board said:
"Here the claimant had worked forty hours each week for fourteen years. He had been reduced to working forty hours each alternate week because of business conditions. He desires to return to full-time employment at the earliest opportunity. In our opinion, the claimant has not established a pattern of normal customary full-time employment of working alternate weeks. Accordingly, we find that the claimant does qualify as a partially unemployed individual . . ."



http://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Total_and_Partial_Unemployment_TPU_801.htm

[SassyLady]

^You do realize that the IRS is drafting rules related to eligibility of transition relief don't you?

Can you explain this in more detail as it relates to the latest decree and why is IRS involved?

[fj1200]

In CA if your hours are cut back you can file for unemployment on the difference. So, if we can't fire them and cut hours back instead, we are still paying for everything in the long run ... unemployment taxes.....

You may fire or cut hours, you just can't do so to be eligible for transition relief.


Can you explain this in more detail as it relates to the latest decree and why is IRS involved?

I can't say I know much about the transition relief specifically but Federal agencies, i.e. the IRS, typically draft rules in response to legislation. A simple reading explains why the rule is neither what it's made out to be nor necessarily a bad idea; as in you can't fire three people in order to qualify:


34. Is additional transition relief available for employers with at least 50 but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents)?

Yes. ...

In order to be eligible for the relief, an employer must certify that it meets the following conditions:

... the employer may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to qualify for the transition relief. However, an employer that reduces workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons is still eligible for the relief.

If you want to suck at the government teat (transition relief) you need to suck up to their rules (of eligibility). But don't get me wrong ACA still sucks, we just don't need to invent what's not there.

[Little-Acorn]

You may fire or cut hours, you just can't do so to be eligible for transition relief.


Yup. The Federal Thought Police now require you to have the right reasons for doing what you do. And you must explain your reasons to the government.

Now it's much clearer. :read:

[fj1200]

Yup. The Federal Thought Police now require you to have the right reasons for doing what you do. And you must explain your reasons to the government.

Now it's much clearer. :read:

So you think it's positive public policy to condone the cutting of your workforce for the sole purpose of applying for government relief? I'm thinkin' your OP was not too well thought out.

[revelarts]

When the IRS is making up rules on the FLY to prevent bussiness from taking "advantage" of the laws as written. then yes FJ there's a constitutional problem.
and this is NOT the 1st time the IRS has done this. It's part of the reason the tax code is so thick.

the Congress says one thing and lawyers and accounts for businesses read the laws and often find the best ways to make them work for their businesses.
The IRS is suppose to just to enforce the laws by Congress not MAKE US RULES and Standards as they go along.

not it's constitutional role FJ.
saying " well that's the way it is" don't make it right, and never will.

[fj1200]

When the IRS is making up rules on the FLY to prevent bussiness from taking "advantage" of the laws as written. then yes FJ there's a constitutional problem.
and this is NOT the 1st time the IRS has done this. It's part of the reason the tax code is so thick.

the Congress says one thing and lawyers and accounts for businesses read the laws and often find the best ways to make them work for their businesses.
The IRS is suppose to just to enforce the laws by Congress not MAKE US RULES and Standards as they go along.

not it's constitutional role FJ.
saying " well that's the way it is" don't make it right, and never will.

I would have thought that this \/ would have summed up my position but...


If you want to suck at the government teat (transition relief) you need to suck up to their rules (of eligibility). But don't get me wrong ACA still sucks, we just don't need to invent what's not there.

We're long past quibbling over constitutional roles, unfortunately, of government agencies. They have long passed the test of what the government can do, unfortunately, but it doesn't mean we can't understand exactly what a particular rule does and doesn't do. Is ACA telling you why you can/can't fire on a day-to-day basis? No, not as alleged. Is this rule telling you why you can/can't fire to take advantage of government "relief"? Yes. Now if we can just get Congress to stop passing laws that say, " as the Secretary determines..." we may get somewhere, but I'm not holding my breath.

[revelarts]

I would have thought that this \/ would have summed up my position but...



We're long past quibbling over constitutional roles, unfortunately, of government agencies. They have long passed the test of what the government can do, unfortunately, but it doesn't mean we can't understand exactly what a particular rule does and doesn't do. Is ACA telling you why you can/can't fire on a day-to-day basis? No, not as alleged. Is this rule telling you why you can/can't fire to take advantage of government "relief"? Yes. Now if we can just get Congress to stop passing laws that say, " as the Secretary determines..." we may get somewhere, but I'm not holding my breath.

Well FJ i'm never past quibbling over constitutional roles. But if you want lay down and for it and take a "you can't fight city hall" attitude that's fine but don't presume that other want to roll over so easy.
FJ' that's one of my main issues with your constitutional commentary. you always seems to want to bow to the status quo every step down into darkness it takes, EVEN when you say you don't like it. And then push thier piss poor legal arguments as ligit when the ONLY thing that makes them so is the power of fines jail and the gun to enforce it.
the fact is they are operating outside of their authority. This is one reason why you have a growing Tax protest movement
becuase the tax regs enforced are NOT the law. and congress did not write " as the Secretary determines..." over ever BS reg they've come up with.
show me the law. if they can't show the law then the irs is acting in a criminal manner. Ignoring that as if we have to resign ourselves to a Kafkaesque mafia like gov't with a shrug. and bow to the rules VINNY made up cause if we don't were just being unreasonable is the sure way to tyranny. But as long as it's legal right. we may not like it but OH well gotta follow the rules.
the ACA itself is unconstitutional but that's another story.

[Little-Acorn]

We're long past quibbling over constitutional roles, unfortunately, of government agencies.

TRANSLATION: I keep losing debates over the constitutional roles of government agencies. So maybe I can keep the conservatives from cleaning my clock by saying this instead, and hoping somebody believes it.

[fj1200]

Well FJ i'm never past quibbling over constitutional roles.

Rev, if all we ever do is argue the Constitutional role of government as it existed in the 1700's we would get awful bored here. I largely agree with your statements; government has grown far larger than ever intended by the Founding Fathers and they would never have envisioned the monstrosity with which we are now burdened. So, would you prefer to keep arguing over the what is or the what you want? I can do either but let's lay out some ground rules before we go further with this pointless back and forth.


TRANSLATION: I keep losing debates over the constitutional roles of government agencies. So maybe I can keep the conservatives from cleaning my clock by saying this instead, and hoping somebody believes it.

:laugh: You should make up your mind; do you want to discuss that the government shouldn't be offering "transition benefits" in the first place or that they shouldn't make rules for the eligibility of such? If you were really interested in the constitutional role of government agencies you would have brought up the former but you mistakenly brought up the latter.

[revelarts]

Rev, if all we ever do is argue the Constitutional role of government as it existed in the 1700's we would get awful bored here. I largely agree with your statements; government has grown far larger than ever intended by the Founding Fathers and they would never have envisioned the monstrosity with which we are now burdened. So, would you prefer to keep arguing over the what is or the what you want? I can do either but let's lay out some ground rules before we go further with this pointless back and forth.

..


How about we agree that we should call the gov't on every step further away from is the SUPREME law of the land. And applaud and encourage it on every step back toward it.
You seem to think everyone should resign themselves to every dark step away, and never give serious consideration to pushing politicians , judges and bureaucrats to move toward the supreme law of the land. Or punishing those those that break that law.

[fj1200]

How about we agree that we should call the gov't on every step further away from is the SUPREME law of the land. And applaud and encourage it on every step back toward it.
You seem to think everyone should resign themselves to every dark step away, and never give serious consideration to pushing politicians , judges and bureaucrats to move toward the supreme law of the land. Or punishing those those that break that law.

No, I actually think we should debate honestly, we're not going to win any other way. But I agree with the rest; applaud those who respect the Constitution.