5 ms·
> The CEO capped the full time headcount at 49 people so he wouldn’t be subject to California law requiring him to provide his employees with a health plan. Ca
by jandrese 5y ago
> The CEO capped the full time headcount at 49 people so he wouldn’t be subject to California law requiring him to provide his employees with a health plan.
Can you imagine being this stingy and short sighted? The employees are largely PhDs and he is willing to cripple his company to avoid paying benefits.
- drewg123 5y agoI'm not sure that part of Scott's article was accurate. I worked remotely, and I'm pretty sure that I was offered benefits. I declined them, and used my wife's benefits because they were less expensive, and meshed better with local health care providers. EDIT: And I know we had a 401K
- drewg123 5y agoI worked there and have evidence that this statement in the blog is not true, and I'm being down-voted?
- refulgentis 5y agoI don't think so, your comment is black text for me, so it's either at it's original score or higher.
- refulgentis 5y ago
- refulgentis 5y ago
- oefrha 5y agoThere’s a reason guidelines ask you not to discuss downvotes, which always fluctuate. You were adding pure noise to the thread, and you tripled down on that.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ChuckMcM 5y agoDownvotes are fickle things. Unrelated, why turn down the health care? With double health care you can tell you're health provider you've got double coverage and they will bill the primary first, and then the secondary for what is left (and if the secondary is designed to be a primary program it will cover all that is left so you end up with zero out of pocket, even for co-payments).
- drewg123 5y agoBecause it was CA focused, and I was remote. So most local providers were out of network. And it was not free ... Its been almost a decade, but I seem to recall that it was cheaper to add me to my (then) wife's coverage.
- wincy 5y agoIt’d be pretty annoying to have a Kaiser Permanente focused insurance plan and live in Ohio.
- davidw 5y agoAmerican health care is ridiculous, episode #193993.
- ionicgiraffe 5y agoWe are starting to copy it elsewhere, it's going good in the same direction in baby steps.
- jen20 5y agoIs this generally the case? If so, I had no idea...
- ChuckMcM 5y agoGenerally different jurisdictions have different rules, but in California it is the case. And to another point made here, if you're employer is going to deduct some of your paycheck to pay premiums month to month then it can be a net loss if you won't use it enough to offset what you would have been paid.
- foobiekr 5y agoIt’s not even that hard or expensive to offer 401k, health, life insurance in a startup. Been there, done that.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- djbusby 5y agoAt least 10k/yr/employee.
- acdha 5y agoHow much revenue are those people generating? Don't you think being able to hire and retain more highly-skilled people might be worth more than the $5/hour “saved”? (For example, how much does it cost to hire someone — most places spend many thousands doing that)
- djbusby 5y agoIDK, I'm just show a concrete value. The person I replied to said it was "not hard". S I mentioned a minimum dollar amount that I've observed at many places seemed reasonable (it can be much much more, like if you cover 100% health for employees and family) Seems it wasn't helpful.
- acdha 5y agoMy point was just that this seems more like an issue for a business with low profit margins and low wage employees — not engineers, especially for a profitable company (i.e. not some early-stage startup relying mostly on equity). In this case, if they were making $20M/year with on the order of 50 employees it seems very short-sighted.
- djbusby 5y agoThat's all true; I also think it's a wise choice to invest in your team for long term. My point was to simply define a quantitative-value that folk who are not familiar with these costs could see as a minimum. Because "not hard" and $10k mean very different things. Hoping to help those HN readers who aren't familiar and/or are planning on starting a company.
- _tom_ 5y agoI believe that There are many things that kick in at 50 people. It's oversimplifying to assume this was due to not wanting to offer benefits. First google hit: https://www.aeisadvisors.com/california-compliance-is-my-company-over-50-employees-california-employee-benefits-firm https://www.aeisadvisors.com/california-compliance-is-my-com...
- edgyquant 5y agoWhy 50? Isn’t that arbitrary? Why not just force benefits for all employees? At least target revenue, if a company makes X revenue it has to provide Y benefits per employee. CEOs definitely won’t be able to easily make the decision to take in less money, as that will piss off share holders.
- kelseyfrog 5y ago> Why not just force benefits for all employees? Public perception. Small business owners occupy a different perceptual space than large businesses. Lawmakers don't want to be perceived as hurting small businesses and craft laws to avoid it. It's more about maintaining political power as much as anything else.
- edgyquant 5y agoI thought of this too, and it’s actually good system. Those small businesses should be exempt I think. It’s only the large corporations that should be forced to pay (I wouldn’t even be opposed to subsidizing health care for those businesses by taxing larger ones more.) I think a system where we go by revenue is a lot of logical than going by number of employees. If a business makes 1Bpy but only has two employees, would it not be exempt from the current regulations?
- kelseyfrog 5y agoIt works out great for everyone except the 47.5% of Americans who are employed by small businesses.
- edgyquant 5y agoAfter the ACA passed, I remember my ex getting 29 hours at the places she worked because 30 hours demanded they be given benefits like health insurance. I really think regulations with a set number like this are the result of corruption or something. No way anyone doesn’t foresee companies playing them this way.
- orangecat 5y agoI can totally imagine not wanting the hassle of my company having to be a health insurance broker in addition to its actual purpose. What's wrong with paying employees a good salary and having them be responsible for their own insurance, any more than having them buy their own food, housing, and transportation?
- voldacar 5y agoWhen you create a sharp discontinuity in the marginal cost of hiring someone, expect companies to act accordingly. It would be irrational not to. Blame the system of shitty incentives