Starting in 2016, the federal health law requires small employers to offer their full-time workers health insurance. In anticipation of the change, some fast-food restaurants looked to get around the law by making more workers part time. Now some owners are rethinking that approach.
At a Burger King off Highway 99 in California鈥檚 Central Valley, a half-dozen workers in black uniforms scurry around, grabbing packets of ketchup and stuffing paper bags with french fries.
Tiana Mua has worked here part time for almost a year. She鈥檇 like to be full time, but at this Burger King only the managers are full time. (The company didn鈥檛 respond to an interview request.)
Mua said聽that鈥檚 the situation at fast-food joints all over town. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e cutting back on all the jobs, and a lot of people have been let go and everything already,鈥� Mua said.
One reason: The local economy is bad. People aren鈥檛 eating out as much, and sales are down. But there鈥檚 another reason that might explain why fast-food employees aren鈥檛 getting more hours: Obamacare.
Starting Jan. 1, businesses with 50 or more full-time employees must health insurance to all full-time staff or pay a hefty fine. Employers with 100 or more workers had to start offering coverage last year. But smaller businesses that operate on lower margins, especially restaurants, complained loudly about the cost.
And some fast-food franchise owners figured out a way to avoid paying for coverage: Just make as many workers as possible part time. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce聽 found nearly 60 percent of small franchise businesses said they would make personnel changes like this.
鈥淭he ones that did it successfully did it three or four years ago,鈥� says Kaya Bromley, an attorney who helps employers comply with the Affordable Care Act. But, Bromley said,聽some of the restaurant owners who cut hours to sidestep the health law now regret it.
鈥淎 lot of the fast-food franchisees that did this,鈥� she said, 鈥渁re now coming back and saying, 鈥業t was a great idea for reducing the number of people that I have to offer benefits, but now I can鈥檛 run my restaurants.鈥� 鈥�
They tell her it has been a nightmare trying to manage a part-time staff.
鈥淏ecause you鈥檝e got people who are less loyal, you鈥檝e got people who are less skilled 鈥� who don鈥檛 understand the business,鈥� she said. There鈥檚 also more employee turnover.
Bromley has seen many of those restaurants reverse course. 鈥淓mployers think that there鈥檚 a shortcut here or there, and then they realize, yeah, that shortcut really hurt me more than it helped me,鈥� she said.
The people hurt most by all the workforce management gymnastics are the people at the bottom of the restaurant pecking order who want to advance, but can鈥檛, said聽Angelo Amador, vice president of labor and workforce policy for the National Restaurant Association.
鈥淪omeone who鈥檚 working part time, but wants more hours so they can move up the ladder, they can鈥檛 get the hours,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t ends up taking out that middle rung of employees.鈥�
Amador said Obamacare has made restaurants less flexible, mainly because it defines full-time work as 30 hours a week or more, and most other laws restaurants have to comply with, like overtime pay, define full time as 40 hours. He thinks the Affordable Care Act should be changed for consistency.
鈥淚t would be much easier if we could have one definition of full time,鈥� he said.
At the Carl鈥檚 Jr.聽in Chowchilla, California, manager Silvia Campos tries to keep as many workers full time as possible. She says it makes her job easier. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a small town,鈥� she said. 鈥淔or me, it鈥檚 hard to find a really good employee.鈥�
But some workers don鈥檛 want more hours. Their part-time salary is low enough that they鈥檙e eligible for government coverage in California through Medicaid.
Some workers say they鈥檙e better off making less money and getting their coverage free from the state.
This story is part of a partnership that includes , and Kaiser Health News.