MennoNet.com

Josh wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 1:35 pm

Ken wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 12:55 pm

mike wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:53 amIs there any data on whether a larger percentage of Mennonites & Amish are business owners or self-employed than the rest of the population? It seems to me like there are, but I have no way of knowing. One of the best antidotes to an employer taking advantage of his employees is the ever-present risk of having them quit and start their own competing business. Which happens all the time. A lot of construction crews are basically a guy and a couple of young helpers, who are getting trained to do the job, and who are very likely to go on their own once they know what they are doing.

I would expect that to be the case since Mennonites and Amish trend rural and rural areas have a higher percentage of small businesses than urban areas. Or put another way, small businesses make up a higher percentage of rural economies than they do urban economies. Rural areas have more small mom and pop stores, restaurants, contractors, etc. Plus most farms are small businesses. Urban areas have more corporate chains and big employers.

Yet the pattern I described holds true for suburban and urban congregations too.

I would expect that to be true since conservative Anabaptists tend to focus on trades rather than professions that require graduate degrees. That is in contrast to urban/suburban MCUSA churches which tend to be full of professionals with college degrees.

Whenever a coworker brings up the wage issue to senior management (or HR), they are quickly told to consider total compensation, or "total comp". Which is true. Good health insurance and paid time off, not to mention retirement programs all have a play. But it is hard to convince the younger generations of that fact.

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 9:55 am Whenever a coworker brings up the wage issue to senior management (or HR), they are quickly told to consider total compensation, or "total comp". Which is true. Good health insurance and paid time off, not to mention retirement programs all have a play. But it is hard to convince the younger generations of that fact.

I assume that total comp results in significantly lower take-home pay?

mike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:02 am

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 9:55 am Whenever a coworker brings up the wage issue to senior management (or HR), they are quickly told to consider total compensation, or "total comp". Which is true. Good health insurance and paid time off, not to mention retirement programs all have a play. But it is hard to convince the younger generations of that fact.

I assume that total comp results in significantly lower take-home pay?

In many cases, yes.

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:26 am

mike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:02 am

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 9:55 am Whenever a coworker brings up the wage issue to senior management (or HR), they are quickly told to consider total compensation, or "total comp". Which is true. Good health insurance and paid time off, not to mention retirement programs all have a play. But it is hard to convince the younger generations of that fact.

I assume that total comp results in significantly lower take-home pay?

In many cases, yes.

Makes sense. My business isn't anywhere near the level for mandatory healthcare but I've considered looking into it anyway. Most of my employees I believe already have other coverage. As I understand it, if we would offer it, some employees who are currently on subsidized plans would lose access to those and have potentially significantly lower take home pay. I've talked to employers who reached the threshold and began to offer healthcare who had employees in that situation.

mike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:34 am

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:26 am

mike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:02 am

I assume that total comp results in significantly lower take-home pay?

In many cases, yes.

Makes sense. My business isn't anywhere near the level for mandatory healthcare but I've considered looking into it anyway. Most of my employees I believe already have other coverage. As I understand it, if we would offer it, some employees who are currently on subsidized plans would lose access to those and have potentially significantly lower take home pay. I've talked to employers who reached the threshold and began to offer healthcare who had employees in that situation.

I had interviewed with a much smaller company a few years ago, maybe 30-ish employees. They offered a stipend towards healthcare/insurance. It was a good idea if your church had a sharing program in place, but other options were out of reach, for me anyway. And there was no real PTO system in place.

mike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:02 am

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 9:55 am Whenever a coworker brings up the wage issue to senior management (or HR), they are quickly told to consider total compensation, or "total comp". Which is true. Good health insurance and paid time off, not to mention retirement programs all have a play. But it is hard to convince the younger generations of that fact.

I assume that total comp results in significantly lower take-home pay?

At one job I had a total comp of around $240,000 a year and my take home was about $140k. Employer’s share of health insurance for 2 people was $2000 a month (my share was, as mandated by law, 15%), payroll taxes $25k, unemployment/workers comp thousands, disability insurance/dental/vision a few thousand more, and then state, federal, and local taxes on top of that.

mike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:34 am

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:26 am

mike wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:02 am

I assume that total comp results in significantly lower take-home pay?

In many cases, yes.

Makes sense. My business isn't anywhere near the level for mandatory healthcare but I've considered looking into it anyway. Most of my employees I believe already have other coverage. As I understand it, if we would offer it, some employees who are currently on subsidized plans would lose access to those and have potentially significantly lower take home pay. I've talked to employers who reached the threshold and began to offer healthcare who had employees in that situation.

Employee group health plans are a rotten deal for everyone involved versus the options an under-50-FTE employer can have (which is Medicaid, for those who qualify; Affordable Care Act plans; health ministries, or some people just choose nothing at all, which is their right).

A typical plan is $1000 per month per employee - and more if they have a spouse and/or children. For family coverage pencil in $2000 a month. And the employer MUST cover 85% of the cost.

That means you’ll have to give employees a $20k a year paycut.

Realistically, most large retail employers just cut hours to 28 hours a week and then they don’t have to offer these plans.

Or you can opt out of the ACA by paying a fee of &2500 per year per employee to the IRS.

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:54 am Or you can opt out of the ACA by paying a fee of &2500 per year per employee to the IRS.

This is an option? That is a lot cheaper than paying for medical.

It would be nice if people not taking the benefits could higher pay.