By Robert S. Sheen, Editor-in-Chief
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has introduced the “Hire More Heroes Act,” with the goal of providing an additional incentive for employers to hire military veterans. The bill would allow companies to exclude veterans from their count of full-time employees for purposes of the Affordable Care Act.
While the stated goal the bill is admirable, it could do more harm than good for American workers.
The ACA requires companies with 50 or more full-time workers to offer health insurance. If the Hatch bill is enacted, a company that had, say, 52 employees, 3 which were veterans, would be allowed to count only the 49 non-veteran workers in their ACA total. The net effect would be that they would not have to to offer health insurance to any of their employees.
“The Hire More Heroes Act is a no-brainer,” Hatch said about his bill. “This is exactly the kind common-sense job-creating policy the American people demanded.”
The bill was approved unanimously in the House, and is expected to come to the floor Senate soon. Because of its laudable objective and patriotic title, members of Congress may vote without closely examining the law’s possible consequences.
For American taxpayers, the Hire More Heroes Act would increase the deficit by $858 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional budget Office.
In fact, it is not at all clear that veterans need the assistance that the bill intends to give them.
But it is certainly true that in many small companies it would result in a large number employees not being offered health insurance because a few veterans are on the payroll.
Take our example above, where 3 veterans and 49 non-vets are working at a company. The veterans automatically are covered by Tricare or the VA, so their health needs are met. But their 49 co-workers won’t be offered insurance by their company if it takes advantage of the Hire More Heroes Act.
No matter how much those co-workers may admire the veterans for their service, some may feel resentment against fellow employees whose special status caused everyone else to miss out on a benefit they would have otherwise received.
Since the decision is the employer’s, not the veteran’s, the vet cannot “opt out” of being excluded from the employee count, even if he or she would prefer to receive company-sponsored health insurance.
Proponents the bill assume that veterans need special help to find . Is that accurate? Not according to former Marine artillery officerPeter Gudmundsson, CEO of RecruitMilitary.com, which connects with men and women transitioning from active duty to civilian life. Its services are free to those seeking employment.
Writing in the Washington Post, Gudmundsson says the bill is “based on a faulty premise,” because “Americans may be shocked to learn that there is no veterans’ unemployment crisis. The unemployment rate in 2014 for post-9/11 veterans was 7.2%, the lowest level in seven years tracking these veterans.”
The figure he quotes was reported in the Military Times a few months ago. For all veterans, the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
The employment rate for the relatively young vets who enlisted after the terrorist attacks September 11, 2001, was higher than the national average, but “compared with civilians in the same age ranges, post-9/11 veterans experienced lower rates unemployment.”
“U.S. business leaders recognize that the military is perhaps the best institution in the nation for teaching highly sought qualities such as leadership, teamwork, mission orientation and integrity,” he wrote. “Companies that have invested in veteran employees thrive not because they are philanthropic but because they are making good decisions.”
Veterans deserve our respect and gratitude and may need some coaching and retraining to move into the workforce. “But they do not need another form -code charity to excel in civilian careers,” he concludes.
