Cartels and Concierge Bureaucracy Management

 

Several years ago I heard an amusing story on NPR’s Planet Money program. The story described an Indian entrepreneur who, frustrated with India’s local political corruption and red tape, started a new business: Concierge Bribery. For a fee, he would seek out and pay off all of the sundry local officials whenever a local business needed something done. I thought how lucky we were that America had not yet descended to that level. I was deeply wrong. We, in fact, have had concierge bureaucracy managers for some time.

While it is generally a good maxim to never ascribe to mendacity that which can be explained by incompetence, normal logic seems rarely to apply to any of the corruption and rot stemming from Obamacare (and for the record, I refuse to call it “The Affordable Care Act”, or ACA). The act seems explicitly designed, among other things, as a tool to force a cartelization of the entire medical industry. We see this in the rapid demise of independent practices, as they close up shop and merge into large provider networks — effectively regional medical cartels. What we are not yet seeing, or rather noticing, on any scale is the very similar effect Obamacare (when coupled with the many other business strictures in place) is having on general employment itself.

The complexities of complying with the myriad kludges of federal, state, and local income taxes, payroll taxes, workers’ comp systems, and unemployment taxes have already driven most employers to contract with specialized firms for handling payroll. Only larger corporations have the budget to acquire and maintain the complicated accounting packages for running payrolls internally, so most smaller companies have, for years, offloaded this work on companies such as ADP or Paychex. With every added employee comes a new set of filings, and more potential for error. Just within my own company, we have have employees from two states and seven different local taxing jurisdictions, each of which has its own income tax, to be submitted on its own form, and by its own arbitrary deadlines. Say what you will about the virtues of federalism, each of those various towns, cities, and counties is a petty fiefdom unto itself, and all must be paid whether I actually do business there or not. Payroll services are effectively already the concierge bureaucracy managers.  Now they are also changing into employment cartels.

The risks to an employer only grow should that employer choose to extend any benefits to employees, whether to meet some new arbitrary caprice of our rules (i.e. Obamacare), or to improve retention or morale. Just since the beginning of the Obamacare mandate, I have had a significant increase in the amount of paperwork I have to file each year, and in the number of mandatory notices and lectures I have to give my staff. Then there are the multiple workers’ comp filings I have to make every year (not to mention arguing with the state over how my employees are classified). Adding a 401k program could expose me to lawsuits for mismanagement if the market crashes, and the fees and audits would negate any upsides.

Adding to all of this is the greatest uncertainty: liability. Our legal structure is such that frivolous lawsuits are cheaper to file, and often less expensive to settle, than fighting them off, even when the entire lawsuit is without merit. The risk of lawsuits from one’s own employees is especially acute owing to whistleblower laws and other protections that make it especially difficult to gain redress even from completely unmerited lawsuits. An aggrieved employee can find a toehold in places unthinkable even a few years ago.

Realistically, if you are careful in your hiring and everyone acts like adults, the risks from these sorts of suits and annoyances are minimal. But I have learned the hard way that a particularly vicious and manipulative employee can stir anger and gossip like poison throughout an entire organization. And even long-trusted employees can change or harbor resentments for years, blindsiding everyone when that emotional dam cracks. Employers must be ever-vigilant about such things, laying groundwork against any damaging eventuality, no matter how slight the exposure seems at the moment.

In short, businesses in America run a gamut of risks to their well-being, and the laws and regulations today put them, almost by default, on the hook for actions that in another time would have fallen on individual actors. And just as Obamacare has driven the medical industry into cartels to cope with the bureaucracy, so now general employers now are consolidating their employee pools for protection. The payroll firms of old are now changing into something new:  The Professional Employment Organization, or PEO.

The PEO is the logical extension to outsourcing payroll processing. The way a PEO works is simple: A business shifts its employees from direct employment to the PEO. The business then no longer directly employs anyone, but contracts its employees back from the PEO — for a fee, of course. In return, the PEO not only assumes the administration of payroll, but handling of benefits, the creation of HR policy, and all of the overhead thus entailed. The PEO, being effectively a national employer, can offer health and retirement benefits that my own little company cannot possibly offer, and liability concerns shift as well. The PEO is the ultimate concierge service in employment. However, PEOs are by their nature employment cartels, consolidating the employment pool into just a few firms.

I was informed by one PEO that PEOs in general have seen their employee pool grow nationwide by 15-20 percent per year since Obamacare was shoved down our throats (prior to that, their main markets were in the usual lefty bastions of California, New York, and Illinois). This is an alarming trend, not because the PEO concept is somehow wrong in itself, but because it is a sign that even small businesses are now economically unable to keep up with the burden of our government. A small business in America can no longer easily manage the regulations of Human Resources. Just as small medical practitioners have found themselves driven into large regional medical cartels, so now American businesses are finding themselves drawn to employment cartels.

Human beings are ingenious and creative. We find ways to get things done, even when the powers of bureaucracy weigh heavy. Think of Boss Mongo’s tales of procurement in the desert, or the Indian Concierge Bureaucracy service, or black markets in the former Warsaw Pact. We recognize in all of these stories that there is a troubling backstory — one of deep government corruption and inefficiency. We know that if goods, services, and people were truly free to flow, all this human resourcefulness and ingenuity could be directed toward something productive. PEOs are, of course, very clever too. But their rapid growth is another sign that our top-heavy government has grown beyond the point where anyone can navigate it or fend it off.

How can we continue to point to America as a land of opportunity when even the act of employing a person requires the employer join a cartel and hire a concierge bureaucrat manager? Such are the fruits of socialist central control.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 65 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The Dowager Jojo Inactive
    The Dowager Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    Ed G.:[…..]

    I think HSA’s are big part of the way out [….]

    I always feel the need to demur when HSA’s are suggested.  They are a fussy government nanny approach.  We already have this for retirement savings with IRA’s – people are burdened with having separate savings accounts with special rules all to save some percentage in taxes.  If the government doesn’t need that tax money they should lower rates. (Or borrow less.) Tax rates just go up to compensate, so it’s making people go through hoops to use their own money.  Add HSA’s and you have another special account with its own rules, all to “save” imaginary taxes just like IRA’s, a doggie treat to reward those who are willing to do the paperwork and can spare the money, which is no help to those who can’t or won’t.

    • #61
  2. Vectorman Inactive
    Vectorman
    @Vectorman

    The Dowager Jojo:

    I always feel the need to demur when HSA’s are suggested. They are a fussy government nanny approach. We already have this for retirement savings with IRA’s – people are burdened with having separate savings accounts with special rules all to save some percentage in taxes. If the government doesn’t need that tax money they should lower rates.

    I understand your point, but respectfully disagree for the following reasons:

    1. HSA’s primary advantage is catastrophic Health Insurance
    2. You “own” your Health Care instead of being controlled by your employer’s plan
    3. You can trade off cost/quality/time for treatment options
    4. HSA’s can reduce the need for government “Death Panels.”

    I looked into HSA’s in 2002, and due to the mess caused by Ted Kennedy, decided to use my wife’s mediocre plan. I’m on her plan now due to Obamacare regulations. When I turn 65, I’ll be on Medicare but then can ignore the Obamacare requirement.

    When properly designed, HSA’s give you the most flexibility and could work for both Medicare and Medicaid patients. The ridiculous amount of paperwork using present Health “Insurance” and the behind-the-scenes choices made by the Insurance Companies reduces your freedom.

    I don’t see any other method to reform health care, given the present situation.

    • #62
  3. The Dowager Jojo Inactive
    The Dowager Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    Vectorman:

    The Dowager Jojo:

    I always feel the need to demur when HSA’s are suggested. They are a fussy government nanny approach. We already have this for retirement savings with IRA’s – people are burdened with having separate savings accounts with special rules all to save some percentage in taxes. If the government doesn’t need that tax money they should lower rates.

    I understand your point, but respectfully disagree for the following reasons:

    1. HSA’s primary advantage is catastrophic Health Insurance
    2. You “own” your Health Care instead of being controlled by your employer’s plan
    3. You can trade off cost/quality/time for treatment options
    4. HSA’s can reduce the need for government “Death Panels.”

    I looked into HSA’s in 2002, […]

    Catastrophic health insurance and HSA’s are two separate issues, really.  You can have catastrophic health insurance- I usually have- without an HSA.  I have “owned” my health care/ health insurance most of the past 25 years without an employer or HSA.  I was purchasing as the direct consumer, per your issue #3, without an HSA. The government had no say in my treatment, death panel or otherwise.

    The HSA just gives a tax-advantaged way to pay for expenses not covered by the catastrophic insurance, and I tried to explain why I don’t support that.

    • #63
  4. Hank Rhody Contributor
    Hank Rhody
    @HankRhody

    Vectorman: When properly designed, HSA’s give you the most flexibility and could work for both Medicare and Medicaid patients. The ridiculous amount of paperwork using present Health “Insurance” and the behind-the-scenes choices made by the Insurance Companies reduces your freedom.

    I think y’all are coming at this from different angles. The Dowager is looking at HSAs and the meddlesome nanny state intrusions they imply versus just saving your own  money yourself. Vectorman is arguing that they’re better than any other meddlesome nanny state intrusion into your healthcare.

    In a similar way, I dislike eVerify because it definitionally requires the government to keep a database of who’s employing who, which I take to be a freedom concern. However, I’m willing to live with it because I’m more concerned about illegal immigration. EVerify is worse than the ideal, but better than the practical alternatives.

    • #64
  5. The Dowager Jojo Inactive
    The Dowager Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    Thank you for helping me explain, Hank.

    But I don’t see that HSA’s substitute for any other part of government intrusion or provide any benefit other than a tax advantage, which as I said is somewhat illusory, insulting, and unfair.

    We may be not quite talking about the same thing.  I am thinking of HSA’s for the middle class where you can put say $3000 of income each year into a special HSA account from which you pay medical expenses and the money’s never taxed, and it can accumulate if you don’t need it.

    I’ve seen floated the idea of government-funded HSA’s for low income people instead of Medicaid, and maybe there’s merit there, I don’t know.  The idea would be to make it a defined-contribution plan instead of unlimited-benefit.  What to do with people whose needs still exceed the money, how to decide who gets this because, surprise, people’s income may fluctuate from year to year and between different stages of life, and many other problems would have to be considered.

    • #65
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.