I know the fear-mongering remains trendy — and even predates Sarah Palin's death panels — but I'd argue Bane decided long ago he was going to do this and Obamacare offers a convenient scapegoat. (Lest we forget, the Obama Administration gave Bane and his colleagues another whole year to think about their labor plans by delaying the employer mandate penalty.)

Just like UPS and Kroger's cutting spousal health coverage — hardly a novel concept — the reform law bogeyman makes it all too easy for CEOs to cut labor costs while keeping their hands clean. ("It's Obama's fault.") But the argument loses some of its heft since the decision is at least 12 months premature.

I still think that out of all the stakeholders in this ongoing debate, employers are probably more prepared than anyone for Oct. 1. The alternative just isn't good business.

My concern, though, is that stories like this one distort the debate, but I suppose that can't be helped. And it's not to say that the law certainly has had an impact on hiring, firing and benefits offerings. But it's disingenuous to say that Bane is just now realizing he can't afford to offer health coverage for part-time workers.

And, honestly, I look forward to the karmic comeback. Because the whole point of benefits — health or otherwise — is to attract and retain the best employees. And, yeah, I know, the market's bouncing back slower than a Syrian airstrike, but when it does, employers who decided to cut everything but the bone will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

The free market works both ways, and employers who allow their long-term vision to be clouded by short-term savings could find themselves screwed.