I have already seen several small businesses close their doors because they know they cannot afford Obama care, they simply do not make enough to pay for it. When the business owners are themselves middle class and struggling with their own heathcare and other expenses, they simply will not be able to afford the added costs. Some will cut hours to keep employees below the 30 hr limit, it is the only way they might be able to survive.
This extra cost mandated by such will also drive up prices. While some businesses will survive this, many who cannot maintain enough sales at the increased costs to customers will also be forced out of business.
Be sure to work hard and get lots of overtime. People on welfare want more steaks and free upgrades to smart phones with unlimited data packages.
There are no unintended consequences. Setting it at 30 reduces the average worker's hour without making it a simple thing to have two jobs. Two 20s with a secondary commute in the middle could be doable for some, two 30s not so much. The idea is to give people almost enough and then subsidize the gap, in effect locking in a much larger dependent class while claiming to have "created" 1/3 more jobs.
The issue however is that this is the only place in federal law that I've discovered an actual definition for "full time". FLSA laws speak of working 40 hours before overtime, but give no official definition for that.
The fact that the only part of federal law DEFINING full time employment is in the ACA, and it defines it at 30 hours, does not sit right with me. At the least, it now creates conflicting standards in the law in terms of how the government treats the amount if hours employees work in relation to things that society generally relates to "full time status". It provides a leverage point for unions and others to highlight and utilize in attempting to force one standard over the other in the future.
As you pointed out, other parts I'd our federal laws dealing with issues commonly related to "full time" currently go odd 40 hours. As such, I find it inconsistent and troubling that this one law...the only one officially determining something as full time employment...does not
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Its insanely ****ing ignorant for you to claim that every company in America can afford to give healthcare to its workers.
"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Arbitrary line drawn at 30 hours can very easily open the door for changing the rules regarding employers having to pay overtime at that line.
The cynical me also says keep an eye out for mandatory 'benefits' such as vacation also mandated at that line.
40 hour jobs are going to become less and less available, making more jobs with less hours, as many have said before me.
Building block or stumbling block.... choose.
In my experience, part-time has always ended at 32+. I remember as a part time worker I would often find my last scheduled shift cut short so I did not go over 32 hours, because it was at that point that they considered you "full time"...and you were then entitled to all of the benefits (earned vacation time and PTO, specifically...health insurance secondary to that).
It's kind of a double-edged sword, I suppose.. If you cut hours you have to hire more employees to provide adequate coverage, and there are costs involved in that: some cities will charge you more for yearly operational permit renewals based upon your number of employees, workers comp rates can go up, training costs, supply/uniform costs, payroll costs, etc. At the same time, if you increase hours and decrease the number of employees you then have additional costs for healthcare and potential overtime. I have NO idea how those two costs equate to one another though...from the current climate it would seem that the latter is more expensive, but I'm not qualified to say for sure.
I think applying an hour cap specifically to ACA is a little...convoluted, FWIW.
"Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton
OTHER, of course.
Forty hours is arbitrary and antique...We are in a computerized mechanized age....news to those who cannot keep up.....
Right off the bat, I cannot design a definite number of hours for a worker.
This definitely varies from task to chore and even with the individual.
I'd throw 40 hours and OT out the window, along with all other rigid tenets.
In the window would be far greater input and responsibility and profit sharing.
Happiness would have to be numero uno, for all.
Just look at the faces of workers entering and leaving...much less the consumers...things can be much better...
And, we need a better "spel-chek".
Last edited by earthworm; 09-21-13 at 09:28 AM.
Handle health care in a similar manner to today's social security.....make it a 50-50 deal.
Fifty years ago, many companies offered health care as a benefit (Blue Cross and Shield) Was this ever expensive, IMO.
But my company offered Travelers Insurance instead....I'd imagine the costs or either would be much the same as todays ACA ......
So why all this fuss ???