View Poll Results: How many hours should the base of "Full Time" employment be?

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • 30 Hours

    6 10.91%
  • 35 Hours

    6 10.91%
  • 40 Hours

    34 61.82%
  • Other

    9 16.36%
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 112

Thread: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

  1. #31
    Wee Nyeff
    GottaGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    In the now
    Last Seen
    05-23-17 @ 02:58 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,311

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    You do realize that this law only applies to business with 50 or more employees? This does not affect your local Mom & Pop, if those still exist.

    Seems to me that if a company can have 50 people on a payroll they can manage to offer even the most minimal health insurance.
    Are you acquainted with the administration load that comes with this law? The record keeping and reporting required to adhere to an ever changing set of rules for it?

    By adding the additional company expense of 'offering' insurance to a staff of 50, especially one with high turnover, entry level positions, the paperwork is astounding.
    Building block or stumbling block.... choose.

  2. #32
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    You do realize that this law only applies to business with 50 or more employees? This does not affect your local Mom & Pop, if those still exist.

    Seems to me that if a company can have 50 people on a payroll they can manage to offer even the most minimal health insurance.
    Don't know, depends on the business and it's finances I would guess. But if they don't need to to keep/get employees, why should they?
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  3. #33
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,064

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    i think as we enter the post-labor economy, we need to drop the average work week to 35 hours and then consider dropping it further as needed. there simply isn't enough work to go around, and our resource distribution model is job --> money --> access to goods. there aren't enough jobs, so if we don't want to just pay people to do nothing, we can hire more people to do what does need to be done.

    an alternative is a massive government works program, which i also support in rough economic times.

    the counterargument would be that if employers had to hire more people to avoid paying overtime, they would have to pay more benefits, and would suffer greatly. my answer to this is that employers should not be saddled with the role of health care provider. i'd solve that one with a national health care program (not the PPACA, which is a joke.)

  4. #34
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,554

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    You do realize that this law only applies to business with 50 or more employees? This does not affect your local Mom & Pop, if those still exist.

    Seems to me that if a company can have 50 people on a payroll they can manage to offer even the most minimal health insurance.
    That is completely incorrect, and frankly your lack of business comprehension is showing. Businesses with 50 employees often need all 50 employees to function. You don't know how they scale. One company could function with 3 people, where anything over that is gravy, while others may require at least 50 to even begin a manufacturing process.

    Personnel pay takes up a very large portion of most budgets, and adding healthcare can be a very substantial cost. Most businesses aren't Wal-Mart with deep pockets.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  5. #35
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    i think as we enter the post-labor economy, we need to drop the average work week to 35 hours and then consider dropping it further as needed. there simply isn't enough work to go around, and our resource distribution model is job --> money --> access to goods. there aren't enough jobs, so if we don't want to just pay people to do nothing, we can hire more people to do what does need to be done.

    an alternative is a massive government works program, which i also support in rough economic times.

    the counterargument would be that if employers had to hire more people to avoid paying overtime, they would have to pay more benefits, and would suffer greatly. my answer to this is that employers should not be saddled with the role of health care provider. i'd solve that one with a national health care program (not the PPACA, which is a joke.)
    Why should taxpayers pay extra taxes to provide healthcare to those who do not earn it for themselves?
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  6. #36
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,064

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Why should taxpayers pay extra taxes to provide healthcare to those who do not earn it for themselves?
    because we live in a first world nation. in a first world nation, we don't let people die in the streets just to prop up the theory of financial Darwinism.

    as for "extra" taxes, you're already paying for the poor to seek primary care at the emergency room in the form of increased premiums and deductibles, and you're being paid less, as well. real health reform will give you that money back and levy a tax in its place. it's a better deal.

  7. #37
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I do understand that. It's why, in my post, I specifically stated this was the definition per the ACA.

    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
    Fair enough. I just think your concern, though possible, is not one I should worry about. Your "mileage" may vary, of course. One of the reasons why I'm not concerned by the definition, or lack thereof, is precisely because the federal laws are not applied on the basis of full-time/part-time status. Instead, the applicability of those laws is determined by the # of hours worked. Even if "full time" is defined (or re-defined, if you prefer) to mean 30 hrs/week, that won't change how those federal laws work.

    for example, the FMLA says:

    http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/fmla-faqs.htm
    Eligibility
    (Q) Who can take FMLA leave?
    In order to be eligible to take leave under the FMLA, an employee must:
    work for a covered employer;
    have worked 1,250 hours during the 12 months prior to the start of leave; (special hours of service rules apply to airline flight crew members)
    The FSLA says things such as:

    http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime_pay.htm
    The federal overtime provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Unless exempt, employees covered by the Act must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek at a rate not less than time and one-half their regular rates of pay. There is no limit in the Act on the number of hours employees aged 16 and older may work in any workweek. The Act does not require overtime pay for work on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or regular days of rest, unless overtime is worked on such days.
    The Act applies on a workweek basis. An employee's workweek is a fixed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours seven consecutive 24-hour periods. It need not coincide with the calendar week, but may begin on any day and at any hour of the day. Different workweeks may be established for different employees or groups of employees. Averaging of hours over two or more weeks is not permitted. Normally, overtime pay earned in a particular workweek must be paid on the regular pay day for the pay period in which the wages were earned.
    As far as I can tell, the 30 hr/wk standard used in PPACA was determined by a desire to have as many people covered by it as possible balanced against not placing an undue burden on business and having the law be politically palatable. I don't see any nefarious plot (and I'm not saying you think this either) to undermine current laws concerning over-time pay, etc. In order to change those laws, separate legislation would have to be passed, and those ramifications would certainly be debated
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #38
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,242
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So talking with my dad tonight I actually heard something for the first time. Not sure how I missed it in previous readings of things (to be honest, Obamacare hasn't been one of those things I've been able to generate enough interest to look extremely heavily into, so that may be why) but he told me how one of the things his business is facing is the fact that...at least under the definitions of the ACA....30 hours of work is considered a Full Time Employee.

    What?

    Seriously, for as long as I've lived on this earth...even as a younger child...I understood that standard "Full time" was generally a "40 hour" work week minimum. That's definitely been my understanding for my entire working age. How in the world is it that we're randomly deciding that 30 hours is "full time" employment?

    Do you agree with equating a 30 hour work week to "Full Time" employment?
    I can't find exactly when it changed from 20 hours to 30, but it did -- some time after 1990 when I sold my business. We had a pension plan for our employees and anyone working 20 hours or more on average per week (1,040 hours per year, counting vacation and holiday time) was considered full time for the purpose of it being mandatory to include them in the pension plan. Had we offered healthcare insurance, that same 20 hours would require them to be covered there as well.

    It was impossible for our company to staff at 19 hours a week per employee, therefore, all employees were included. Twenty-nine hours? Piece of cake.

    You're confusing apples and oranges. For the purposes of mandatory inclusion in full-time employee census, 30 hours a week is considered "full time" and means they must be included. This doesn't redefine the work week for other purposes. Just the legal definition of full time under Obamacare.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  9. #39
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I can't find exactly when it changed from 20 hours to 30, but it did -- some time after 1990 when I sold my business. We had a pension plan for our employees and anyone working 20 hours or more on average per week (1,040 hours per year, counting vacation and holiday time) was considered full time for the purpose of it being mandatory to include them in the pension plan. Had we offered healthcare insurance, that same 20 hours would require them to be covered there as well.

    It was impossible for our company to staff at 19 hours a week per employee, therefore, all employees were included. Twenty-nine hours? Piece of cake.

    You're confusing apples and oranges. For the purposes of mandatory inclusion in full-time employee census, 30 hours a week is considered "full time" and means they must be included. This doesn't redefine the work week for other purposes. Just the legal definition of full time under Obamacare.
    It would appear that the concern about how PPACA creates an inconsistency in the law concerning "full time" employment is misplaced because the various laws have never been consistent when it comes to defining who is covered under any specific law. Some laws use the # of hours worked that week, some use the # hours worked in the last 12 months, and the # used is different in different laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #40
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,242
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    It would appear that the concern about how PPACA creates an inconsistency in the law concerning "full time" employment is misplaced because the various laws have never been consistent when it comes to defining who is covered under any specific law. Some laws use the # of hours worked that week, some use the # hours worked in the last 12 months, and the # used is different in different laws.
    A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the Obamacare rule that says businesses with 50 or more workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

    “The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week,” section 1513 of the law reads. (Scroll down to section 4, paragraph A.)

    That section, known as the employer mandate, requires any business with 50 or more full-time employees to provide at least the minimum level of government-defined health coverage to those employees.

    In other words, a business must provide insurance if it has 50 or more employees working an average of just 30 hours per week, which is 10 hours per week fewer than the traditional 40-hour work week.
    By defining full-time as 30 hours per week, Obamacare opens the door for employers to staff accordingly. As I said, had 30 hours been the benchmark when I owned my business, none of my employees would have been eligible since I could easily staff our needs working employees only 29 hours a week.

    To protect employees rather than employers, the definition should have been set at 20 hours rather than 30.

    I hope that makes sense.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •