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 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 112

Thread: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

  1. #41
    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
    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.
    Yes, it does
    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..

  2. #42
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    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.
    Walmart is a totally different story, most of the economies problems come from big box stores like Walmart undercutting small businesses. If it weren't for them small businesses wouldn't be struggling as much as they are.
    "Obamacare delenda est"

  3. #43
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    I've worked many jobs where the official work week was 37.5 hours (1/2 hour off for lunch).

    If it was set a 40 hrs, most douchey bosses could lower your hours to 39 a week and you wouldn't be full time. By it being 30 hrs a week, it would be obvious what your boss was doing if he cuts you down to 29. Any number is arbitrary, but 30 seems to a safe number.
    Most bosses understand the value of their employees and really want to provide jobs that are mutually beneficial. Without cost prohibitive regs and mandates getting in the way, I can see no employer arbitrarily reducing hours. That's nonsense. However with regs and mandates that are cost prohibitive, bosses must make tough decisions that may be detrimental to their own family or their employees in order to salvage what is left of their businesses viability.
    Last edited by johndylan1; 09-21-13 at 07:28 PM.

  4. #44
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Most bosses understand the value of their employees and really want to provide jobs that are mutually beneficial. Without cost prohibitive regs and mandates getting in the way, I can see no employer arbitrarily reducing hours. That's nonsense.
    It's no different than overtime pay. In both cases the law says that workers that work above a certain threshold must see more money/benefits. Sometimes an employer will need the worker to work that long and so will pay extra for it. Others will make sure their workers don't go over that threshold and may hire more to make up the difference. It depends on the needs and the industry.
    "Obamacare delenda est"

  5. #45
    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
    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.
    Financial Darwinism? Whether it is someone failing to earn healthcare, food, etc or whether it is someone stupid enough to text and drive and kill themselves, it's all part of natural selection and by interfering with that natural selection, you are weakening the species. I would end medicaid, welfare, HUD, and most other social services and replace them with something a lot less expensive that places the onus of a persons survival upon their own labor. There are plenty of doctors that can no longer afford malpractice insurance or for various reasons are still qualified to be called doctors but no longer work in that profession. Let the government hire them for the clinics at the welfare farms and labor camps. Won't cost us even a tenth of a percentage point of what we spend now and would still provide food, clothing, shelter and basic medical care for those who cannot earn it any other way.

    Healthcare and businesses are the product of peoples labor. To claim anyone has a right to another persons earnings/labor is a form of slavery. Workers have the right to the wages and benefits they earn through their labor at completive market rates. If their labor doesn't earn healthcare benefits because of the labor rates for their labor, then they don't deserve it and to take away from others, even employers, to give it to them is to make that employer or others slaves.

    Any person, in any thing, is only entitled to what they earn or create for themselves. Anything that comes from another must be purchased with what they earn, otherwise, they are not entitled to it, they have no right to it, and to claim otherwise is to claim to be a slave master to those who did earn or create it.

    Personally, no, I don't pay what you said. I don't pay a premium nor do I pay a deductible. My healthcare premium was paid through years of service and becoming disabled during that service.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  6. #46
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    It's no different than overtime pay. In both cases the law says that workers that work above a certain threshold must see more money/benefits. Sometimes an employer will need the worker to work that long and so will pay extra for it. Others will make sure their workers don't go over that threshold and may hire more to make up the difference. It depends on the needs and the industry.
    But it also depends on having employees that are able to work enough to earn a decent standard of living for their family. You reduce hours, you reduce take home pay; you reduce take home pay, you piss employees off; you piss off employees, your quality and production fails. ACA is pissing alot of people off, because most employees understand the origin of the problem.

  7. #47
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,064

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Financial Darwinism? Whether it is someone failing to earn healthcare, food, etc or whether it is someone stupid enough to text and drive and kill themselves, it's all part of natural selection and by interfering with that natural selection, you are weakening the species. I would end medicaid, welfare, HUD, and most other social services and replace them with something a lot less expensive that places the onus of a persons survival upon their own labor. There are plenty of doctors that can no longer afford malpractice insurance or for various reasons are still qualified to be called doctors but no longer work in that profession. Let the government hire them for the clinics at the welfare farms and labor camps. Won't cost us even a tenth of a percentage point of what we spend now and would still provide food, clothing, shelter and basic medical care for those who cannot earn it any other way.

    Healthcare and businesses are the product of peoples labor. To claim anyone has a right to another persons earnings/labor is a form of slavery. Workers have the right to the wages and benefits they earn through their labor at completive market rates. If their labor doesn't earn healthcare benefits because of the labor rates for their labor, then they don't deserve it and to take away from others, even employers, to give it to them is to make that employer or others slaves.

    Any person, in any thing, is only entitled to what they earn or create for themselves. Anything that comes from another must be purchased with what they earn, otherwise, they are not entitled to it, they have no right to it, and to claim otherwise is to claim to be a slave master to those who did earn or create it.

    Personally, no, I don't pay what you said. I don't pay a premium nor do I pay a deductible. My healthcare premium was paid through years of service and becoming disabled during that service.
    and i thank you for that service. however, the vast majority of us are paying for the uninsured to receive primary care in the most inefficient way imaginable. that's dog dumb.

    we all benefit from society and from social order. taxes are the bill for that order. to claim that someone is "stealing" from someone else is akin to claiming that the electric company is stealing from me when it sends me the bill. cut the poor off from health care, and we'll learn what disorder looks like.

    i agree about malpractice insurance. we are all going to have to accept a higher degree of risk; it currently costs a billion dollars just to get a drug to phase three. aspirin probably wouldn't make the cut if it was discovered today.

    either way, it doesn't matter. we aren't going to deny health care to those who can't afford it. our next best option is to figure out the best way to provide it. what we're doing right now is not the best way.

  8. #48
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    But it also depends on having employees that are able to work enough to earn a decent standard of living for their family. You reduce hours, you reduce take home pay; you reduce take home pay, you piss employees off; you piss off employees, your quality and production fails. ACA is pissing alot of people off, because most employees understand the origin of the problem.
    I think you're right, but if my boss told me he was cutting my hours because of Obamacare, I wouldn't blame the law, I would blame the person flouting the law.
    "Obamacare delenda est"

  9. #49
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    I think you're right, but if my boss told me he was cutting my hours because of Obamacare, I wouldn't blame the law, I would blame the person flouting the law.
    Given that the law was passed without a majority of public support, and with a party line vote, I'd say blame the idiots up in congress that exempted itself and its cronies from its effects. Help your boss and the business that supports your lifestyle succeed and you will also succeed has been my philosophy.

  10. #50
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,175

    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?
    From my recollection, your dad would be right - anything above 30 hours a week would be considered a full time job. But you're also right in that most hourly wage jobs are based on a 40 hour work week but lots of government jobs are based in the middle, around 35 hours a week with an 8 hour day and an hour for lunch.

    I'm old enough to remember the discussions a couple of decades back about reducing the work week to 4 days to cut down on traffic, etc. and to give more people the opportunity to find employment. It never really got anywhere because those who favored it most still wanted to be paid at the 5 day level just working only 4 days and those paying the wages would never go for that so the compromise was job sharing where people ended up working 2 days one week and 3 days the next week, and vice-versa, for those who didn't want or need full time employment - usually women with young families.

    Anyway, this new push to reduce hours of work is clearly one of those "unintended consequences" of know-it-all politicians who don't bother to read the legislation they pass in their haste to do what they see is right.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •