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 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 112

Thread: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

  1. #81
    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 johndylan1 View Post
    See your above comment; the regs for aca placed full time status as 30hrs to try and keep that max amount of employees in the now cost prohibitive system, all that did was hurt employees and based on your comment you recognize that. To reduce the full time status even further would be to double down on an idea that you already admit had a negative consequence.
    That's what I thought -- you don't "get it". The higher the number of hours it takes to be considered "full time" the less advantageous that is to employees -- and the more advantageous it is to employers. A thirty-hour definition allows employers to adequately staff most positions with 29 hours or less. A twenty-hour definition? Notsomuch. Staffing so that no employee works over 19 hours would be logistically almost impossible.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  2. #82
    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 MaggieD View Post
    That's what I thought -- you don't "get it". The higher the number of hours it takes to be considered "full time" the less advantageous that is to employees -- and the more advantageous it is to employers. A thirty-hour definition allows employers to adequately staff most positions with 29 hours or less. A twenty-hour definition? Notsomuch. Staffing so that no employee works over 19 hours would be logistically almost impossible.
    Ease of staffing depends on the type of work and production systems that are in place now doesn't it. Low skill service and well designed production positions can be filled with 2 PT employees instead of one FT easily. What I do get is that an employee / employer relationship must be mutually beneficial. Anyone who uses language such as you did, ie. employer vs employee, doesn't get it in my opinion.

  3. #83
    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 johndylan1 View Post
    Ease of staffing depends on the type of work and production systems that are in place now doesn't it. Low skill service and well designed production positions can be filled with 2 PT employees instead of one FT easily. What I do get is that an employee / employer relationship must be mutually beneficial. Anyone who uses language such as you did, ie. employer vs employee, doesn't get it in my opinion.
    Yep, I was right. You don't get it. Thanks for playing.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  4. #84
    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 MaggieD View Post
    Yep, I was right. You don't get it. Thanks for playing.
    What ever, your assertion that I don't get it is meaningless and is no argument.

  5. #85
    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
    Yep, I was right. You don't get it. Thanks for playing.
    His arguments get more and more obtuse and irrational. He wants to tell us that we are hostile to employers, even though we have both been employers.
    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..

  6. #86
    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
    His arguments get more and more obtuse and irrational. He wants to tell us that we are hostile to employers, even though we have both been employers.
    That's what I think, too. I personally (when I owned my business) would have absolutely loved a thirty-hour definition of full-time. The twenty-hour rule was a show stopper. Ha!
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  7. #87
    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 ReformCollege View Post
    So wouldn't you rather that worker get screwed at 38 hours a week then 29?
    No, not really. Progress is messy but it goes in the right direction.

    If a business needs someone to work full time but wants to get around giving their employees extra benefits starting at 40/hr, they can easily do that by just giving them an hour less work. No big deal to their productivity. But if they need someone full time and now the benefit starts at 30/hr to ensure that if the employee works essentially full time than they get what they deserve, then that forces the company to evaluate their priorities. Do they really want to avoid providing benefits if it cuts back their productivity, or is the value of having full time workers worth the extra cost?

    Suppose they choose to cut back hours. Now instead of having 60 full time workers they have 80 workers at 30 hours/week. They increase their workforce by 1/3, increasing costs like training and paperwork by 1/3. They are also now employing 80 people that will probably go out and get a second job to make up the difference in their income. So now you will have a full time job scheduling your workers to accommodate their second jobs. Your workers are probably going to work at least 20 hrs/week at their second jobs, and so will be overworked when they show up to their job, and maybe even mentally still thinking about their other job.

    So you have more staff to accommodate, who are probably going to have lower morale and are more tired, who aren't focusing on their work because they're working out in their minds problems from their other jobs. And maybe their second job actually offers them full time work, so now they've quit and your rollover has increased.

    In this hypothetical situation, it would seem more and more attractive to the employer to just provide the health care, or at the very least pay the $2000 fine and keep their employees on full time.

    This is why I feel the burden is on the employer. They have always and will always have to work around laws and regulations, and this is just the next example of that.
    "Obamacare delenda est"

  8. #88
    Educator Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-01-17 @ 11:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    881

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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?
    For how many hours an employer schedules a given employee before having to pay them overtime, it's been 40 hours/ week for a long time.

    For how many hours an employer is allowed to schedule an employee before awarding them benefits it's been 30 hours/ week, that is to say, if that employer even offers benefits. My father has worked or the same contracting company for the past few decades and although he works 40+ hours per week, the company does not offer any benefits (health care or otherwise).Meanwhile my mother has worked in retail for the past few decades and currently works for a supermarket that ensures that she works 29 hours per week. Low & behold, neither of them have employer health benefits.

    It's a matter of qualifications. Simply put:

    Overtime = 40/ week
    Benefits = 30/ week

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Do you agree with equating a 30 hour work week to "Full Time" employment?

    I am currently working approximately 47 hours/ week on average. I'm on salary so overtime doesn't really fit into my pay, but I do have comprehensive health/ dental benefits. A long time ago, when the owner of the company that I work for asked me if I wanted to become an exempt employee, I told him that I'd rather be compensated for the work I perform than the hours I punch on a card.

    For me this is a much more suitable paradigm, and I'd rather see people compensated for what they accomplish than how long they are at work. I strongly disagree with the 40 hour work week and think that, by paying people for what they do rather than the hours they work we would see shorter weeks, but more efficient work.

    I also think that health benefits should be divorced from employers, that is severely hurting both employees and employers.

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-16 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,243

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    That's what I think, too. I personally (when I owned my business) would have absolutely loved a thirty-hour definition of full-time. The twenty-hour rule was a show stopper. Ha!
    What's a 30 hour week?

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    No, not really. Progress is messy but it goes in the right direction.

    If a business needs someone to work full time but wants to get around giving their employees extra benefits starting at 40/hr, they can easily do that by just giving them an hour less work. No big deal to their productivity. But if they need someone full time and now the benefit starts at 30/hr to ensure that if the employee works essentially full time than they get what they deserve, then that forces the company to evaluate their priorities. Do they really want to avoid providing benefits if it cuts back their productivity, or is the value of having full time workers worth the extra cost?

    Suppose they choose to cut back hours. Now instead of having 60 full time workers they have 80 workers at 30 hours/week. They increase their workforce by 1/3, increasing costs like training and paperwork by 1/3. They are also now employing 80 people that will probably go out and get a second job to make up the difference in their income. So now you will have a full time job scheduling your workers to accommodate their second jobs. Your workers are probably going to work at least 20 hrs/week at their second jobs, and so will be overworked when they show up to their job, and maybe even mentally still thinking about their other job.

    So you have more staff to accommodate, who are probably going to have lower morale and are more tired, who aren't focusing on their work because they're working out in their minds problems from their other jobs. And maybe their second job actually offers them full time work, so now they've quit and your rollover has increased.

    In this hypothetical situation, it would seem more and more attractive to the employer to just provide the health care, or at the very least pay the $2000 fine and keep their employees on full time.

    This is why I feel the burden is on the employer. They have always and will always have to work around laws and regulations, and this is just the next example of that.
    I didn't realize that forcing people to jump through hoops was a good thing. *eye roll*

    Maybe you should be a business owner, since you seem to have such a fancy opinion of what they "should or would" do? The employees we are talking about here aren't exactly expensive to train. It doesn't cost a lot of money to train someone to flip burgers or work a cash register at Walmart. And you bet your bottom dollar most of those are going to be part time workers after this healthcare law takes place.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •