• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thirty Hours = "Full Time"?

How many hours should the base of "Full Time" employment be?

  • Total voters
    51
earthworm said:
A millennia or two from now, the money caused corruption will be a thing of the past.
The times (without money) will be a hell of a lot better than they are today.
People would be happy.
Human progression does take time - measured in an unknown numbers of years..
Soon, the term "full time" will be a TOTP(thing of the past).
What we need is more meshing of "boss" and worker.....envison a symphony orchestra.....the flute player and the conductor..
Who is the "boss" .
The music listener - of course....aka "the public"
As to "40" or "30" .
I remember being able to accomplish as much in 6 hours as 8.
6 with a 20 minute break as opposed to 8 with an unpaid lunch and two breaks...
We need innovation....
Click to expand...

Money is a physical means of transferring value and resources in a form easily used by all, unlike bartering. Since there will always be things that people value and the need to distribute resources, then money or some analog of it will always exist. As long as there is a disparity in value of input, work performed, there will always be a disparity in the distribution of resources. Equal distribution of resources can only exist if the value of input is ignored. People are inherently competitive and many will never accept less productive people or low value workers to receive the same share of resources as highly productive or valued members of society. As long as there is limited resources and the concept of value, some form of our current system will always exists.

There will always be "bosses", even in a communal owned system, same as there will always be hourly workers. What you suggest has been tried many times and has always failed.

And your analogy of an orchestra is false. The conductor and the Flute player are not competing with each other for resources.
 
earthworm said:
As we all well know, the way around this cheapness is to be your own "boss" and own your own business..
Been there, done that..
This only works for some of us....
Rather than drawing lines, even red ones, we should be seeking better solutions.
Click to expand...

The logical solution would be for society not to expend resources on those who take away more than they give to society. That, however, is not the human solution. A system that would meet both some logical form and humane form would be providing the means for people who fail to work and make for themselves what is necessary for a minimum existence.
 
35 sounds reasonable. I am at work for 40hrs. but paid for 37.5 hrs. We just don't work the 'extra' 30 minutes each day to make up for having to eat.
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

Maybe the idea is that thirty hours means you can't really work another part-time job, or it'd be hard to find one to top up ten hours a week.
 
DVSentinel said:
Is it really always someone being a "cheap ****"? Small business employs more Americans than Corporations. Not all "Corporations" actually employ people directly, many are Franchised. Most fast food places and several other businesses are franchised. This means that payroll does not come from a company like McDonald's, but from the local franchisee.
Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:
Have you ever considered that most employers are not mega billionaires resembling the monopoly man but rather normal people trying to keep their business afloat?

Its insanely ****ing ignorant for you to claim that every company in America can afford to give healthcare to its workers.
Click to expand...

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.
 
aberrant85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
aberrant85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.)
 
aberrant85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Helix said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Why should taxpayers pay extra taxes to provide healthcare to those who do not earn it for themselves?
 
DVSentinel said:
Why should taxpayers pay extra taxes to provide healthcare to those who do not earn it for themselves?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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
Click to expand...

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)
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
aberrant85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
johndylan1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Helix said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
aberrant85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DVSentinel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
johndylan1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
aberrant85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom