• 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
johndylan1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would have believed that once, and that's why I think Republicans were so successful for so many years as the party of business. There was once a time when you would work at the same company for 35 years with decent pay and retire with a pension. If you did it would naturally be in your self-interest to help your company politically. Nowadays such a thing hardly exists: people hop from company to company, are responsible for their own retirement plan and sometimes health plan, are working harder for not much money, and have seen the gap between the rich and the rest of us hugely expanded. And that's all if you're lucky to have a job. Workers do not owe their companies as much as they used to because they have marginalized us.
 
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...

Greetings, zyphlin. :2wave:

The 40-hour work week has been the standard for as long as I can remember. Many of us worked more hours than that, and depending upon whether or not you were "exempt," you earned overtime pay. If you were exempt, you basically just "donated" the time you worked over the 40-hour week. Why the change to a 30-hour work week now? That used to be considered part-time. If you still work 40-hours a week, will you continue to be paid your previous wages? :werd:
 
sangha said:
Yes, it does
Click to expand...

20 - 30 hr week? Only a person who hasn't worked for an hourly wage that is barely sufficient to pay for basic living expenses at 40 hours would say something so ignorant. Ignorant of the added stress and associated health risks that the lower standard would bring about.
 
aberrant85 said:
I would have believed that once, and that's why I think Republicans were so successful for so many years as the party of business. There was once a time when you would work at the same company for 35 years with decent pay and retire with a pension. If you did it would naturally be in your self-interest to help your company politically. Nowadays such a thing hardly exists: people hop from company to company, are responsible for their own retirement plan and sometimes health plan, are working harder for not much money, and have seen the gap between the rich and the rest of us hugely expanded. And that's all if you're lucky to have a job. Workers do not owe their companies as much as they used to because they have marginalized us.
Click to expand...

And all of this has come to pass under ever expanding government, yet you think more intervention will somehow help?
 
johndylan1 said:
20 - 30 hr week? Only a person who hasn't worked for an hourly wage that is barely sufficient to pay for basic living expenses at 40 hours would say something so ignorant. Ignorant of the added stress and associated health risks that the lower standard would bring about.
Click to expand...

Giving people who work 20-30 hours/wk health insurance does not cause any added stress and associated health risks
 
Please help with constructing a poll.
I am just not that good on compouter, never got in until too late.
How do I make a poll with how people like their ice cold BEER, in Bottles or in Can?
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...
 
aberrant85 said:
I would have believed that once, and that's why I think Republicans were so successful for so many years as the party of business. There was once a time when you would work at the same company for 35 years with decent pay and retire with a pension. If you did it would naturally be in your self-interest to help your company politically. Nowadays such a thing hardly exists: people hop from company to company, are responsible for their own retirement plan and sometimes health plan, are working harder for not much money, and have seen the gap between the rich and the rest of us hugely expanded. And that's all if you're lucky to have a job. Workers do not owe their companies as much as they used to because they have marginalized us.
Click to expand...

Chicken and egg question.

Without a doubt some companies did marginalize workers, but workers also demanded more money for less work and no loyalty to the company.
 
johndylan1 said:
And all of this has come to pass under ever expanding government, yet you think more intervention will somehow help?
Click to expand...

No, it did not come with an expanding government. It started under Reagan's deregulation and it worsened with the advent of industrial globalization and outsourcing. That is the root of this evil. Until we fix that imbalance between our economy and world-wide free trade, Obamacare and other services will just be a bandaid. But having a bandaid is better than not.
 
johndylan1 said:
20 - 30 hr week? Only a person who hasn't worked for an hourly wage that is barely sufficient to pay for basic living expenses at 40 hours would say something so ignorant. Ignorant of the added stress and associated health risks that the lower standard would bring about.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the "something so ignorant" that was said was said by me; as that was what Sangha said he understood. Other than that clarification, your post makes no sense.
 
GottaGo said:
Chicken and egg question.

Without a doubt some companies did marginalize workers, but workers also demanded more money for less work and no loyalty to the company.
Click to expand...

Yes, and obviously I'm generalizing because some companies are very good to their employees and in turn create better morale. But like Bill O'Reilly so elegantly put it in this economy, in his experience if you don't like how your company's treating you, you can quit and find another job.
 
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...

I think that douchey boss can and will cut it to 29 if he so choses. At least if its 40 hours a week, that's still an additional 10 extra hours of pay, which will make or break many families.
 
Rainman05 said:
I voted other because for some jobs it's 40, for some it's less, for some it's more.

Greece and Hungary are some of the hardest working countries in the world, and their economies are in the toilet.

France has a 35h work week policy in place and lo and behold, the French are the most efficient workers in the world when you measure what they produce to how much they spent working on it.

In Pictures: The World's Hardest-Working Countries - Forbes
Mexico is said to be more hard-working than USA but yet, it's in the toilet too.
Click to expand...

Does it have the most efficient workers in the world, or just the best capital to work week ratio? I honestly believe that Chinese workers are much harder working then American ones are, yet that doesn't mean they produce more per hour.
 
ReformCollege said:
I think that douchey boss can and will cut it to 29 if he so choses. At least if its 40 hours a week, that's still an additional 10 extra hours of pay, which will make or break many families.
Click to expand...

I don't deny that might happen. A boss that does that should take responsibility for his decision, though.
 
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...

Well I generaly work 50-60 hrs so w/e.
 
aberrant85 said:
I don't deny that might happen. A boss that does that should take responsibility for his decision, though.
Click to expand...

Do they have any less of a responsibility for scheduling someone for 39 hours just to avoid "full time"?

If anything it should be something like 37-38.
 
ReformCollege said:
Do they have any less of a responsibility for scheduling someone for 39 hours just to avoid "full time"?

If anything it should be something like 37-38.
Click to expand...

Of course not, they know what they're doing.
 
ReformCollege said:
Does it have the most efficient workers in the world, or just the best capital to work week ratio? I honestly believe that Chinese workers are much harder working then American ones are, yet that doesn't mean they produce more per hour.
Click to expand...

The French produce the most value for their work week.
That makes them the most efficient workers.
 
sangha said:
Giving people who work 20-30 hours/wk health insurance does not cause any added stress and associated health risks
Click to expand...

There are no gifts of insurance. It is paid for and that cost impacts negatively on employers. The policy forces employers to do the dirty work and cut hours and take home that they would otherwise not do, but make no mistake it is the policy that forces the change.
 
The French are efficient workers. Haha.

French employers are the first ones to outsource labor, and many companies use other countries for in-place labor. You'll probably find as many Swiss workers in a French company as you will frogs.
 
sangha said:
Giving people who work 20-30 hours/wk health insurance does not cause any added stress and associated health risks
Click to expand...

1. There are no gifts of insurance, it is paid for.
2. employers have already shown that they will reduce hours to avoid excessive costs imposed on them by the laws requirements. So you want to double down on the error that already has been shown.
3. make no mistake the policy is the cause. No matter how much you want perception to be against employers, the policy promotes negative change in hours and take home pay.
 
aberrant85 said:
No, it did not come with an expanding government. It started under Reagan's deregulation and it worsened with the advent of industrial globalization and outsourcing. That is the root of this evil. Until we fix that imbalance between our economy and world-wide free trade, Obamacare and other services will just be a bandaid. But having a bandaid is better than not.
Click to expand...

The only feasible fix is to promote policies that make it possible to produce tangible goods here at home. There is money to be made in info tech, and services but production of durable and consumer goods, ie manufacturing is where a real difference can be made. This can be promoted by tax policy and regulation reform.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm guessing the "something so ignorant" that was said was said by me; as that was what Sangha said he understood. Other than that clarification, your post makes no sense.
Click to expand...

OK. So we have already seen that employers are willing to reduce hours, you want to double down on that failed idea, to the further detriment of workers. Health insurance doesn't do anything to promote health of a worker who has had their hours reduced from 40 to 29. The added financial stress to that person is extraordinary and has negative health impacts.
 
johndylan1 said:
OK. So we have already seen that employers are willing to reduce hours, you want to double down on that failed idea, to the further detriment of workers. Health insurance doesn't do anything to promote health of a worker who has had their hours reduced from 40 to 29. The added financial stress to that person is extraordinary and has negative health impacts.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your post. I want to double-down on what??
 
johndylan1 said:
OK. So we have already seen that employers are willing to reduce hours, you want to double down on that failed idea, to the further detriment of workers. Health insurance doesn't do anything to promote health of a worker who has had their hours reduced from 40 to 29. The added financial stress to that person is extraordinary and has negative health impacts.
Click to expand...

Guess they made the wrong choice in careers. Maybe they should retrain themselves to something else or make themselves valuable enough to their employer. Also, the should quite voting for people who want the government to force things on other people.

If they voted for Obama and other dems, then they got what they paid for. If they didn't, well, thank your fellow "Americans" for the reaming and ask them to at least furnish some vaseline or KY next time.
 
NIMBY said:
Such as nurses who work 3x12.
Oldtimers love to talk about 35x8.
My buddies on Nukes work 7x12.
Screwing workers is a time-honored tradition of Repub capitalists.
Their new excuse is HeritageCare.
Click to expand...

I do 3 - 12 hour shifts ....I have been 36 hours for about 22 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom