• 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
Then they'll be free to get a 2nd job, increasing their income

In which case, what exactly is the point of this law? To cut part time employees hour's so they have to get a second job? I'm glad you admitted that.
 
But the mandate is separate from the 30-hour rule, isn't it?

The mandate everyone refers to is the individual mandate. What we are referring to, which is what the 30 hour rule that all businesses with over 50 employees applies to, is the business mandate. You just said you don't know any business that hires full time workers which doesn't provide health insurance. So what exactly is the point of cutting hours for those who aren't full time if they still aren't going to get health insurance?
 
The mandate everyone refers to is the individual mandate. What we are referring to, which is what the 30 hour rule that all businesses with over 50 employees applies to, is the business mandate. You just said you don't know any business that hires full time workers which doesn't provide health insurance. So what exactly is the point of cutting hours for those who aren't full time if they still aren't going to get health insurance?

Ok. Still, I'm going to guess that similar arguments were made when overtime and 40-week laws were passed: that it would hurt workers that would lose hours. Fixating on what might go bad shouldn't be enough to prevent progress.
 
12 hours sounds about right.
 
I also like the option of 4 x 10 for schools, especially in the very cold North.
Or whatever reasons local BOEs come up with.
Intermittently there have been options for 5 -12 hours shifts per 2 weeks (breaks down to 30 hours)
 
where is that great Republican Progress--ive Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?
Ok. Still, I'm going to guess that similar arguments were made when overtime and 40-week laws were passed: that it would hurt workers that would lose hours. Fixating on what might go bad shouldn't be enough to prevent progress.
 
actually its not about the employement. its about the min number of hours to get the $3000 year fine under the ACA for not providing real HC.

So yes, 40 is full time, but to get the fine, it should be 20 hours.
 
Ok. Still, I'm going to guess that similar arguments were made when overtime and 40-week laws were passed: that it would hurt workers that would lose hours. Fixating on what might go bad shouldn't be enough to prevent progress.

Overtime still uses a 40 hour workweek.
 
Full time employment hours should not be cast in stone. It should be lowered some when the economy has taken a hit and unemployment is rising and raised when things are running well. Say adjusted between 24 and 32.
 
I voted 40 hours. I don't see any reason why people should change it.

If someone offers some good ideas, with math, and statistics, then I could possibly change my position on this. But as it stands now, this is my current position.
 
Back
Top Bottom