Obamacare Redefines 'Full Time' Employment as 30 Hours a Week [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare Redefines 'Full Time' Employment as 30 Hours a Week


DOC44
09-12-2012, 21:09
Obamacare Redefines 'Full Time' Employment as 30 Hours a Week

A year and a half after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, bureaucrats at the IRS and Health and Human Services issued an 18-page report outlining new regulations that will dramatically increase health care costs for small and large businesses alike.

The regulations, written by an IRS attorney, arbitrarily redefine "full time employee" as someone who works 30 hours a week for a business. Traditionally, most private businesses have defined "full time employee" as someone who works 40 hours a week. With this new regulation, the federal government is now removing the right of businesses to define "full time employee" as they deem appropriate for their unique conditions.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/11/NFIB-New-Regulation-More-Proof-Obamacare-is-Bad-Law-Nearly-Impossible-to-Administer


Doc44

QNman
09-12-2012, 21:16
I wonder how much longer before they pass a law that says you can't get fired and can't quit?

Ayn Rand was a sage.

GAFinch
09-12-2012, 21:16
Wow, this will have a massive impact on businesses.

callihan_44
09-12-2012, 21:16
hmm guess some will lose hours due to this new reg...

fgutie35
09-12-2012, 21:35
You might be making more smoke that what the firewood can put out. In Texas Labor Law, it is considered full time if and employees works more than 28 hours a week. This is to make sure the employer provides health care and other benefits to such employee. I learned that when walmart wanted me to work 35 hours a week, but only clock in 27 and the rest I could use it as "off" time, just so I wouldn't be considered full time employee and have to pay me benefits. Soon the jig was out and walmart had to pay us back pay for all those hours in a under the table settlement.

Brucev
09-12-2012, 22:26
Good. The fed. govt. should set the standard for FT employment rather than a hodge podge of employers defining or the individual states defining it. If this is to make sure no employer can get around/avoid the healthcare screw up, fine. Let it impact everyone and leave no one unscathed. That way no one can say the squatters screwing of healthcare is O.K. because it doesn't effect them. Let everyone be screwed by the squatters mucking up of healthcare. That is the only way it can be made so repugnant that a majority will push for repealing it.

Lowjiber
09-13-2012, 05:33
When politicians loose contact with reality, they often find it convenient to redefine their problem.

I got a kick outta GW Bush when he directed the Dept of HE&W to quit using "hunger" and adopted the UN notation that people in the US weren't "hungry". They only had a "food security" issue.

IGotIt
09-13-2012, 06:07
Wow, look at all the workers who now work full time. Nobama worked his magic and put people back to work just in time for the election.

JFrame
09-13-2012, 06:10
Looks like Obama wants to take us step-by-step closer to that European nirvana... :whistling:


.

Gunnut 45/454
09-13-2012, 10:13
Brucev
And now that will effect how many employee's a buisness will have! Cut into there bottom line and you force lower employment! Good job Obamamoa! I guess 23 million unemployed isn't enough for you!:steamed:

engineer151515
09-13-2012, 10:21
More like Europe everyday.


Rephrased, more like Europe FAIL everyday.

CAcop
09-13-2012, 11:49
hmm guess some will lose hours due to this new reg...

Probably. When I worked retail almost 20 years ago it was common for all but managers and the most senior person to have less than 40 hours a week. It was to avoid paying for health benefits. The new normal will be sub 30 hour weeks. In the end it might be better. Get two 20 hour a week jobs at different places.

This will probably only effect lower end workers. People with unique skills or education will still get good benefits.

Glock!9
09-13-2012, 12:17
isnt federal standards 32 hours for full time not 40....40 is for over time, maybe full time for benefits is regulated by the state?

Brucev
09-13-2012, 12:35
Brucev
And now that will effect how many employee's a buisness will have! Cut into there bottom line and you force lower employment! Good job Obamamoa! I guess 23 million unemployed isn't enough for you!:steamed:

If a employe is to be classified as full-time, then it should be a standard that applies without respect to who is the business or who is the employee. It is the role of the fed. govt. as in wage and hour laws, etc. If that means a employer has to adjust, then they have to adjust. It was no different when they were required to accept the 8 hour day... 40 hour work week, various safety provisions in the work place, etc., etc., etc. They will always complain that they can't afford it.

QNman
09-13-2012, 12:44
If a employe is to be classified as full-time, then it should be a standard that applies without respect to who is the business or who is the employee. It is the role of the fed. govt. as in wage and hour laws, etc. If that means a employer has to adjust, then they have to adjust. It was no different when they were required to accept the 8 hour day... 40 hour work week, various safety provisions in the work place, etc., etc., etc. They will always complain that they can't afford it.

I almost never hear businesses complain about new regulations like these; they simply adjust. Those who get the shaft are the employees (less hours = less pay) and the customers (more benefits = higher overhead = higher costs).

I worked at K-Mart for a while. I was "part time", but would have liked full time. They absolutely sent me home after 38 hours, when I'd much rather have stayed, even without Benny's. Now I suppose they'll send 'em home at 28.

coastal4974
09-13-2012, 14:03
Doesn't make much difference since it will all shift to contract workers.

Business is booming in that area, :supergrin:

Brucev
09-13-2012, 14:30
I almost never hear businesses complain about new regulations like these; they simply adjust. Those who get the shaft are the employees (less hours = less pay) and the customers (more benefits = higher overhead = higher costs).

I worked at K-Mart for a while. I was "part time", but would have liked full time. They absolutely sent me home after 38 hours, when I'd much rather have stayed, even without Benny's. Now I suppose they'll send 'em home at 28.

Understand what you are saying. When I was scheduling folks for work in the shipyard (1979-1982), I was instructed to not allow anyone to work more than 38 hrs./wk. Otherwise they would be considered FT... and be eligible for two weeks vacation, etc. And... when necessary a employe was not fired. He was simply reduced to 2 hr./wk. That way he could not collect unemployment under what were the then current rules in Louisiana.

Answer is to require vacation/benefits, etc., for any employe without allowing the employer room to play little games. Tough on the employer? So what. They routinely make it tough on the employees. Turn about is fair play.

QNman
09-13-2012, 14:38
Understand what you are saying. When I was scheduling folks for work in the shipyard (1979-1982), I was instructed to not allow anyone to work more than 38 hrs./wk. Otherwise they would be considered FT... and be eligible for two weeks vacation, etc. And... when necessary a employe was not fired. He was simply reduced to 2 hr./wk. That way he could not collect unemployment under what were the then current rules in Louisiana.

Answer is to require vacation/benefits, etc., for any employe without allowing the employer room to play little games. Tough on the employer? So what. They routinely make it tough on the employees. Turn about is fair play.

Perhaps so, but you miss my point...

Corporations won't give a damn if the law is changed - they will simply change the way they operate to meet whatever model they must.

Personally, I was young and needed the money. I'd have work 60 hours with no benefits and no vacation if they paid me. But they couldn't, so they didn't and who paid for that? Me. Not K-Mart. Instead, I got to work TWO part time jobs instead of one.

Make it mandatory to provide vacations and insurance for ALL employees and those poor kids trying to work their way through college won't be able to get a job. Much cheaper to hire a fresh graduate with a four year degree in underwater basket weaving and make him salary, work his tail 70 hours a week.

Keep the businesses honest, but stay out of their way at the same time. It's a balancing act, and this move threatens that balance.

jakebrake
09-13-2012, 15:07
Probably. When I worked retail almost 20 years ago it was common for all but managers and the most senior person to have less than 40 hours a week. It was to avoid paying for health benefits. The new normal will be sub 30 hour weeks. In the end it might be better. Get two 20 hour a week jobs at different places.

This will probably only effect lower end workers. People with unique skills or education will still get good benefits.

my, how little things change over the years.

still that way. unless you are salary in retail. then an 80 hour week is expected.

Cavalry Doc
09-13-2012, 16:16
Probably. When I worked retail almost 20 years ago it was common for all but managers and the most senior person to have less than 40 hours a week. It was to avoid paying for health benefits. The new normal will be sub 30 hour weeks. In the end it might be better. Get two 20 hour a week jobs at different places.

This will probably only effect lower end workers. People with unique skills or education will still get good benefits.

All that and the unemployment rate will go down. They'll count both jobs. Too bad about those underemployed people though.

Rabid Rabbit
09-13-2012, 19:18
isnt federal standards 32 hours for full time not 40....40 is for over time, maybe full time for benefits is regulated by the state?

I've heard 35, 39 and 40 never 32. I think MD state workers are 35 but that was due to some negotiation in trade for no pay raise I think.

PaulMason
09-13-2012, 19:35
Wow, this will have a massive impact on businesses.

Businesses will just cut the hours to less then 30 hours and hire to cover what they need.

I worked for a large corporation that had to make a person a staff employee and give them full benefits if they worked a certain number of days. The days were tracked and the weren't employed when they reached the limit.

Brucev
09-13-2012, 19:49
[QUOTE=QNman;19415908]Perhaps so, but you miss my point...

Corporations won't give a damn if the law is changed - they will simply change the way they operate to meet whatever model they must. Of course they don't care. Their not real persons. They are just figments of the supreme court's imagination.

Personally, I was young and needed the money. I'd have work 60 hours with no benefits and no vacation if they paid me. But they couldn't, so they didn't and who paid for that? Me. Not K-Mart. Instead, I got to work TWO part time jobs instead of one. The lowest form of life is a student who needs a job.

Make it mandatory to provide vacations and insurance for ALL employees and those poor kids trying to work their way through college won't be able to get a job. Much cheaper to hire a fresh graduate with a four year degree in underwater basket weaving and make him salary, work his tail 70 hours a week. Where there's a will there's a way. The business looks for every way possible to cheat employes. So let the govt. look for every way possible to act on behalf of the employe... and if it screws the business... so what? It's just a vicious circle. So... be even more vicious than the businesses.

Keep the businesses honest, but stay out of their way at the same time. It's a balancing act, and this move threatens that balance. It is a balancing act. Employees cannot trust a business to be honest. They have to act in their own best interest.

fx77
09-13-2012, 19:55
Probably because BHO would not recognize a 40 hour work week if he saw one....

CitizenOfDreams
09-13-2012, 20:21
I don't see why working six hours every weekday shouldn't be considered full time. This is not Japan.

QNman
09-13-2012, 21:37
Bruce:

I am a business owner. I guarantee you MOST BUSINESSES are NOT trying to cheat employees. Cheat employees, they cheat back, and the business suffers.

PaulMason
09-14-2012, 09:07
Bruce:

I am a business owner. I guarantee you MOST BUSINESSES are NOT trying to cheat employees. Cheat employees, they cheat back, and the business suffers.

I fully agree with this.

People don't go to a business and ask - do you provide health ins. and pensions to your employees - if not I won't buy from you. They shop for the best price.

If a person really wants employees to have health ins and pensions they should ask that question and pay the price higher price for it.

QNman
09-14-2012, 09:36
Does anyone else in this thread operate a business?

Does anyone here know the cost of employee turnover?

Training costs money. While training, you collect a paycheck, but you produce nothing. For the first 4 - 6 months, you produce much less than your counterparts. "Cheating" employees results in only the worst employees staying, while the better employees find an employer who is more equitable.

Underpaid employees - the ones who remain with the "cheating" employer - underperform. They are less reliable, less productive, and therefore produce an inferior product.

My company takes its employees and their general health and welfare very seriously. We don't offer competitive benefits for employees because Uncle Sugar says we must - we do so to have quality staff. That isn't to say the janitor makes six figures, and middle management makes seven - we still have to be competitive. However, if our competitors want to "steal" one of our employees, he better come with a really good offer to beat ours.

And THAT is the "regulations" keeping business honest. When unemployment is "normal", the pool of resources is limited. Better keep the good ones when you find them, because if you don't, they will walk.

Bruce, if you feel your employer is screwing you over, and you feel you offer more value than they give you in return, polish off that resume'. Even in this economic climate, employers are always looking for good workers.

QNman
09-14-2012, 09:38
I don't see why working six hours every weekday shouldn't be considered full time. This is not Japan.

Seriously? 40 hours is "too much"?

DustyJacket
09-14-2012, 09:48
I think Colorado was 32 when I lived there.

So, if 30 hours is full time, are all hours over 30 considered overtime?????????

CAcop
09-14-2012, 09:49
Does anyone else in this thread operate a business?

Does anyone here know the cost of employee turnover?

Training costs money. While training, you collect a paycheck, but you produce nothing. For the first 4 - 6 months, you produce much less than your counterparts. "Cheating" employees results in only the worst employees staying, while the better employees find an employer who is more equitable.

Underpaid employees - the ones who remain with the "cheating" employer - underperform. They are less reliable, less productive, and therefore produce an inferior product.

My company takes its employees and their general health and welfare very seriously. We don't offer competitive benefits for employees because Uncle Sugar says we must - we do so to have quality staff. That isn't to say the janitor makes six figures, and middle management makes seven - we still have to be competitive. However, if our competitors want to "steal" one of our employees, he better come with a really good offer to beat ours.

And THAT is the "regulations" keeping business honest. When unemployment is "normal", the pool of resources is limited. Better keep the good ones when you find them, because if you don't, they will walk.

Bruce, if you feel your employer is screwing you over, and you feel you offer more value than they give you in return, polish off that resume'. Even in this economic climate, employers are always looking for good workers.

I think you might be the exception that thinks turnover is bad and are will to pay more to avoid it. A lot of people only look at the short term and ignore the start up costs to a new employee. They are hidden if you fail to look for them.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

QNman
09-14-2012, 10:42
I think you might be the exception that thinks turnover is bad and are will to pay more to avoid it. A lot of people only look at the short term and ignore the start up costs to a new employee. They are hidden if you fail to look for them.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

While I appreciate that, I find it difficult to believe a small business owner wouldn't recognize it, least of all in this economy.

Brucev
09-14-2012, 12:48
Bruce:

I am a business owner. I guarantee you MOST BUSINESSES are NOT trying to cheat employees. Cheat employees, they cheat back, and the business suffers.

I appreciate your position and applaud you for it. Would that it were true of all businesses.

Brucev
09-14-2012, 12:57
[QUOTE=PaulMason;19418492]I fully agree with this.

People don't go to a business and ask - do you provide health ins. and pensions to your employees - if not I won't buy from you. They shop for the best price. This is true of some people. I do seek to patronize businesses that treat their employes equitably. I do seek to avoid patronizing businesses that in my view are not responsible in the way they deal with employes.

If a person really wants employees to have health ins and pensions they should ask that question and pay the price higher price for it. Agree. There is no free lunch. If you value something, you should expect to pay for it. I have the same attitude with regard to tipping at a restaurant.

PaulMason
09-14-2012, 15:14
[QUOTE=PaulMason;19418492]I fully agree with this.

People don't go to a business and ask - do you provide health ins. and pensions to your employees - if not I won't buy from you. They shop for the best price. This is true of some people. I do seek to patronize businesses that treat their employes equitably. I do seek to avoid patronizing businesses that in my view are not responsible in the way they deal with employes.

If a person really wants employees to have health ins and pensions they should ask that question and pay the price higher price for it. Agree. There is no free lunch. If you value something, you should expect to pay for it. I have the same attitude with regard to tipping at a restaurant.

How do you go about finding out if an employer is treating their employees fairly?

And how do you let the owner who doesn't do what you are looking for know that?

I think you are unique in your approach. And this might work domestically.

But, when you are talking about international customers, USA business are competing in a world market and if their costs are higher international mfgs will get the business.

QNman
09-14-2012, 19:42
[quote=Brucev;19419299]

How do you go about finding out if an employer is treating their employees fairly?

And how do you let the owner who doesn't do what you are looking for know that?

I think you are unique in your approach. And this might work domestically.

But, when you are talking about international customers, USA business are competing in a world market and if their costs are higher international mfgs will get the business.

I think that would depend heavily upon the goods or services you're purchasing...

PaulMason
09-14-2012, 20:08
I think that would depend heavily upon the goods or services you're purchasing...


Of course, if you are talking about a service like a car wash or hamburger joint.

QNman
09-14-2012, 20:21
Of course, if you are talking about a service like a car wash or hamburger joint.

.. or an engineering firm, or any other consultant... yes, I pulled from personal experience, but hey...

The point of post is - you CAN figure it out if you want. In whatever aspect your life allows. My firm is full of employees who have been here a while. You don't get that from cheating them.