close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Obamacare Redefines 'Full Time' Employment as 30 Hours a Week

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by DOC44, Sep 12, 2012.

  1. DOC44

    DOC44

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    15,726
    Likes Received:
    4,736
    Location:
    in my recliner
    Obamacare Redefines 'Full Time' Employment as 30 Hours a Week

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...re-is-Bad-Law-Nearly-Impossible-to-Administer


    Doc44
     
  2. QNman

    QNman Old timer

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,353
    Likes Received:
    763
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2012

  3. GAFinch

    GAFinch

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,937
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    Georgia
    Wow, this will have a massive impact on businesses.
     
  4. callihan_44

    callihan_44 INFIDEL

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    5,829
    Likes Received:
    2,860
    Location:
    Flyover,USA
    hmm guess some will lose hours due to this new reg...
     
  5. fgutie35

    fgutie35

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    282
    Location:
    deep southeast Texas
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2012
  6. Brucev

    Brucev

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Likes Received:
    5
    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.
     
  7. Lowjiber

    Lowjiber

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    941
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    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.
     
  8. IGotIt

    IGotIt No Demlibtards

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    On The Edge
    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.
     
  9. JFrame

    JFrame

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    40,183
    Likes Received:
    9,756
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic, US of A
    Looks like Obama wants to take us step-by-step closer to that European nirvana... :whistling:


    .
     
  10. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    12,129
    Likes Received:
    9
    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:
     
  11. engineer151515

    engineer151515

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    14,281
    Likes Received:
    452
    More like Europe everyday.


    Rephrased, more like Europe FAIL everyday.
     
  12. CAcop

    CAcop

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    Messages:
    20,792
    Likes Received:
    3,377
    Location:
    California
    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.
     
  13. Glock!9

    Glock!9

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,218
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    South Eastern PA
    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?
     
  14. Brucev

    Brucev

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Likes Received:
    5
    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.
     
  15. QNman

    QNman Old timer

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,353
    Likes Received:
    763
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    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.
     
  16. coastal4974

    coastal4974

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,818
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doesn't make much difference since it will all shift to contract workers.

    Business is booming in that area, :supergrin:
     
  17. Brucev

    Brucev

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Likes Received:
    5
    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.
     
  18. QNman

    QNman Old timer

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,353
    Likes Received:
    763
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2012
  19. jakebrake

    jakebrake cracker

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    7,925
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    too close to philly
    my, how little things change over the years.

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

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    34,969
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    All that and the unemployment rate will go down. They'll count both jobs. Too bad about those underemployed people though.