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
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    14,599
    2,710
    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
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. QNman

    QNman
    Expand Collapse
    resU deretsigeR
    Silver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    9,672
    146
    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.
     

    #2 QNman, Sep 12, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2012
  3. GAFinch

    GAFinch
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    5,897
    22
    Location:
    Georgia
    Wow, this will have a massive impact on businesses.
     
  4. callihan_44

    callihan_44
    Expand Collapse
    INFIDEL

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    5,022
    1,439
    Location:
    Flyover,USA
    hmm guess some will lose hours due to this new reg...
     
  5. fgutie35

    fgutie35
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    2,723
    90
    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.
     
    #5 fgutie35, Sep 12, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2012
  6. Brucev

    Brucev
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    9,189
    1
    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
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    941
    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
    Expand Collapse
    No Demlibtards

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    1,463
    3
    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
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    36,498
    2,854
    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
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    12,129
    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
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    14,131
    209
    More like Europe everyday.


    Rephrased, more like Europe FAIL everyday.
     
  12. CAcop

    CAcop
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    18,578
    1,551
    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
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    3,177
    30
    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
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    9,189
    1
    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
    Expand Collapse
    resU deretsigeR
    Silver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    9,672
    146
    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
    Expand Collapse

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

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

    Brucev
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    9,189
    1
    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
    Expand Collapse
    resU deretsigeR
    Silver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    9,672
    146
    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.
     
    #18 QNman, Sep 13, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2012
  19. jakebrake

    jakebrake
    Expand Collapse
    cracker

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    7,923
    7
    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
    Expand Collapse
    MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    34,969
    5
    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.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
13 hours is coming to theaters in about a week The Okie Corral Jan 6, 2016
First full time hire (obamacare) The Okie Corral Jun 7, 2014
Time as a LEO Cop Talk Feb 1, 2012
Have a full time job already but interested in EMT Firefighter/EMS Talk Dec 3, 2006
30-06 As A Varmint Caliber? Hunting, Fishing & Camping Mar 17, 2006
Duty Gear at CopsPlus