News

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 129118 10-24-2012 03:23 PM

The BLS Glossary defines full-time workers as "Persons who work 35 hours or more per week".

For monthly reporting, the BLS defines part-time as "those who worked 1 to 34 hours during the survey reference week". With that wording, I am not precisely sure where 34.1 or 34.5 hours fit.

Interestingly, the Obamacare mandate says Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the Obamacare rule that says businesses with 50 or more workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

“The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week,” section 1513 of the law reads. (Scroll down to section 4, paragraph A.)

If an employer has 50 or more "full-time employees" and does not offer health insurance, it must pay a penalty per employee for each month it does not offer coverage.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.c...ition.html

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 75477 10-24-2012 03:25 PM

LoP Guest Wrote:

The BLS Glossary defines full-time workers as "Persons who work 35 hours or more per week".

For monthly reporting, the BLS defines part-time as "those who worked 1 to 34 hours during the survey reference week". With that wording, I am not precisely sure where 34.1 or 34.5 hours fit.

Interestingly, the Obamacare mandate says Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the Obamacare rule that says businesses with 50 or more workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

“The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week,” section 1513 of the law reads. (Scroll down to section 4, paragraph A.)

If an employer has 50 or more "full-time employees" and does not offer health insurance, it must pay a penalty per employee for each month it does not offer coverage.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.c...ition.html

Id do it only if i got double pay thatd be awesome chuckle

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 119527 10-24-2012 03:27 PM

Ha, trying living on 30 hours a week.

**Mother Mary**

LoP Guest Wrote:

Ha, trying living on 30 hours a week.

29, but that's what I said too. We already have tons of stories about people who are working and they are working 34 hours a week so that the employer doesn't have to pay benefits. I am sure the logic behind this was to make it so those people who were working 34 hours a week got benefits, but now they are just going to get 5 hours less of work per week.

**Full Bloom** · **Full Bloom** Subscriber User ID: 126509 10-24-2012 03:44 PM **Posts: 1,794**

Stating my opinion on how this will turn out.

I don't believe businesses will want to hire two 20 hour per week employees to take the place of one due to how expensive that will be.

It is expensive to hire employees. Hiring cost a hell of a lot of money due to the background checks, drug tests, and training periods. It is well known that employees that work 29 hours or less per week are more transient and job hop more often.

I also do not believe businesses will suddenly increase workers to 40 hours a week since they have to pay them benefits anyway. They have gotten away with working them 34 hours with no benefits so long that this is not even an option in their minds.

It will NOT be cost effective for businesses to hire so many additional employees, and it will make a big cut in their bottom line to suddenly have to pay for benefits for so many employees that they have not been doing so for.

Expect a wave of businesses throwing in the towel after this and unemployment numbers to skyrocket to new heights.

**Full Bloom** · **Full Bloom** Subscriber User ID: 126509 10-24-2012 03:49 PM **Posts: 1,794**

Believe me that the angle for this legislation is NOT to help people.

It is so that they can fine/tax the businesses to bring in more revenue.

The other motive is so that employees that do work 30 hours a week will be eligible for health insurance through employers and NO LONGER eligible for government healthcare programs due to eligibility status. Pay no mind that the poor employee working 29 hours a week would be paying 50% of their pay on the health insurance premiums and have nothing left to live on.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 84193 10-24-2012 03:52 PM

"Expect a wave of businesses throwing in the towel after this and unemployment numbers to skyrocket to new heights"

Sorry. We don't throw in the towel, we will raise prices accordingly. It is business, not let's cry about the president.

**evilolive**

Even 1 hour alone is going to be a government money saver.

No choices left for solving our issues effectively.. once you drop that snowball long ago ways of solving it is only gonna get bigger...

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 129264 10-24-2012 03:54 PM

LoP Guest Wrote:

The BLS Glossary defines full-time workers as "Persons who work 35 hours or more per week".
....

Moarrrrrrrrrrrrr reichwing bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-time

Quote:The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not define full-time employment or part-time employment. This is a matter generally to be determined by the employer (US Department of Labor). The definition by employer can vary and is generally published in a company's Employee Handbook. Companies commonly require from 30–35 hours per week to be defined as full-time and therefore eligible for benefits.

**Full Bloom** · **Full Bloom** Subscriber User ID: 126509 10-24-2012 04:00 PM **Posts: 1,794**

LoP Guest Wrote:

"Expect a wave of businesses throwing in the towel after this and unemployment numbers to skyrocket to new heights"

Sorry. We don't throw in the towel, we will raise prices accordingly. It is business, not let's cry about the president.

I agree many will raise prices sky high in an effort to cover the additional cost, but because of inflation you end up with the public making cut backs on spending and the result if fewer customers and eventually many will decide it is not f*cking worth it.

**Full Bloom** · **Full Bloom** Subscriber User ID: 126509 10-24-2012 04:06 PM **Posts: 1,794**

The savings to the government by so many people dropping from the Obama care rolls due to eligibility for benefits via an employer while they work 30 hours a week will be a huge chunk of change.

**Kanigo2** lop guest User ID: 97971 10-24-2012 04:06 PM

LoP Guest Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
The BLS Glossary defines full-time workers as "Persons who work 35 hours or more per week".
....

Moarrrrrrrrrrrrr reichwing bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-time

Quote:The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not define full-time employment or part-time employment. This is a matter generally to be determined by the employer (US Department of Labor). The definition by employer can vary and is generally published in a company's Employee Handbook. Companies commonly require from 30–35 hours per week to be defined as full-time and therefore eligible for benefits.

That was SELF REGULATION, so Obama just made it legal.
If they all didn't do it before they will now.

First it was a suggestion, then it became law.

**Twatwaffle** lop guest User ID: 129270 10-24-2012 04:16 PM

The U.S. federal government in a recent report proved conclusively (sourced from the finest government statistical data available) that 98% of all government statistical data released are misleading and/or patently false.

chuckle

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 129276 10-24-2012 04:21 PM

I Love Cats Wrote:

Stating my opinion on how this will turn out.

I don't believe businesses will want to hire two 20 hour per week employees to take the place of one due to how expensive that will be.

It is expensive to hire employees. Hiring cost a hell of a lot of money due to the background checks, drug tests, and training periods. It is well known that employees that work 29 hours or less per week are more transient and job hop more often.

I also do not believe businesses will suddenly increase workers to 40 hours a week since they have to pay them benefits anyway. They have gotten away with working them 34 hours with no benefits so long that this is not even an option in their minds.

It will NOT be cost effective for businesses to hire so many additional employees, and it will make a big cut in their bottom line to suddenly have to pay for benefits for so many employees that they have not been doing so for.

Expect a wave of businesses throwing in the towel after this and unemployment numbers to skyrocket to new heights.

I think that will be the trend, if ObamyCare is not abolished, places like Wal~mart, Targe will not doubt make staff work only 20 hours a week.

**Twatwaffle** lop guest User ID: 129270 10-24-2012 04:23 PM

LoP Guest Wrote:

I think that will be the trend, if ObamyCare is not abolished, places like Wal~mart, Targe will not doubt make staff work only 20 hours a week.

I think that is a more than reasonable conclusion.