It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Uhh.... 32 hrs per week has been considered "full time" in Texas for as long as I can remember. I bet it's the same for most other states as well.

Damn you Obama!!!




posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
So since Ive been working 60 hours a week for 12 years, do I qualify for Time and Half on Obamacare. LOL!!!



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I fail to see how less mandated working hours are bad for Americans.

Less hours working = less pay = more reliance on government programs = higher taxes paid = less money for everyone = less spending = less people needed in the workforce = less hours working = less pay = more reliance on government programs = higher taxes paid = less money for everyone = less spending = less people needed in the workforce = less hours working = less pay = more reliance on government programs = higher taxes paid ...

get it? Oh .. and a 40 hour work week isn't 'too much'.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
That's because it's been business's great loophole to hire
people at exactly 30 hours a week so they didn't have to give them
healthcare if they were an organization that provided it.
Bravo Obama care.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck


2. Some corporations already offer benefits to workers working 32 hours per week, so it probably won't affect them that much.



This is what is confusing to me.. Everywhere I have ever worked has been 32 hours for full time. This new rule won't really change anything for me. Pretty sure it's state law here in NC.

What I'm not psyched about is having to get insurance. I can't afford insurance and I have never had insurance, so now I'll get to pay fines I can't afford either.. Sounds dumb.

edit on 10/22/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dustytoad

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck


2. Some corporations already offer benefits to workers working 32 hours per week, so it probably won't affect them that much.



This is what is confusing to me.. Everywhere I have ever worked has been 32 hours for full time. This new rule won't really change anything for me. Pretty sure it's state law here in NC.

What I'm not psyched about is having to get insurance. I can't afford insurance and I have never had insurance, so now I'll get to pay fines I can't afford either.. Sounds dumb.

edit on 10/22/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)


It might not be as bad as you think.

The company I work for just introduced us to the new health care plans offered.

I now have more choices. I have the option to choose the same PPO plan I'm currently on. Or I can opt into a plan where my health insurance premiums actually earn interest and dividends. Or I can choose another plan (Kelsey Siebold) where my medical care would be provided by one of 150 clinics in my area, with no referrals needed to see a specialist.

Three plans where only one was available previously and the two new plans are cheaper than the PPO.

In reality, the new Health Care program seems to be beneficial.... at least in my case.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by Hefficide

Most entry level, non skilled jobs are already prone to hiring only part time, or through temp agencies ( to avoid having to provide benefits ). So what's new?

As far as the analysis of this law and the idea that it will "force" businesses to hire only less than thirty hour per week employees... Isn't that logic not unlike the abusive husband saying "Quit making me beat you up!"? Nobody is forcing businesses to take the cheap way out. It's their own greed doing it.

~Heff


Good point.

But one possible problem is that most workers are full time and are not new hires.

I wonder what that percentage is right now.

It's the existing full timers that need to worry.

I bet they are the majority.


Top 10 U.S. states with full-time employees:

1. Oregon (86.1%)

2. West Virginia (83.7%)

3. Georgia (83.6%)

4. Maryland (83.5%)

5. Virginia (83.4%)

5. Arkansas (83.4%)

7. Oklahoma (83.2%)

7. Texas (83.2%)

9. Delaware (83.1%)

10. New Jersey (83%)

U.S. states with most part-time, full-time employees


in contarst:

Top 10 U.S. states with part-time employees:

1. Michigan (24.9% of employed)

2. Rhode Island (24.4%)

3. Maine (24%)

4. Vermont (23.9%)

5. Utah (23.8%)

6. Idaho (23.5%)

6. Massachusetts (23.5%)

8. Minnesota (23.2%)

9. Washington (23%)

10. Wisconsin (22.8%)




How many of these jobs are service oriented? Most service oriented jobs are not 40 hours a week anyway. The most impact will be to companies that already provide benefits. So their bottom line will not be affected anyway. Subtract the government workers from the list and it's not as big a deal as corporate America is crying about. Besides my Mom's co worker worked over 20 years for the state government and was never full time. This is nothing new. If you never heard of this speak to people who work in the service industry or for temp agencies. Some people are actually permanent temps. All this ObamaCare scare crap is being used to politicize the real issue. We are the richest most industralized country in the world and people die here due to lack of medical care.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
reply to post by xuenchen
 


How unique - Romney and Ryan's home states are both on your list of part-time workers...

"Putting America back to work, 29 hours at a time," should have been their slogan.


Part time because of lack of jobs. There aren't enough Full time jobs available but a decent amount of part time jobs.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
This here just confirms what my G.M of Waffle House said.

Hell as he stormed of he say's I don't care what anyone says obama is the antichrist, And if you think about Revelations and grasp the words and understand what the words mean obama does fit the bill nicely.

But yeah he told us that next year workers working over thirty hours that employer would have to provide healthcare, and if work under 30 than you pay for your own, or be punished. Well the better go ahead and punish away cause I won't have it.
edit on 22-10-2012 by mytheroy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
As far as the analysis of this law and the idea that it will "force" businesses to hire only less than thirty hour per week employees... Isn't that logic not unlike the abusive husband saying "Quit making me beat you up!"? Nobody is forcing businesses to take the cheap way out. It's their own greed doing it.


Umm.. no not at all
Domestic abuse is not the same as you accepting the terms of a job

And actually many things are forcing businesses to take the cheap way out, like over-regulation!

So I completely disagree with your argument



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
why would you cut the hours of employees you need. you just pass on the cost to consumers. like they always do.

get ready for the $10 bic mac combo.

cutting it down to 30 hrs would force an employer to either make the person full time and get benefits or let them go.

the ones that are going to be hardest hit are those crooks that like to stock up on dozens of min. wage part-time employees and make them work 39 hrs a week to avoid paying benefits.


edit on 22-10-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I fail to see how less mandated working hours are bad for Americans.

Less hours working = less pay = more reliance on government programs = higher taxes paid = less money for everyone = less spending = less people needed in the workforce = less hours working = less pay = more reliance on government programs = higher taxes paid = less money for everyone = less spending = less people needed in the workforce = less hours working = less pay = more reliance on government programs = higher taxes paid ...

get it? Oh .. and a 40 hour work week isn't 'too much'.



I get it, and thanks ...To me it's like a big pink elephant, being ridden by a purple donkey with a
monkey on top, dressed like a banana, juggling baby kittens....and it's right there in the room
and nobody is talking about it...

I'm just glad somebody else sees it....


We are happily paving the road to tyranny....and we refuse to see it coming.....
....the poor will soon be working in mandatory programs (in lieu of a real job)
so that they can receive government benefits, working 29 hours a week for
a pittance, laying the stones in the road for those who sit in judgement....
while we blame EACH OTHER for our troubles....

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals will all worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

Fooled again.................



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I disagree... both these situations are demonstrations of an imbalance of power in an at will contract or arrangement. As analogs they, IMO, are fundamentally the same.

Just like that imaginary abusive husband who'll beat on his wife and then try to cajole her with kind words afterwards, corporations tend to do everything they can do stick it to the workers - and then they all offer lip service terminology and indoctrination like "Our most important asset is you" or "We're in the people business..."

I think that morally speaking the only relevant difference is scale.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
...and while we're at it, we should demand "real" insurance. The "insurance"? some of these employers offer for $50 a week are a joke. they pay 50% AFTER you cover a $20K deductible - that's more than a lot of people make in a year.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Exactly. I was employed by a company working 40 hours a week, but the company hired me as a "permanent temporary." I was employed for 3 years as a "permanent temporary" hoping after I proved myself I would be hired full-time with benefits. Not a chance.

I was hired as a graphic designer after being laid-off from an advertising agency during the height of the 80's recession. They hired me for my experience and after 6 months, I became the lead designer in the department. I was the lowest man on the totem poll, so of course when the company was going through some hard times, I was let go under an agreement if I started my own graphic design business they would send work my way, which I eventually did.

Companies are always trying to get around paying for healthcare benefits. I also worked in a factory for a well known company that would hire people for 3 months and let them go, to avoid putting them on full-time and paying them benefits. This was a union shop, so after 3 months the employee would automatically become a member of the union. So of course the company didn't want to pay union wages so they would let people go before the three month period was up.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by Hefficide

Most entry level, non skilled jobs are already prone to hiring only part time, or through temp agencies ( to avoid having to provide benefits ). So what's new?

As far as the analysis of this law and the idea that it will "force" businesses to hire only less than thirty hour per week employees... Isn't that logic not unlike the abusive husband saying "Quit making me beat you up!"? Nobody is forcing businesses to take the cheap way out. It's their own greed doing it.

~Heff


Good point.

But one possible problem is that most workers are full time and are not new hires.

I wonder what that percentage is right now.

It's the existing full timers that need to worry.

I bet they are the majority.


Top 10 U.S. states with full-time employees:

1. Oregon (86.1%)

2. West Virginia (83.7%)

3. Georgia (83.6%)

4. Maryland (83.5%)

5. Virginia (83.4%)

5. Arkansas (83.4%)

7. Oklahoma (83.2%)

7. Texas (83.2%)

9. Delaware (83.1%)

10. New Jersey (83%)

U.S. states with most part-time, full-time employees


in contarst:

Top 10 U.S. states with part-time employees:

1. Michigan (24.9% of employed)

2. Rhode Island (24.4%)

3. Maine (24%)

4. Vermont (23.9%)

5. Utah (23.8%)

6. Idaho (23.5%)

6. Massachusetts (23.5%)

8. Minnesota (23.2%)

9. Washington (23%)

10. Wisconsin (22.8%)




I notice Massachusetts is on the majority part-time employment.
Is there anyone who lives there who can define the differences in RomneyCare and ObamaCare?
I have a feeling that it's a lose-lose proposition either way it goes.

Thanks. (If this is deemed off topic please remove and forgive).



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Actually the solution for business is simple, zero part time and zero full time employees and go with 100% contracted labor and hand them 1099 forms at the end of the year and wish the IRS good luck on collecting all those tax dollars. The courts would be backed up for at least a decade or two.

Think the clowns in Washington would get the hint then?
edit on 22-10-2012 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
All I see happening with this is healthcare getting more expensive for the people who currently have it. The intent appears to be to bring more people into company-provided healthcare, which is great for those who don't currently have it.

Larger companies will not lower people's hours to under 29 to save costs, they will simply pass along the monthly cost of health benefits to all employees. This is what I have always seen happen as group health plan costs rise.

So, those who didn't previously qualify, and probably couldn't afford health insurance on their own, will get it. Those who have had it, will see more taken out of their monthly paycheck. It's not a tax, but another way to spread the wealth.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
why would you cut the hours of employees you need. you just pass on the cost to consumers. like they always do.

get ready for the $10 bic mac combo.

cutting it down to 30 hrs would force an employer to either make the person full time and get benefits or let them go.

the ones that are going to be hardest hit are those crooks that like to stock up on dozens of min. wage part-time employees and make them work 39 hrs a week to avoid paying benefits.


edit on 22-10-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



No, this would allow an employer who has 4 employees @ 30 hours a week, to now have 5 employees at 24 hours a week. This would allow the employer to discontinue medical insurance (and pretty much any other benefits) to it’s employees. For the small struggling companies, this would be a push. For the large corporations, it’s a win. This allows them to save thousands in medical insurance payments and gain employees, which creates competition and higher production from employees. For the employee, either way it’s a loss.

So if you work say, 29 hours a week, you are part time and might have to provide your own insurance. Good luck with that. You may be able to get major medical for an affordable price. The high quality insurance with a $500.00 deductible, co-pays and prescription plans will be unaffordable to the majority of people.....even with a voucher.
edit on 22-10-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 



For the large corporations, it’s a win. This allows them to save thousands in medical insurance payments, gain an employee which creates competition and higher production from employees.


How is that a win? Larger employees won't save any costs. In fact, the larger, more profitable companies with a conscience for their employees will absorb some of the cost increases.


For the employee, either way it’s a loss


For employees that work 30 hours who are currently denied corporate benefits, this is a big win.

For all the other employees who were already covered and will see their paychecks will get smaller, this is a big loss.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join