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: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
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.


It’s a win because they WILL save costs……medical premiums specifically. Many large companies DON’T have a conscience. Maybe they’ll absorb some of the costs for their more significant employees. The win is they gain employees. For current employees that work 30 hours a week BECAUSE THE COMPANY DOESN’T WANT TO PAY MEDICAL PREMIUMS or other benefits on them – thus the 30 hours a week, they will become employees that work 26, 27, 29 etc but less than 30 hours a week so they STILL remain benefit-less (is that a word?). And yes, ALLLLLLL the other employees will see smaller paychecks.
edit on 22-10-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
All I saying is with a 1099 they will give people about 1.5 times their current hourly wage. People will accept that in a heartbeat. It costs the employer nothing additional and puts everything on the individual. After taxes (the full amount since the employer no longer covers half of it) and finding an insurance policy, the individual will net about 85% of what they make now...and they will be under legal contact to the employer for the length of the contact to supply that labor.

As a bonus to the business they can lower their accounting/payroll dept. And they can make money if the worker fails to provide the labor needed for breach of contract if they play hookie too many times.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
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.


It’s a win because they WILL save costs……medical premiums specifically. Many large companies DON’T have a conscience. Maybe they’ll absorb some of the costs for their more significant employees. The win is they gain employees. For employees that work 30 hours a week BECAUSE THE COMPANY DOESN’T WANT TO PAY MEDICAL PREMIUMS or other benefits on them – thus the 30 hours a week, they will now become employees that work 26, 27, 29 etc but less than 30 hours a week so they STILL remain benefit-less (is that a word?). And yes, ALLLLLLL the other employees will see smaller paychecks.


Agreed. And, it is a win for the politician in the White House who gets to claim so many jobs created under his administration.

Instead of 100 40hr week jobs, there will be 200 20hr week jobs. Hurray!



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
All I saying is with a 1099 they will give people about 1.5 times their current hourly wage. People will accept that in a heartbeat. It costs the employer nothing additional and puts everything on the individual. After taxes (the full amount since the employer no longer covers half of it) and finding an insurance policy, the individual will net about 85% of what they make now...and they will be under legal contact to the employer for the length of the contact to supply that labor.

As a bonus to the business they can lower their accounting/payroll dept. And they can make money if the worker fails to provide the labor needed for breach of contract if they play hookie too many times.


I think you are forgetting about the "self-employment tax".

FICA is a 12.4% payroll tax. A normally employed person pays 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%.

As a 1099 (Contract) worker, the full burden falls on the employee, in essence a 6.2% tax increase as he/she would pay the full 12.4%.

FICA - (Federal Insurance Contribution Act - Social security, medicaid etc.).



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

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


You won't take home enough cash to pay the bills. Employers won't let you work enough. Now you have to hold 3 or 4 jobs all without benefits.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
The opposite can happen as well.

Sometimes we find things for people to do so they have enough hours because they need the health benefits. Keeping good people is worth it.
So now we don't have to find as much for them. 30 hours instead of 36.

I'm sure they will be thanking Obama for that.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
If businesses already have full time employees, reducing full time to 30 hours will have little effect. It is already cheaper to have part time employees but business owners pay the price by having a less consistent workforce for their customers. It means mor epeople to train and schedule and supervise. The savings just aren't there.

Im sure this will be used to scared voters with Republican biz owners saying they will do just that. Well they just lost my patronage just for saying it and being anti-people.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by davjan4
The opposite can happen as well.

Sometimes we find things for people to do so they have enough hours because they need the health benefits. Keeping good people is worth it.
So now we don't have to find as much for them. 30 hours instead of 36.

I'm sure they will be thanking Obama for that.


That would only be a Yippee situation if they were salaried workers.
Which I am sure they aren't, so, smaller paycheck and/or forced second job to make up for the shortfall.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

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


Those on hourly pay need 40+ to make the bills.
A lot of companies only run 30 hours and add a third more part time people.
Now it will drop to even less and they will add more part time people.

This means more workers making less money than they need but the job numbers will look better because there will be more workers.

It's all a shell game.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Many employers cut peoples hours so as not to have to pay/provide benefits. Perhaps this law is intended to help people who find themselves in that situation?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Many employers cut peoples hours so as not to have to pay/provide benefits. Perhaps this law is intended to help people who find themselves in that situation?


Uhh.....

How so ?

people will now be forced to buy insurance.

Who pays ?

The people do or the taxpayers do.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



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



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
If they make 30 hour weeks full time when does overtime kick in.

I can see it now. the government employee unions are going to start asking for over time pay for anything over 30 hours based on this new mandate and its going to cost government billions.



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


Ummm...people WANT to be able to buy insurance. In most jobs, employers and employees both contribute to get insurance at a reasonable group rate. It's been this way for decades, for many, many workers, and the new healthcare laws aren't changing that. Instead, they are protecting and providing for groups of people (pre-existing conditions, "part-time" workers, children, students) who are typically cut off, many times intentionally by a greedy system (employer or insurance company), from reasonable, affordable healthcare that others have the opportunity to benefit from.

All I'm saying here is that there is another interpretation of this that you appear to be not seeing.
edit on 10/22/2012 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
As a Canadian, this whole US healthcare debate / debacle simply mystifies me. In any other advanced civilization, this is a no brainer. A healthy population = a healthy nation = more productive = expands economy and saves money in the long run.

Before I begin, full disclosure.

Yes, the tax rate is slightly higher in Canada. I've done in-depth research ( a few moons ago) and Canada spends less /person and has a higher standing in almost all global rankings concerning healthcare. I have not researched Obamacare closely, so I'm not sure how the game will change there.

Two points observing from the outside:

1) I do believe what Obama first proposed was completely gutted by corps and deadlock / filibusters / TPTB. A single payer is the way to go.

2) I think the mentality in the US concerning health care is also part of the problem. Health education early on and a healthy conscientious life style should be encouraged. I think many in the US ( and elsewhere) have the capitalist idea that if you have a health problem, just throw money at it. Unfortunately many there don't have the money and even then it's usually too late. I feel underlying that is, the contradictory messages often heard in the US made more apparent by the up-coming elections.....one subject will be we we we! and another will be me me me! A more balanced approach for a nation is necessary.

For the upcoming posts about insufficient care and long wait lines in Canada. Personally, I have never experienced this, nor anyone I know. I once was prescribed blood pressure medication( free personal doctor appointment).....$13 tax in, for a 90 cycle...if I didn't make a certain amount, it would have been free. I've never waited an un-nessecary amount of time for any procedure and have never paid out of pocket for ANYTHING other then cheap, but equally as good, medication. I've also never been gravely ill though.

Recent true story, that actually is an example for my US outlook on healthcare stated above because my Aunt never looked after her health and this is how it went down in Canada.

My Aunt, who is terrified by doctors, hospitals, finally was convinced she should have a colonoscopy ( she's late 60's and has diabetes). It was scheduled for late Sept. Mid August a stool sample was requested in advance. Came back suspicious. One week later, she had an MRI ( at the urge and scheduling of the doctors) that confirmed the suspicion. Her colonoscopy was bumped up to a week later. Yep colon tumor. Surgery scheduled and done 1st week of Oct. They did get it all, but as a strong precaution, her doctors suggested chemo. The gave her 3-4 different options, including different drugs and means of administering. She choose a medication, rather then in hospital drip feeding ( which was free, I believe. I will try to confirm this). Her medication is $700/cycle( 5-7 cycles needed) because she is very wealthy. It would be free for anyone making under a certain amount/yr. Being smart people and knowing this, she purchased secondary insurance. Yes! We can do that in Canada...buy additional coverage. Here's an example:

Bluecross

Check the pricing and the lists of requirements / exclusions and compare it to what you are paying / excluded from in the US. Her insurance is paying for 70-80% of her meds.

So...around 1 1/2 months from suspicion to done surgery, with numerous meetings, consolations, support groups, nutritionists and paying only 20-30% for already cheaply priced meds for nothing more then a slightly higher tax rate.

These are personal stories with no agenda.


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



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 



For current employees that work 30 hours a week BECAUSE THE COMPANY DOESN’T WANT TO PAY MEDICAL PREMIUMS or other benefits on them – thus the 30 hours a week, they will become employees that work 26, 27, 29 etc but less than 30 hours a week so they STILL remain benefit-less (is that a word?).


Ah. But there is a six month guarantee for employees that meet the standard


If the employee meets the 30-hour threshold, they are counted as full-time for at least six months. If the employer has at least 50 such employees, he must provide them with health insurance or pay a fine.


I don't think companies would start reducing hours for these folks and risk the bad PR. It's much, much easier to include these employees in the plan and raise the group plan rates for everyone. That doesn't end up in the news or risk a EEOC law suite.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
having worked in a few service industry jobs and also as a sub contractor at a union
gig (sub contracted so they didn't have to pay union wages and insurance).
I can tell you that the negative publicity is no problem for these guys, the only thing
they really have to watch out for is abusing employees physically or dangers on
the job site maybe.

one example, i worked at a fast food joint to get me by while searching for a longer
term solution a while back, they treated every single employee there with utter
disrespect and a completely uncaring attitude all together, they did not offer
raises, they did not offer health insurance, one of their favorite things to do was
send in the DM (district manager) to stores in region and tell all the employees if
we can only sell more and make more money we could have a raise.

well needless to say after a year of busting my hump, scoring higher on their
management tests than their managers, improving the methods used in
our store to a point where they had me go train other stores to do the same
and still never seeing a raise beyond minimum wage i finally realized there
was no getting past the way they treated their employees.

also the store i worked at was one of the top 3 in profit in my state, we made money hand
over fist and our owner kept taking that money and investing it in stores he
had else where that were tanking, to the point where our store became so
ran down we started loosing business, we were do for a remodel but that
year while our owner was spending winter somewhere warm and cozy, his
summer home in Chicago was left unheated by him and all the pipes burst,
well since it was his stupidity the insurance wouldn't pay so he took
the money set aside for the remodel and fixed his summer home instead.
he cut corners in our store constantly using non skilled labor to fix
things that were suppose to be repaired by certified techs. but you
couldn't speak up for fear of being terminated for "insubordination"
and the fact that if you wanted to eat you needed your job.

my point about this is these are the type of people who we are suppose
to trust to provide health insurance and not cut corners, it just isn't realistic
to assume they will, we must assume that workers indeed do need
to be protected against a poor business men who cannot even understand
that keeping slightly higher paid well trained and experienced crew is
far better than living with a huge turn over rate.

now i was offered a management spot but the only thing i could think after watching
so many good employees walk out over the treatment they received and lack of
any incentive to stay beyond using this job as a filler for something that actually
might allow for minimal advancement, is that i would have to be the one treating
these people that way if i took it. so i declined and moved on to a job where my
boss actually gives a hoot about his workers and rewards timely hard working
people as they earn trust.

i am so lucky to have found this person as i only ever had one boss that was even
close to as honest as this fellow, in the year ive been here i have had two raises and
options to move up in a small company that will allow me to treat anyone i ever hire
as a human being and reward them for their worth as a worker.

anyway the publicity side of this means nothing at all as if you simply go look online
you can find sites that allow you to review how working for a certain place was and
let me tell you, when i read some of the things that happened i was livid, yet no one
ever really hears about it unless they go look for themselves, heck with my own
eyes i witnessed a manager treat an employee so poorly that a customer came
behind the counter for fear that the employee might be in physical danger,
that same customer called the corporate line and also the DM of those stores
and yet she still has her job to this day. (the cameras in that store don't work either)

publicity matters not as there are 10,000 people you can hire who need the money
so desperately that they would do it even knowing what they are getting into, the real
question is does that make it ok to treat people that way?

the point to all this is that health care is simply put not affordable for people in my income
bracket at all, these employers are not living paycheck to paycheck most of the time so
they simply cannot understand the true impact it has on those who know their jobs are
menial and cant afford to fight that. if healthcare were actually affordable people like me could
be responsible and purchase it, not having to rely of those who shirk their responsibility
at every opportunity to do it.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
“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.)


Please...think

Any employee...with respect to ANY MONTH...AVERAGE of at least 30 HOURS OF SERVICE per week.

SERVICE HOURS...

40 hours a week x 52 weeks per year = 2080 hours per year

Lunch?...ok 35 hours a week...(Service hours)...1820 hours per year

Holidays?... Vacation days?

The average 40 hour a week worker works about 30 "hours of Service" per week ON AVERAGE for a given month.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

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.


Thank you for a rarity on ATS. A thoughtful post, not a "im beating you in the argument" grandstand..

I'll keep it in mind.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by xuenchen
“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.)


Please...think

Any employee...with respect to ANY MONTH...AVERAGE of at least 30 HOURS OF SERVICE per week.

SERVICE HOURS...

40 hours a week x 52 weeks per year = 2080 hours per year

Lunch?...ok 35 hours a week...(Service hours)...1820 hours per year

Holidays?... Vacation days?

The average 40 hour a week worker works about 30 "hours of Service" per week ON AVERAGE for a given month.


Good observation and point.

Is the definition of "Service hours" actually in the law ?

Or is it one of those things delegated to HHS or DoL ?

Maybe it's up to employers / union contracts ?

It looks like another "built in" question mark.

Many workers get an "unpaid" lunch and actually are "present" for 8 and a half or 9 hours.

40 hours worked is usually 40 hours minus that 10 or 15 minute break every 2 hours in some cases but not all.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join