Skip to comments.House passes bill redefining full-time workers under Obamacare; Maffei and Hanna split on issue
Posted on 04/04/2014 2:05:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives voted along party lines today to pass a bill that would modify the Affordable Care Act to define full-time employees as those who work at least 40 hours per week, rather than the 30-hour threshold under the existing law.
The House passed the Save American Workers Act, 248 to 179, with only 18 Democrats joining a unanimous block of 230 Republicans in support of the legislation.
Central New York Reps. Dan Maffei, D-Syracuse, and Richard Hanna, R-Barneveld, stuck with their party's leadership on today's vote. Both have occasionally split with their party on other bills involving the Affordable Care Act.
House Republicans said Obamacare's existing rules gave employers an incentive to slash workers' hours to less than 30 per week in order to avoid falling under the Affordable Care Act's "employer mandate."
The health law requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide health insurance to their workers or pay fines. The law's definition of full-time workers has been criticized especially by fast-food restaurants and other retailers whose employees generally don't work a 40-hour week.
"This detrimental definition discourages businesses from expanding and actually encourages employers to keep workers at 29 hours or less," Hanna said in a statement explaining his vote for the bill. "It also causes workers to lose jobs, wages and the health insurance they may have previously enjoyed. It is another example of Obamacare hurting the people it purports to help."
Hanna cited a report by the Hudson Institute that claimed 2.6 million American workers are at risk of having their hours reduced and wages cut due to the Affordable Care Act's definition of full time employees.
(Excerpt) Read more at syracuse.com ...
It’s clear we need the Whitehouse AND the Senate.
Works for me.
Carney Jay said they don’t intend to implement the employer mandate. So if they repeal the individual mandate, I’m cool with that. We can have 0bamacare without 0bamacare.
Its clear we need the Whitehouse AND the Senate.
Just “taking” the WH and Senate means little in the kenyancare debate. There is no evidence the GOP will fight as hard to repeal it as the Dems did to ram it through. In fact, many of the big GOP donors are fine with socialized medicine for the proles. They won’t be funding the GOP to fight the repeal battle.
I wish they could define “full time” as 168 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and exempt anyone who works less from ObamaCare.
I have a friend who just got a 36 hr/week job. The 36 hrs is based on the Friday-Sunday days where he’ll be working 12 hrs a day. They didn’t need anyone for the other days in the week. Basically, he’s part of the crew that keeps the shop running over the weekend. He’ll get healthcare for his family. At 40 hrs, he probably wouldn’t get healthcare and the company may not be willing to increase his hours.
When I was getting ready to retire, I worked from home for several months on a reduced workweek of 32 hrs. That allowed me to keep my benefits.
So, this 40 hr rule could work against some people.
"Repeal every word." -- Ted Cruz
Mark Levin is a voice of sanity.
On what do you base your conjecture that "at 40 hours he wouldn't get healthcare"??
If he gets healthcare at 36 hours, why not at 40?
So let’s see just wait and see the Senate does with this.
That would 30 hours,not 50 right? I think there is a typo in the posting.
The MSM spin on congressional Republican voting patterns: If the Republicans are united, they are being “partisan”; if they are divided, they are in “disarray.”
Only conjecture but if full time is redefined as 40, he would no longer be a full time employee and the company might not increase his hours.
Nevermind, I apparently can’t read...I misread the statement and understand it now.
It’s Friday, right?
That's sort of like saying let's just wait and see if the sun comes up tomorrow morning, right?
OMG, “Save American Workers Act”. Who could possibly oppose that?! What a joke. When they come up with those titles, what are they thinking? It ticks me off that people could possibly be swayed by crap like that.
All great titles from the feds are total BS. AFORDABLE care act has nothing to do with affordable care? Community REINVESTMENT act has nothing to do with investing. Adorable Kittens and Puppies act has nothing to do with puppies or kittens.
Why are we allowing government to create arbitrary terms - full and part time, and assign legal obligations to those who employ members of those caste systems? Didn’t we lose the argument when that happened?
Why are republicans trying to help obama out of the mess he created?
Full time for *this obamacare* purpose.
I’m disappointed that the RINO-controlled House of Representatives read the Constitution, including Congress’s Section 8-limited powers, at the beginnings of the 2011 and 2013 legislative sessions, neither healthcare or national minimum wage in Congress’s delegated powers.
It must be an election year.
I’m sure the obstructionist Reid Senate will hasten to pass this too. More and more government is proving it is the problem, not the solution.
I should have also included defining full time workers in addition to regulating minimum wage in post 22. Until the states amend the Constitution otherwise, and with the exception of the federal entities indicated in the Constituton’s Clauses 16 & 17 of Section 8 of Article I as examples, defining such things is entirely up to the individual states imo.
R P E A L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.