- Staff
- #1
How Cutting Employee Hours Due to Health Reform May Infringe Federal Law
- Thread starter Sam
- Start date
sam, all erisas are health plans but not all health plans are erisas... I stopped reading after I read that crock line stating all health plans are erisa unless I misread it
It's a very interesting article, and an angle that I kind of expected. I didn't know about the specific section of law that may pertain to this issue, but I kind of suspected that someone would say a business cannot lower their employees' hours to circumvent the law. After all, they are now saying that groups cannot change their plan date to delay implementation of the law's 2014 provisions. They are claiming that a valid business reason must be used to change the effective date, and circumventing a law is not a valid reason. But, as a NAHU spokesperson said in a recent NAHU meeting I attended, reducing costs is a valid business reason. That valid business reason would also apply to the strategy of changing hours to part-time. So, where does that argument end? Probably with a well-known court case, with some high profile employer being the scapegoat.
- 3,384
California has a bill in Senate now in process to penalize any employer who cuts hours or wages to avoid Obamacare or send employees to Medi-Cal.
I am assuming that this thread started because of my comment to HIC about cutting hours. A couple of things, in no particular order.
Cutting of hours to avoid PPACA requirements is being done all over the country. Pick up any newspaper and you will see part-time instructors at colleges complaining, Darden restaurants, and more. While Davidson's comments are technically correct, trying to prove and enforce is another thing all together. And yes, costs as a legitimate reason has been upheld in the past.
Sam...I don't understand your comment regarding ERISA, so let me take a stab at it. ERISA Title 1 applies to Health and Welfare Benefits, specifically reporting, disclosure, fiduciary, administration/enforcement, cobra, hipaa, fmla, newborn, mental health, and womens health and cancer. A Health and Welfare benefit plan is defined as; a plan/fund/program, established or maintained by an employer, and established to provide welfare benefits to participants and beneficiaries. So this includes health, dental, vision, fsa, hra's, add, group term, std, ltd, wellness, voluntary benefits in a 125, and I am sure I am missing something else. However, two types of employers can be exempted from ERISA, churches and govt. There are some requirements for them to meet, but it is very easy.
Ann has a good thought on the future, a court case. I have been saying this all along and predict that some angry employee will even sue based on discrimination.
Hope this helps.
Cutting of hours to avoid PPACA requirements is being done all over the country. Pick up any newspaper and you will see part-time instructors at colleges complaining, Darden restaurants, and more. While Davidson's comments are technically correct, trying to prove and enforce is another thing all together. And yes, costs as a legitimate reason has been upheld in the past.
Sam...I don't understand your comment regarding ERISA, so let me take a stab at it. ERISA Title 1 applies to Health and Welfare Benefits, specifically reporting, disclosure, fiduciary, administration/enforcement, cobra, hipaa, fmla, newborn, mental health, and womens health and cancer. A Health and Welfare benefit plan is defined as; a plan/fund/program, established or maintained by an employer, and established to provide welfare benefits to participants and beneficiaries. So this includes health, dental, vision, fsa, hra's, add, group term, std, ltd, wellness, voluntary benefits in a 125, and I am sure I am missing something else. However, two types of employers can be exempted from ERISA, churches and govt. There are some requirements for them to meet, but it is very easy.
Ann has a good thought on the future, a court case. I have been saying this all along and predict that some angry employee will even sue based on discrimination.
Hope this helps.
- 15,041
Sounds like soon all that will be left in California will be Silicon Valley, businesses that serve their employees and government employees. Why would any business stay in California if they could relocate elsewhere? They weather can't be that good.
- 1,896
While I don't disagree with you, the "Everyone else was doing it so I did it too!" defense doesn't always work - trust me, I've used it in a much different situation before.
While I don't disagree with you, the "Everyone else was doing it so I did it too!" defense doesn't always work - trust me, I've used it in a much different situation before.
I agree with you, but it's going on. That's why a court case in the future will probably settle the issue.
- 1,896
My view is that I really would prefer it to be someone else's E&O on the line, rather than mine, in that court case.
Similar threads
