Will We See the 39 Hr Work Week?

[Yagents]

We all saw the news today regarding republicans attempt to pass a bill to increase the number of hours from 30, to 40 per week, for whom employers must provide coverage for if offering a group plan.

My question is, do you think it is easier for an employer to:

1. Reduce work hours from 40 down to 30?
or
2. Reduce work hours from 40 down to 39?

"Judy, congrats, you've been chosen as the employee of the year who gets 'early fridays' SPIFs, and from now on, you get off at 4pm on Fridays. Be sure to visit HC.gov soon for more info."

Does anybody think things through in that DC cesspool?

 

[somarco]

Does anybody think things through in that DC cesspool?

That'st rhetorical, right?

 

[AllenChicago]

Are there any other reasons (besides compensation) why an Employer would want to keep as many employees as possible under 40 hours?

 

[houcoogster]

Hey between Dems wanting to give $15 an hr minimum wage and the Pubs wanting to give everybody 40 hrs a week our economy should come roaring back.

 

[taterpeeler]

y'all don't get it..........

 

[sshafran]

y'all don't get it..........

'splain it to us then.

 

[bluediamond]

Are there any other reasons (besides compensation) why an Employer would want to keep as many employees as possible under 40 hours?

Payroll taxes and workman's comp.

 

[yorkriver1]

FTE's get employee benefits, under 40 hours don't.

Also, does it change the calculations for large employers fines for not offering Minimum Value health insurance? All of those skinny plans set up to avoid penalties, and if done well, the employee is excused to go to Marketplace/get subsidy if income qualifies them. Maybe some would be able to drop that scheme.

Employees sometimes can't read the legalese of the skinny plan to figure out they don't need to buy it. The recent one I read said something to the effect, you may do better by going to Marketplace where you may qualify for a subsidy.

Once an employee is unclear about the difference between a skinny plan and Marketplace, picks the skinny, and has a catastrophic claim, I would think employee benefits liability claims could appear.

 

[houcoogster]

There are a lot of reasons employers would want 39 hrs vs. 29 hr week.

1. Hiring cost is less.

2. Training cost is less.

3. Easier to manage 15 employees than 20

The Govt. would like 39 vs. 29 hrs bcuz they would dole out less subsidies.

 

[VolAgent]

We all saw the news today regarding republicans attempt to pass a bill to increase the number of hours from 30, to 40 per week, for whom employers must provide coverage for if offering a group plan.

My question is, do you think it is easier for an employer to:

1. Reduce work hours from 40 down to 30?
or
2. Reduce work hours from 40 down to 39?

"Judy, congrats, you've been chosen as the employee of the year who gets 'early fridays' SPIFs, and from now on, you get off at 4pm on Fridays. Be sure to visit HC.gov soon for more info."

Does anybody think things through in that DC cesspool?

Sure they did. That was the goal. Working an employee 39 hours a week is easy, and most employees won't complain, versus 30 hours a week.

This is a thank you gift from the GOP to business. Big business ponied up the money for election campaigns and now the GOP is paying it back through legislation.