Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    island gypsy's Avatar
    island gypsy Posts: 1, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #1

    Jan 21, 2015, 04:25 PM
    ACA
    Why would employer reduce a 31 hour per week to 30 hour saying it is required by the ACA, Sounds confusing and an attempt to save money. Anyone have an opinion?
    AK lawyer's Avatar
    AK lawyer Posts: 12,592, Reputation: 977
    Expert
     
    #2

    Jan 22, 2015, 09:41 AM
    It's simple: the so-called "Affordable Care Act" penalizes employers for having full-time employees (although I thought it was 40 hours per week, not 30). So instead of paying the additional tax (tax, not penalty, as held by SCOTUS), employers are compelled to reduce their employees to less hours per week.

    And of course it's an attempt to save money. You have a problem with that?
    catonsville's Avatar
    catonsville Posts: 894, Reputation: 91
    Senior Member
     
    #3

    Jan 22, 2015, 10:00 AM
    @AK Lawyer thank you. That made me laugh.
    And of course it's an attempt to save money. You have a problem with that?
    joypulv's Avatar
    joypulv Posts: 21,593, Reputation: 2941
    current pert
     
    #4

    Jan 22, 2015, 10:54 AM
    Your employer and others may be confused. The CURRENT ACA wording is that large employers have to cover insurance unless you are UNDER 30 hours. The 40 hour bill didn't pass the House on Jan 8 anyway.
    I don't see how the change has any effect on anything but 1 hour of wages. It would have to be under 30 hours to be relevant to the ACA. And ACA doesn't 'require' anything. They do penalize employers who don't comply. So at 30 hours or 31 hours, if they are a big enough employee, you should still have ACA under them.

    You must have one dumb employer, or personnel person. Better keep an eye on all your paychecks and so on.
    OR they are lying and just want to reduce you by one hour. Which they can do.
    AK lawyer's Avatar
    AK lawyer Posts: 12,592, Reputation: 977
    Expert
     
    #5

    Jan 22, 2015, 11:50 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by joypulv
    ... I don't see how the change has any effect on anything but 1 hour of wages. It would have to be under 30 hours to be relevant to the ACA. And ACA doesn't 'require' anything. They do penalize employers who don't comply. So at 30 hours or 31 hours, if they are a big enough employee, you should still have ACA under them. ...
    It's a lot more than merely one hour of wages. It appears that OP's employer is not working any employee for more hours per week than 29.99 (or whatever) hours per week. That would amount to at least 10 hours per week for every employee. It is a big deal. It is, in effect, a penalty for having full-time employees. So much for the lie about Democrats being supportive of the "middle class". Now many "middle class" workers are going to be effectively forced to have several part-time jobs.
    joypulv's Avatar
    joypulv Posts: 21,593, Reputation: 2941
    current pert
     
    #6

    Jan 22, 2015, 12:30 PM
    AK, huh? I'm talking about this one employee. As far as I can see, all that is being changed is that his or her wage went from 31 to 30 hours. That changes nothing regarding ACA.
    I can't even figure out what you are saying. Where do 10 hours come from, and who said anything about every employee?
    Plus I took this literally - he said 30, not 29.99.

    [I may have to quit. Just bought a new computer and am forced to log in for every answer I write.]
    AK lawyer's Avatar
    AK lawyer Posts: 12,592, Reputation: 977
    Expert
     
    #7

    Jan 22, 2015, 01:02 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by joypulv
    Plus I took this literally - he said 30, not 29.99.
    My point is the employer is changing its workforce from full-time (40+ hours per week) to less than a certain number of hours per week. I don't know if that cutoff is less than 30, exactly 30, or whatever; doesn't matter.

    But you are right; OP did say he/she previously had 31 hours per week. It's not clear why that was but the fact remains that the employer is reducing employees to under that cut-off, whatever it is exactly.
    joypulv's Avatar
    joypulv Posts: 21,593, Reputation: 2941
    current pert
     
    #8

    Jan 22, 2015, 03:10 PM
    Except that he or she never mentions 40 hours. The exact ACA definition of full time is 30 hours and over.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,104, Reputation: 10852
    Expert
     
    #9

    Jan 22, 2015, 04:43 PM
    May as well get facts,

    Final ACA Employer Mandate Rules Issued; Regulations Phase In Some Key Provisions | Bloomberg BNA

    And we have this

    Obamacare Not Actually Causing Companies To Cut Worker Hours: Survey

    Hardly middle class job employers. And the attempt to raise the threshold of fulltime to 40 hours failed in the congress.
    joypulv's Avatar
    joypulv Posts: 21,593, Reputation: 2941
    current pert
     
    #10

    Jan 23, 2015, 04:14 AM
    I didn't provide links to the facts but my facts above were correct.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

ACA - Next Challenge [ 111 Answers ]

George Will (May 2 column)says that the Supreme Court will have no choice but to declare the ACA unconstitutional if another challenge comes to them--if I read his latest column accurately. And he also says (I think) that their previous ruling that the ACA was not a mandate that citizens must...

The ACA, blah, blah, blahhh [ 879 Answers ]

Hello: Do I NEED to ask a question?? excon

ACA tax Penalty [ 0 Answers ]

I'm on Medicare. My wife is uninsured and we can't find affordable plans through the Marketplace. We won't be purchasing health insurance. If we file seperatly my wife makes 10,000 all in social secuity. In Oklahoma this is too hig to qualify for Medicaid but too low to to purchase a policy through...


View more questions Search