Obamacare Mandate

[lostinblue 1,989]

CNSNews.com) – A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the Obamacare rule that says businesses with 50 or more workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

“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.)

That section, known as the employer mandate, requires any business with 50 or more full-time employees to provide at least the minimum level of government-defined health coverage to those employees.

In other words, a business must provide insurance if it has 50 or more employees working an average of just 30 hours per week, which is 10 hours per week fewer than the traditional 40-hour work week.

If an employer has 50 or more "full-time employees" and does not offer health insurance, it must pay a penalty per employee for each month it does not offer coverage.

The obscure provision recently reemerged in regulations issued by the IRS for how employers must account for which workers are full-time and which ones are not.

Under these standards, published in September, employers can choose a “look-back” period of between 3 and 12 months to measure if an employee has worked an average of 30 hours per week.

If an employee has worked 30 hours per week during this time, the person would count as a full-time employee for at least the next six months, regardless of how much they work, thus preventing employers from cutting hours to avoid the mandate.

In other words, an employer calculates the hours an employee works during at least a three-month period, determining if they employee has worked 30 hours or more per week on average.

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.

The IRS regulations do not apply to seasonal or temporary workers, only to regular employees.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-mandate-anyone-who-works-30-hour-week-now-full-time

[Teddy B 17,251]

CNSNews.com) – A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the Obamacare rule that says businesses with 50 or more workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

Replace the word utilize with the word manipulate and this makes much more sense.

[rade2rising 205]

This is good. Too many companies like to work their employees right up to the limit but not give them full time so they can avoid giving them full time benefits. Even at my work most PT folks work 30hrs a week. This is a win for the people. And as for small businesses plz stop crying and pay the benefits. stop trying to earn more by robbing your workers. cheap bastarrds.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Here is the full text...

http://www.law.corne...8=1#quicktabs-8

26 USC § 4980H - Shared responsibility for employers regarding health coverage

(a) Large employers not offering health coverage If— (1) any applicable large employer fails to offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A (2)) for any month, and (2) at least one full-time employee of the applicable large employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having enrolled for such month in a qualified health plan with respect to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid with respect to the employee, then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment equal to the product of the applicable payment amount and the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time employees during such month.

(b) Large employers offering coverage with employees who qualify for premium tax credits or cost-sharing reductions (1) In general If— (A) an applicable large employer offers to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A (2)) for any month, and (B) 1 or more full-time employees of the applicable large employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having enrolled for such month in a qualified health plan with respect to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid with respect to the employee, then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment equal to the product of the number of full-time employees of the applicable large employer described in subparagraph (B) for such month and an amount equal to 1/12 of $3,000.

(2) Overall limitation The aggregate amount of tax determined under paragraph (1) with respect to all employees of an applicable large employer for any month shall not exceed the product of the applicable payment amount and the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time employees during such month.

(3) Special rules for employers providing free choice vouchers No assessable payment shall be imposed under paragraph (1) for any month with respect to any employee to whom the employer provides a free choice voucher under section 10108 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for such month. ©

Definitions and special rules For purposes of this section—

(1) Applicable payment amount The term "applicable payment amount" means, with respect to any month, 1/12 of $2,000.

(2) Applicable large employer

(A) In general The term "applicable large employer" means, with respect to a calendar year, an employer who employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.

(B) Exemption for certain employers (i) In general An employer shall not be considered to employ more than 50 full-time employees if— (I) the employer's workforce exceeds 50 full-time employees for 120 days or fewer during the calendar year, and (II) the employees in excess of 50 employed during such 120-day period were seasonal workers. (ii) Definition of seasonal workers The term "seasonal worker" means a worker who performs labor or services on a seasonal basis as defined by the Secretary of Labor, including workers covered by section 500.20(s)(1) of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations and retail workers employed exclusively during holiday seasons. ©

Rules for determining employer size For purposes of this paragraph— (i) Application of aggregation rule for employers All persons treated as a single employer under subsection (b), ©, (m), or (o) ofsection 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as 1 employer. (ii) Employers not in existence in preceding year In the case of an employer which was not in existence throughout the preceding calendar year, the determination of whether such employer is an applicable large employer shall be based on the average number of employees that it is reasonably expected such employer will employ on business days in the current calendar year. (iii) Predecessors Any reference in this subsection to an employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of such employer.

(D) Application of employer size to assessable penalties (i) In general The number of individuals employed by an applicable large employer as full-time employees during any month shall be reduced by 30 solely for purposes of calculating— (I) the assessable payment under subsection (a), or (II) the overall limitation under subsection (b)(2). (ii) Aggregation In the case of persons treated as 1 employer under subparagraph ©(i), only 1 reduction under subclause (I) or (II) ^[1] shall be allowed with respect to such persons and such reduction shall be allocated among such persons ratably on the basis of the number of full-time employees employed by each such person.

(E) Full-time equivalents treated as full-time employees Solely for purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer under this paragraph, an employer shall, in addition to the number of full-time employees for any month otherwise determined, include for such month a number of full-time employees determined by dividing the aggregate number of hours of service of employees who are not full-time employees for the month by 120.

(3) Applicable premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction The term "applicable premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction" means— (A) any premium tax credit allowed under section 36B, (B) any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and © any advance payment of such credit or reduction under section 1412 of such Act.

(4) Full-time employee (A) In general 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.

(B) Hours of service The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall prescribe such regulations, rules, and guidance as may be necessary to determine the hours of service of an employee, including rules for the application of this paragraph to employees who are not compensated on an hourly basis.

(5) Inflation adjustment

(A) In general In the case of any calendar year after 2014, each of the dollar amounts in subsection (b) and paragraph (1) shall be increased by an amount equal to the product of— (i) such dollar amount, and (ii) the premium adjustment percentage (as defined in section 1302©(4) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) for the calendar year.

(B) Rounding If the amount of any increase under subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $10, such increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $10.

(6) Other definitions Any term used in this section which is also used in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act shall have the same meaning as when used in such Act.

(7) Tax nondeductible For denial of deduction for the tax imposed by this section, see section 275 (a)(6).

(d) Administration and procedure

(1) In general Any assessable payment provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.

(2) Time for payment The Secretary may provide for the payment of any assessable payment provided by this section on an annual, monthly, or other periodic basis as the Secretary may prescribe.

(3) Coordination with credits, etc. The Secretary shall prescribe rules, regulations, or guidance for the repayment of any assessable payment (including interest) if such payment is based on the allowance or payment of an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction with respect to an employee, such allowance or payment is subsequently disallowed, and the assessable payment would not have been required to be made but for such allowance or payment.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Gegel

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why is the assumption always that this impacts "small business"? My wife has been working p/t in retail for years now. Not for some small business but for a corporation. And like many other retail corporations, the one she works for keeps their staff short on hours so they don't owe them vacation pay, holiday pay or any type of benefit.

There are other retail corporations out there that do employ staff full time and do offer them a benefit package. So what we're doing here is an attempt at levelling the playing field at the level that's desriable - where people that go and work for a corporation don't get shafted by that corporation. And if these slave driving corporations can't compete on that level playing field, then they ought not to be in business. It's how the market works.

[rade2rising 205]

Why is the assumption always that this impacts "small business"? My wife has been working p/t in retail for years now. Not for some small business but for a corporation. And like many other retail corporations, the one she works for keeps their staff short on hours so they don't owe them vacation pay, holiday pay or any type of benefit.

There are other retail corporations out there that do employ staff full time and do offer them a benefit package. So what we're doing here is an attempt at levelling the playing field at the level that's desriable - where people that go and work for a corporation don't get shafted by that corporation. And if these slave driving corporations can't compete on that level playing field, then they ought not to be in business. It's how the market works.

Exactly

all big corporations use this tatic to save money. Its really sad.

[Karee 4,189]

It's easy really. If you don't like it, quit whining and find another job.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

It's easy really. If you don't like it, quit whining and find another job.

Yeah, there are quite a few people who aren't finding that "get another job" thing all that easy.

[Karee 4,189]

Yeah, there are quite a few people who aren't finding that "get another job" thing all that easy.

So forcing employers to pay more for benefits is going to create more jobs? Not likely.

[SMR 368]

What do you want to bet that most of these companies will just hire a couple more part timers and not let anyone work more than 29 hours? Now I understand; that it how Obamacare will create jobs and reduce unemployment. Genius.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Why is the assumption always that this impacts "small business"? My wife has been working p/t in retail for years now. Not for some small business but for a corporation. And like many other retail corporations, the one she works for keeps their staff short on hours so they don't owe them vacation pay, holiday pay or any type of benefit.

There are other retail corporations out there that do employ staff full time and do offer them a benefit package. So what we're doing here is an attempt at levelling the playing field at the level that's desriable - where people that go and work for a corporation don't get shafted by that corporation. And if these slave driving corporations can't compete on that level playing field, then they ought not to be in business. It's how the market works.

The assumption about small business being penalized is used as a scare tactic and it is unfounded, for the most of it.

I attended a meeting in my area to discuss small-business organizing with the big guys and working out insurance costs. To my surprise, most already offer some sort of benefit to their employees and almost all offer health insurance. What many forget is that small-business owners were themselves at some point employed by someone else, and they are the first to recognize the importance of health benefits.

If anything, most agree that the new law has already caused the insurance companies to start vying for their business and offering special rates and plans. Also any business owner - no matter the size - know that employee loyalty is a precious commodity. In the long run, keeping employees provided for properly pays in many areas of the business, from customer service all the way to inventory control.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Gegel

[Dakine10 5,452]

So forcing employers to pay more for benefits is going to create more jobs? Not likely.

Too bad if it comes to that. Healthcare reform was the perfect opportunity to get employers out of the healthcare equation all together.

[JohnR! 5,495]

What do you want to bet that most of these companies will just hire a couple more part timers and not let anyone work more than 29 hours? Now I understand; that it how Obamacare will create jobs and reduce unemployment. Genius.

Why would they do that?

Edited October 25, 2012 by Gegel

[JohnR! 5,495]

Too bad if it comes to that. Healthcare reform was the perfect opportunity to get employers out of the healthcare equation all together.

But then again, who is paying for the health insurance and/or healthcare of these employees currently?

[Karee 4,189]

Or in my case, they'll just ship more jobs to India. No pesky health care regulations there.