Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to get a job where I can dilly dally around for part of the day and make a half-way decent salary.

My experience is that's it's boring and soul crushing. To know you only have two hrs of work a day but have to sit in a chair for 8, not seeing your kids..

It helps if you have an office, where your computer screen can't be seen.

(Longtime occupant of a job that has nowhere near enough to keep me busy, but is crucial to the company, pays great, and has great benefits.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to get a job where I can dilly dally around for part of the day and make a half-way decent salary.

My experience is that's it's boring and soul crushing. To know you only have two hrs of work a day but have to sit in a chair for 8, not seeing your kids..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really depends on what your employer classifies as full time. I'm a nurse working 3 12 hr shifts a week (36 hrs) and that is considered full time. Starting Jan 1 they are also considering those working 60 hrs per pay period as full time as well.

How does the ACA fit into all this? I know someone who previously worked about 30-35 hrs per week (varies due to nature of job) but now can't go over 30 (I think) or their employer will be fined for not providing health insurance (or so they've been told). The ACA regs confuse me honestly.

The ACA requirement is 30 hours per week. But there is a formula to determine if they were consistently working 30+ hours per week. Your friend is probably officially capped at 29 hours, with the expectation there will be some times they exceed this.

So theoretically then it is possible to be considered full time and get benefits with a 35 hr workweek.

Yes. If you have 50+ employees, you need to offer benefits to employees working 30 or more hours per week. If you don't for a few people, you could be subjected to a penalty if the employee gets subsidized covered on the exchange instead. And if you cut out too many people, then you get hit with a penalty for every full timer (30+ hours employee).

Not exactly. "Full time" is an employment status set by each employer. The ACA's hour mandate does not designate your employment status. For example a company may state that only FT employees (defined as working at least 40 hours per week) are eligible for dental, vision, FSA, vacation benefits. If they have at least 50 employees they will have to offer you medical insurance but they do not need to offer other benefits or access to programs deemed applicable to FT employees.

Yes, to clarify - "benefit" means health care. The other ancillary benefits are not covered by the ACA so an employer can cover any group of employees it wants. I would think, though, the big issue is health insurance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really depends on what your employer classifies as full time. I'm a nurse working 3 12 hr shifts a week (36 hrs) and that is considered full time. Starting Jan 1 they are also considering those working 60 hrs per pay period as full time as well.

How does the ACA fit into all this? I know someone who previously worked about 30-35 hrs per week (varies due to nature of job) but now can't go over 30 (I think) or their employer will be fined for not providing health insurance (or so they've been told). The ACA regs confuse me honestly.

The ACA requirement is 30 hours per week. But there is a formula to determine if they were consistently working 30+ hours per week. Your friend is probably officially capped at 29 hours, with the expectation there will be some times they exceed this.

So theoretically then it is possible to be considered full time and get benefits with a 35 hr workweek.

Yes. If you have 50+ employees, you need to offer benefits to employees working 30 or more hours per week. If you don't for a few people, you could be subjected to a penalty if the employee gets subsidized covered on the exchange instead. And if you cut out too many people, then you get hit with a penalty for every full timer (30+ hours employee).

Not exactly. "Full time" is an employment status set by each employer. The ACA's hour mandate does not designate your employment status. For example a company may state that only FT employees (defined as working at least 40 hours per week) are eligible for dental, vision, FSA, vacation benefits. If they have at least 50 employees they will have to offer you medical insurance but they do not need to offer other benefits or access to programs deemed applicable to FT employees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really depends on what your employer classifies as full time. I'm a nurse working 3 12 hr shifts a week (36 hrs) and that is considered full time. Starting Jan 1 they are also considering those working 60 hrs per pay period as full time as well.

How does the ACA fit into all this? I know someone who previously worked about 30-35 hrs per week (varies due to nature of job) but now can't go over 30 (I think) or their employer will be fined for not providing health insurance (or so they've been told). The ACA regs confuse me honestly.

The ACA requirement is 30 hours per week. But there is a formula to determine if they were consistently working 30+ hours per week. Your friend is probably officially capped at 29 hours, with the expectation there will be some times they exceed this.

So theoretically then it is possible to be considered full time and get benefits with a 35 hr workweek.

Yes. If you have 50+ employees, you need to offer benefits to employees working 30 or more hours per week. If you don't for a few people, you could be subjected to a penalty if the employee gets subsidized covered on the exchange instead. And if you cut out too many people, then you get hit with a penalty for every full timer (30+ hours employee).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really depends on what your employer classifies as full time. I'm a nurse working 3 12 hr shifts a week (36 hrs) and that is considered full time. Starting Jan 1 they are also considering those working 60 hrs per pay period as full time as well.

How does the ACA fit into all this? I know someone who previously worked about 30-35 hrs per week (varies due to nature of job) but now can't go over 30 (I think) or their employer will be fined for not providing health insurance (or so they've been told). The ACA regs confuse me honestly.

The ACA requirement is 30 hours per week. But there is a formula to determine if they were consistently working 30+ hours per week. Your friend is probably officially capped at 29 hours, with the expectation there will be some times they exceed this.

So theoretically then it is possible to be considered full time and get benefits with a 35 hr workweek.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't 9-5 already a 35-hour week? Or do you only get a 30 min lunch, which makes it 37.5?

And you can't do 8-4 instead?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really depends on what your employer classifies as full time. I'm a nurse working 3 12 hr shifts a week (36 hrs) and that is considered full time. Starting Jan 1 they are also considering those working 60 hrs per pay period as full time as well.

How does the ACA fit into all this? I know someone who previously worked about 30-35 hrs per week (varies due to nature of job) but now can't go over 30 (I think) or their employer will be fined for not providing health insurance (or so they've been told). The ACA regs confuse me honestly.

The ACA requirement is 30 hours per week. But there is a formula to determine if they were consistently working 30+ hours per week. Your friend is probably officially capped at 29 hours, with the expectation there will be some times they exceed this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really depends on what your employer classifies as full time. I'm a nurse working 3 12 hr shifts a week (36 hrs) and that is considered full time. Starting Jan 1 they are also considering those working 60 hrs per pay period as full time as well.

How does the ACA fit into all this? I know someone who previously worked about 30-35 hrs per week (varies due to nature of job) but now can't go over 30 (I think) or their employer will be fined for not providing health insurance (or so they've been told). The ACA regs confuse me honestly.

Anonymous wrote:So many whiny first world problems folks on this thread...unbearable bunch.

Anonymous wrote:

OP here. Yes, only 30 minutes for lunch (and they CLOCK it) so it's 9-5, 40 hours.
They increased my workload. I handled it. I wish I were indispensable, but of course--no one is. Or as Charles de Gaulle said, "The graveyards are full of indispensable people."
I dream of working in government. I know very talented, hard-working people who do, and who are rewarded with more flexibility than my company allows or has ever allowed. They work very, very hard and get abused (by the media, etc.) all the time. Of course, there are slackers, as there are anywhere, but if you want to see hard workers: check out the national park service, the social security administration, the federal trade commission, the national endowment for the arts, etc. I would love to join their ranks. Sigh.
There might soon be a change in management --everyone is on edge. I'm hoping it might be someone who understands what it's like to be a working mom of a young child.
Why does the workplace in this country make it so difficult to be a good mother and a good worker? It's HARD here. It used to be more balanced, I think--but now it's "lean in" or go home.

Oh. So you really only work a 37.5/hr week. We are expected to be at the desk from 9-6pm with a one hour lunch. I'm having a hard time thinking you have a difficult life if you actually get to clock out at 5pm.

Honestly, your last sentences are really histrionic. Working 40 hrs a week is not at all "leaning in" and hardly a challenge to "balance". It's actually a very normal and manageable schedule for FT workers. It sounds like you want to work PT. No problem with that, but don't compare yourself to the hard workers at NPS, SSA, or NEA. They don't clock out at 37.5 and whine about want 35 (or 32.5, which is what you really want). They do their jobs. If you want to join their ranks, let go of the idea of working less and be a responsible parent.

---single mom who has always worked 50+hrs a week because that is what it takes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I think there have been a lot of studies that show that more hours does not equal more productive. So if you want to brag about sitting at your desk for 50 hrs, good for you. But to think your per hour productivity is more than someone who works less is likely not true.

+1 Spare me the macho crap DCUM. You're all a bunch of posers.