Employer's who took a person from full time to part time to avoid compliance with PPACA

PBulldog2 wrote:DT, what about employers hiring in people on a "not more than 29 hours per week" contract basis? Will they be allowed to keep doing this under ACA?

I had a manager tell me recently, "We can work him as much as we need him, but his contract says only 29 hours a week, so we save money by not having to provide benefits."

Needless to say, this stuck in my craw.

EDIT: Does the fact that the person was hired on a contract basis rather than as a part-time employee make a difference? Even though the contract was offered by the facility rather than a hiring agency?

bizguy wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:DT, what about employers hiring in people on a "not more than 29 hours per week" contract basis? Will they be allowed to keep doing this under ACA?

I had a manager tell me recently, "We can work him as much as we need him, but his contract says only 29 hours a week, so we save money by not having to provide benefits."

Needless to say, this stuck in my craw.

EDIT: Does the fact that the person was hired on a contract basis rather than as a part-time employee make a difference? Even though the contract was offered by the facility rather than a hiring agency?

When you say 'contract basis' do you mean he gets paid via a 1099 as opposed to a W2?

PBulldog2 wrote:

bizguy wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:DT, what about employers hiring in people on a "not more than 29 hours per week" contract basis? Will they be allowed to keep doing this under ACA?

I had a manager tell me recently, "We can work him as much as we need him, but his contract says only 29 hours a week, so we save money by not having to provide benefits."

Needless to say, this stuck in my craw.

EDIT: Does the fact that the person was hired on a contract basis rather than as a part-time employee make a difference? Even though the contract was offered by the facility rather than a hiring agency?

When you say 'contract basis' do you mean he gets paid via a 1099 as opposed to a W2?

W2. That's another reason it doesn't make sense.

doubtingthomas wrote:Employer's who cut hours to part time from full time to avoid health insurance probably will be in trouble with the ERISA law's.

http://eba.benefitnews.com/news/how-cutting-employee-hours-due-to-health-reform-may-infringe-federal-law-2733435-1.html?ET=ebabenefitnews:e7221:2489206a:&st=email&utm_so urce=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBA_inBrief_060513

doubtingthomas wrote:Well that's a tough one. I was reading the DOL website several months ago and there is a classification for a contract W-2 employee, but my understanding was it was a salaried arrangement between a company and an employee and yes they could work them as many hours as needed. This I don't know how will play, but somewhere in the PPACA I saw if the person has always been a 1099 contractor then that's probably going to be a pass on benefits, but if they are making them a 1099 just for the purpose of not offering the coverage then there may be a problem. Remember I am speaking of 50 plus employee's. Below know one has to offer anything.

Oh and bizguy is correct can't be both.

bizguy wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:

bizguy wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:DT, what about employers hiring in people on a "not more than 29 hours per week" contract basis? Will they be allowed to keep doing this under ACA?

I had a manager tell me recently, "We can work him as much as we need him, but his contract says only 29 hours a week, so we save money by not having to provide benefits."

Needless to say, this stuck in my craw.

EDIT: Does the fact that the person was hired on a contract basis rather than as a part-time employee make a difference? Even though the contract was offered by the facility rather than a hiring agency?

When you say 'contract basis' do you mean he gets paid via a 1099 as opposed to a W2?

W2. That's another reason it doesn't make sense.

What is the nature of the work? Generally speaking, he can't be a W2 employee and a 1099 independent contractor at the same time. Is the company paying their share of his payroll tax?

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

doubtingthomas wrote:Well that's a tough one. I was reading the DOL website several months ago and there is a classification for a contract W-2 employee, but my understanding was it was a salaried arrangement between a company and an employee and yes they could work them as many hours as needed. This I don't know how will play, but somewhere in the PPACA I saw if the person has always been a 1099 contractor then that's probably going to be a pass on benefits, but if they are making them a 1099 just for the purpose of not offering the coverage then there may be a problem. Remember I am speaking of 50 plus employee's. Below know one has to offer anything.

Oh and bizguy is correct can't be both.

What Obama doesn't understand is that private industry cant have deficit spending like he does himself.

bizguy wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:

bizguy wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:DT, what about employers hiring in people on a "not more than 29 hours per week" contract basis? Will they be allowed to keep doing this under ACA?

I had a manager tell me recently, "We can work him as much as we need him, but his contract says only 29 hours a week, so we save money by not having to provide benefits."

Needless to say, this stuck in my craw.

EDIT: Does the fact that the person was hired on a contract basis rather than as a part-time employee make a difference? Even though the contract was offered by the facility rather than a hiring agency?

When you say 'contract basis' do you mean he gets paid via a 1099 as opposed to a W2?

W2. That's another reason it doesn't make sense.

What is the nature of the work? Generally speaking, he can't be a W2 employee and a 1099 independent contractor at the same time. Is the company paying their share of his payroll tax?

bizguy wrote:Why not? I have been. Having a regular scheduled job while doing another re-portable job income on the side. Maybe not common, generally speaking.


Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant he couldn't work the same hours for the same employer and be considered a 1099 contractor and W2 employee at the same time.

bizguy wrote:
There are many employers that push the envelope when it comes to 1099 independent contractors. I see it frequently in one of my industries. If the employer controls when, where and how you work they should treat you and compensate you as an employee.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

bizguy wrote:
There are many employers that push the envelope when it comes to 1099 independent contractors. I see it frequently in one of my industries. If the employer controls when, where and how you work they should treat you and compensate you as an employee.

What I believe will happen is that independent contractor contracts being presented to the worker/contractor for signature agreement from the company office as the norm in the near future.

What you want and what you get are usually two different things.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIX0ZDqDljA

Markle wrote:What could go wrong with the IRS managing and examining your health insurance?

Millions are going to lose their coverage because their employer won't be able to afford the coverage required by ObamaCare. Surprise, surprise, remember that part where President Barack Hussein Obama promised if you liked your doctor you could keep him, and your cost wouldn't go up ONE DIME?

He lied.

doubtingthomas wrote:

Markle wrote:What could go wrong with the IRS managing and examining your health insurance?

Millions are going to lose their coverage because their employer won't be able to afford the coverage required by ObamaCare. Surprise, surprise, remember that part where President Barack Hussein Obama promised if you liked your doctor you could keep him, and your cost wouldn't go up ONE DIME?

He lied.

Yes and no: Before 3/23/2010 YES after you can still keep your doctor but not the plans. The network of doctors won't change and that never was up to obama it is an individual contract between health care providers and insurance company. Insurance companies that participate in the Federal Exchange here in Florida will sell the same plans off or on the exchange. Only 10 have applied to be in the exchange in Florida and 3 are Blue Cross companies, humana, aetna, cigna and then a few unknowns in southern Florida. Surprising united healthcare will not sell plans on the exchange. The only people that will go thru the exchange are one's that will qualify for a subsidy, otherwise if you purchase off the exchange the process stays the same. In the panhandle of Florida around 80% of people will qualify for a subsidy.

If anyone on this forum believes they will qualify for a subsidy don't call the number for the federal exchange the government will be advertising later on in the summer, call your insurance agent. Unknown to most people your agent can put you in the exchange instead of dealing with some jerk in a call center working for the government.

Another tidbit is, although you can request a paper application, this could delay processing of a couple of months of your insurance after it goes thru all the agency's involved. All agents thru their respective companies will have the internet tools to do this.

Although they will be looking at 2012 tax returns for 2014 to determine a subsidy you can change the estimation of your income for 2014 if you think you'll make less than you did in 2012 and receive a subsidy, but if you're cheating they will catch you in 2015 and you will be paying it back.