Business leaders have been quick to back the Save American Workers Act,
which Congress is positioned to pass, and which would increase the
number of hours employees have to work to qualify for employer-provided health insurance. The White House, however, threatened Wednesday to veto the bill. 
The Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama's signature health care reform law, requires large employers to provide health insurance for full-time employees or pay a penalty. It changes the definition of a full-time work week, however, from the traditional 40 hours a week to 30 hours a week so that more people can be covered. Critics say this could encourage employers to cut their employees' workweek to under 30 hours.
Industry members are anxious to use a 40-hour definition. They have been sending letters to Congress, and formed the More Time for Full Time Coalition, made up of partners that include the National Association of Convenience Stores, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the American Rental Association and the National Association of Theater Owners.
“This is a jobs issue, not a political issue,” Christine Pollack, vice president of government affairs at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, said in a statement. “Restoring the 40-hour work week is an important step toward protecting American jobs.”
But the AFL-CIO, which represents unions, is against the bill, saying it will result in lost work hours for 6.5 million workers.
"Raising the threshold will only move the cliff and actually increase employers' incentive to reduce workers' hours," William Samuel, the organization's director of government affairs, wrote in a letter to representatives. The group advocates making the threshold for coverage even lower, to 20 hours a week.
Business leaders say implementing a traditional 40-hour workweek would benefit employees through providing them with more hours, and therefore a higher income. Employers could then focus on growth and expansion rather than on restructuring their workers, advocates say. Nearly two-thirds of Americans currently have insurance under their employers.
The National Retail Federation also supports restoring a traditional 40-hour workweek. “[It] would benefit employers and employees,” David French, senior vice president for government relations at the National Retail Federation, said in a statement. “It would return power to employers to establish and maintain health care benefit eligibility standards, protect full-time employees and benefit hourly employees with more hours, more income and greater opportunity to advance to full-time employment.”
Led by a Republican Congress, which has been vocal about making alterations to the health law they had no part in voting for, the bill is expected to pass in Congress, but Obama has said that he would veto it. A House vote is expected Thursday, and a bill is expected to be introduced on the Senate side Wednesday.
Some Democrats see the bill as one of many attempts Republicans are making at pulling away portions of the Affordable Care Act, while others criticize the 30-hour rule. The House bill was introduced with bipartisan support.
Business leaders say the rule is crippling, forcing them to restructure their workforce to make up for lost costs. They say that the law will result in a nation of part-time workers with multiple jobs.
Most retailers traditionally used an hourly or salaried workforce designation, not full-time or part-time, which reflects employees' desire for flexible hours and a manager's need to staff up a store during busy times, according to the Retail Industry Leaders Associations. "Many Americans are drawn to part-time jobs with flexible hours to suit their personal needs," the More Time for Full Time Coalition wrote to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Lanhee Chen from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University testified before the House Committee on Ways and Means last year that he projected the rule would put 2.6 million Americans at risk of having their hours cut. It also would disproportionately affect women, he said, finding in his study that 63 percent of those who may lose their hours are female. Among types of jobs, the analysis found that retail and restaurant employees would be most affected.
"The ACA was passed to help the very people that the 30-hour definition hurts," John McClelland, vice president of government affairs for the American Rental Association said in a statement.
The White House responded to these types of allegations Wednesday in a statement saying that there is no evidence the rule has caused a broad shift to part-time work, the Associated Press reported.
Academics do not agree on what the fallout of the rule will be. It became enforceable for the first time in 2015, after the Obama administration delayed it a year. Regardless of whether employers are the ones paying for health insurance, however, someone will have to foot the bill of covering uninsured Americans – and it is likely to be taxpayers, government economists find.
The Congressional Budget Office, which conducts economic analysis of legislation, last year evaluated the bill, finding it could cause companies to shift their employees' health care costs to taxpayers, resulting in a projected increase in the federal deficit of $45.7 billion during the next decade. Still, this latest projection was significantly lower than the projection from months earlier, which put deficit estimates at $73.7 billion. CBO attributed the cause of the $28 billion decrease to a finding that showed a significantly smaller number of workers than was previously estimated would be affected.
In the earlier estimation, CBO also found that between 500,000 and 1 million people would be moved into Medicaid or onto health exchanges, and 500,000 more would wind up without insurance. The later report did not make projections about the number of uninsured.
Projections in the budget deficit come in part from the amount that the government would lose in collected penalties if the workweek were increased to 40 hours. Also, the government would have to pick up the cost of covering employees who do not receive a health plan from their employer. Those who don't have health insurance would have the option of selecting government-subsidized coverage on insurance exchanges, or could go on Medicaid, the government-funded health program for the poorest Americans.
The Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama's signature health care reform law, requires large employers to provide health insurance for full-time employees or pay a penalty. It changes the definition of a full-time work week, however, from the traditional 40 hours a week to 30 hours a week so that more people can be covered. Critics say this could encourage employers to cut their employees' workweek to under 30 hours.
Industry members are anxious to use a 40-hour definition. They have been sending letters to Congress, and formed the More Time for Full Time Coalition, made up of partners that include the National Association of Convenience Stores, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the American Rental Association and the National Association of Theater Owners.
“This is a jobs issue, not a political issue,” Christine Pollack, vice president of government affairs at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, said in a statement. “Restoring the 40-hour work week is an important step toward protecting American jobs.”
But the AFL-CIO, which represents unions, is against the bill, saying it will result in lost work hours for 6.5 million workers.
"Raising the threshold will only move the cliff and actually increase employers' incentive to reduce workers' hours," William Samuel, the organization's director of government affairs, wrote in a letter to representatives. The group advocates making the threshold for coverage even lower, to 20 hours a week.
Business leaders say implementing a traditional 40-hour workweek would benefit employees through providing them with more hours, and therefore a higher income. Employers could then focus on growth and expansion rather than on restructuring their workers, advocates say. Nearly two-thirds of Americans currently have insurance under their employers.
The National Retail Federation also supports restoring a traditional 40-hour workweek. “[It] would benefit employers and employees,” David French, senior vice president for government relations at the National Retail Federation, said in a statement. “It would return power to employers to establish and maintain health care benefit eligibility standards, protect full-time employees and benefit hourly employees with more hours, more income and greater opportunity to advance to full-time employment.”
Led by a Republican Congress, which has been vocal about making alterations to the health law they had no part in voting for, the bill is expected to pass in Congress, but Obama has said that he would veto it. A House vote is expected Thursday, and a bill is expected to be introduced on the Senate side Wednesday.
Some Democrats see the bill as one of many attempts Republicans are making at pulling away portions of the Affordable Care Act, while others criticize the 30-hour rule. The House bill was introduced with bipartisan support.
Business leaders say the rule is crippling, forcing them to restructure their workforce to make up for lost costs. They say that the law will result in a nation of part-time workers with multiple jobs.
Most retailers traditionally used an hourly or salaried workforce designation, not full-time or part-time, which reflects employees' desire for flexible hours and a manager's need to staff up a store during busy times, according to the Retail Industry Leaders Associations. "Many Americans are drawn to part-time jobs with flexible hours to suit their personal needs," the More Time for Full Time Coalition wrote to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Lanhee Chen from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University testified before the House Committee on Ways and Means last year that he projected the rule would put 2.6 million Americans at risk of having their hours cut. It also would disproportionately affect women, he said, finding in his study that 63 percent of those who may lose their hours are female. Among types of jobs, the analysis found that retail and restaurant employees would be most affected.
"The ACA was passed to help the very people that the 30-hour definition hurts," John McClelland, vice president of government affairs for the American Rental Association said in a statement.
The White House responded to these types of allegations Wednesday in a statement saying that there is no evidence the rule has caused a broad shift to part-time work, the Associated Press reported.
Academics do not agree on what the fallout of the rule will be. It became enforceable for the first time in 2015, after the Obama administration delayed it a year. Regardless of whether employers are the ones paying for health insurance, however, someone will have to foot the bill of covering uninsured Americans – and it is likely to be taxpayers, government economists find.
The Congressional Budget Office, which conducts economic analysis of legislation, last year evaluated the bill, finding it could cause companies to shift their employees' health care costs to taxpayers, resulting in a projected increase in the federal deficit of $45.7 billion during the next decade. Still, this latest projection was significantly lower than the projection from months earlier, which put deficit estimates at $73.7 billion. CBO attributed the cause of the $28 billion decrease to a finding that showed a significantly smaller number of workers than was previously estimated would be affected.
In the earlier estimation, CBO also found that between 500,000 and 1 million people would be moved into Medicaid or onto health exchanges, and 500,000 more would wind up without insurance. The later report did not make projections about the number of uninsured.
Projections in the budget deficit come in part from the amount that the government would lose in collected penalties if the workweek were increased to 40 hours. Also, the government would have to pick up the cost of covering employees who do not receive a health plan from their employer. Those who don't have health insurance would have the option of selecting government-subsidized coverage on insurance exchanges, or could go on Medicaid, the government-funded health program for the poorest Americans.
0 comments:
Post a Comment