hey come on 30 hours has always been full time work - hasn't it?? Barack
and Joe say yes - must be true.
I would like to veto this guy to Mars - a one way ticket!!!
Maybe I have been out of the loop but ever since I could remember if a person
works 40 hours a week they are a full time worker. Even when I worked 30 hours I
was declared a part time worker. I have to agree with the House on this one.
Obama cannot veto a definition of the 40 hour work week as full time and already
exist in the federal labor act of 1938 that is the defining law of working
conditions and employment standards of the American citizens. Obama
may be able to change or think he can create labor laws for illegl undocumented
foreign natioanls but the federal labor act of 1938 defines most of the laws on
income, wages, hours, job descriptions as salary and wage earners. This law also
prohibits the employment of undocumented illegal aliens, use of green cards in
farmers fields. The federal labor law act is why migration laws are being
targeted to affect the federal labor act of 1938 which says legal and documented
immigrants can be employed.Obama cannot veto a law that is already
in place and has been in place since 1938 with this definition of a work week.
Obama's dictatorship is being challenged and the republicans finally found
this definition to remind the Obama care advocates and business owners that
Obama's cannot veto existing laws.Its time that the federal
labor law act of 1938 receive more publicity and exposure in Utah as the only
state labor law.
Is the law at fault, or are the employers sacrificing their employees at the
alter of obscene profits? Call it greed? Every move like this only harms those
that need insurance the most like service industry and labor employees. Not
professional and politicians. This is one more reason the shift should be
to a Single Payer System like the rest of the modernized countries.
In the 30 years I've been working, 30 hours a week has always been the
threshold for benefits to kick in. 40 hours a week is only the threshold for
overtime. What this House bill will do is guarantee the workers who are working
more than 30 but less than 40 will lose their benefits.
I'm sure the wise designers of Obamacare thought that this clause of the
bill would keep the companies from reducing workers to 39 hours and then
claiming they were part-time. And since most of the dismissive white house
people have never worked real jobs or been in the private sector they
couldn't imagine what a company owner would do to keep his/her business
afloat, they just didn't see the unintended consequence of pushing more and
more people into poverty.
When I was growing up (I'm 64), full-time meant 40 hours per week.
Nowadays, corporations use 35 hours, because that is the threshhold where they
have to start paying benefits. If you work 20 hours per week (or 10), you are
still not considered to be unemployed by the government bean-counters. You
can't eat as well as you should, but you are still gainfully employed. It
seems to me that this '40 hours'is mainly a political ploy, or a
political toy. Meanwhile, my daughter can't get scheduled for over 30
hours per week, because Walmart, Price Chopper, Target, etc, protect their
profits by hiring two people at 20 hours rather than one at 40.
Just another attempt to gut the ACA. These Republicans sure have the best
interests of working folks in mind don't they? More and more I'm
reminded of the bumper sticker I saw many years ago: "The working man or
woman who votes Republican is like the chicken who votes for Col. Sanders."
Amen to that!
Until the crucial Fall elections, there will continue to be sniping between the
House and White House. I believe that it is important to balance the "ship
of state" by electing enough Republican senators to allow the Senate to be a
wedge against the far left policies of the president. It will then be important
to see the response by conservative Democrats such as Joe Manchin and Mary
Landrieu. The country has to be brought back to a middle-of-the road attitude
in preparation for the presidential campaign for 2016 which will start as soon
as the votes are counted in the Fall.
News headline: Large Elephant Seen Trampling American Workers
You can keep your president if you want him!
Hey My2Cents – You think so huh? "Obama cannot veto a definition of
the 40 hour work week as full time and already exist in the federal labor act of
1938?"Wrong and wronger. The FLSA of 1938 does NOT define full
time work. And Obama can and should veto the routine obstructionism of the
Tea-Party -infested House of Representatives.The FLSA did establish
the federal minimum wage however.Please feel free to look it up.Prior to ObamaCare, full time work for any particular job was defined by
the employer, but things change for the good. That’s called progress.
Enjoy it.BU52 – Your Republican representatives had plenty of
opportunity to provide input into what would go into the ACA, but they refused
to do so. Instead, they refused to participate in designing the bill, deciding
instead to grandstand by loudly and boisterously opposing it. In regard to the
ACA, they purposefully REFUSED to represent you. You really cannot
blame Obama or ObamaCare for the poor representation your duly elected
representatives provided to you. If I were you, I’d vote Democrat next
Corporations and the wealthy, proped up by the GOP, will always stay one step
ahead of liberals. You can't legislate decency.
The 1938 law is irrelevant since there's two different definitions being
used. (That's why you don't see the 31st hour being overtime pay).
This is what I like to see from our government. They should be debating policies
and laws and should be trying to Constitutionally push them forward, as opposed
to Executive Orders and censoring anyone that disagrees with the President.
If the Republican House is looking out for full time workers, why did Bush give
Tax breaks to Americans who make over $250,000 per year? i.e. if
'trickle-down' economics worked, why did Bush need to bail out wall
'...as opposed to Executive Orders and censoring anyone that disagrees with
the President.' Our current President has the least amount of
executive orders, in the last six Presidents. Maybe if our congress
did not Filibuster 400 pieces of legislation or shut down the government...?
"BU52 – Your Republican representatives had plenty of opportunity to
provide input into what would go into the ACA, but they refused to do so.
Instead, they refused to participate in designing the bill, deciding instead to
grandstand by loudly and boisterously opposing it. In regard to the ACA, they
purposefully REFUSED to represent you.You really cannot blame Obama
or ObamaCare for the poor representation your duly elected representatives
provided to you. If I were you, I’d vote Democrat next time."First of all, they were certainly not invited to provide input. Do you
remember how the whole thing unfolded, with all the back-door deals and the
locked door discussions, or did all that take place before you were born? In
Obama's own words, he said Republicans can go for the ride, but have to sit
in the back seat.And was it that the Republicans were so loud in
opposing it, or was it that they realized that Americans didn't want it?
When more than 60% of Americans are opposed to a law and the Democrats pass it
anyway, who is really the party of poor representation?
The ACA requirement is to insure that more people are covered. Most employers
are trying to duck covering their employees whether the full time requirement
was 1 hour a week or 100 hours. The law should just say cover your employees
whether they work one hour or one hundred. Health care should have been in the
US Constitution when it was written.I can't wait for the day I see a
medical disaster strike a anti health care family. I have a 25 year old friend
that refused to pay $26.00 a month for health care. He broke his ankle on a dirt
bike and the emergency room bill was $1500.00. That's 60 months of coverage
for one accident. Insurance for the young is a no brainer. Unless you live in
Hey Riverton Cougar - Obama's "go for the ride" statement was made
in October 2010, but the ACA was passed in March of 2010.. . . So
unless the time space-time continuum does loop-de-loops, your argument is not at
all valid.Republicans had PLENTY of opportunity to say what went
into the Affordable Care Act. Obama very much wanted their input. But
Republicans were determined to show Obama that he could not be the transitional
President he wanted to be. Republicans have been operating out of pure spite for
many years now.It's not Obama's fault, and it's not
the Democrats' fault that Republicans completely shirk their
responsibilities, and would rather concentrate on fouling things up instead of
being constructive.It's easy to cause damage, and the
Republicans joyfully do that. They are good at it. It's much more difficult
to build and implement good governance, and that is the forte of the
Democrats.Republicans need to just stay our of the way.Thanks for reaching out.
There is no conflict laws in place defining the 40 hour work week, Obama's
habit of using executive orders to contradict existing laws are at fault and
wrong. Obama's 30 hour work week was Tricky Dicky terrorism to undermine
workers rights. It has proven more beneficial for workers to earn less than be
forced to pay taxation for Obamacare they can't use.Then there
are state laws and OSHA that add to the FLSA including a higher minimum wage and
benefits if a state wishes to do so. But the 40 hour work week was established
by law to protect workers from physical and psychological stresses of
problematic losses of life and injuries for workers and 84 hour work week.Under working was also included to prevent employers from using scab and
cheap illegal labor to deny americans of their right to fair pay for fair work
and job benefits for loyalty to business so they can make a profit. NAFTA granted corporations and industry to desert americans to move their
business to slave nations and non existent labor cost, i.e. china, mexico,
Korea, hong kong, taiwan, wherever labor had no protections from corporate
In a time when the Elephant trumpets and the Donkey brays loudly, it seems
appropriate to ponder the following from Washington’s farewell address:
“However combinations or associations of the above description [i.e.
parties or factions of various types described in the address]may now and then
answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to
become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be
enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins
of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to
unjust dominion.” (Read the whole address.) We should all remember that
political parties are private organizations, not governing bodies. Whether we
belong or are independent, we are all first of all Americans. The name calling,
accusations, diatribe, insults, castigations, need to come to a halt. If we
can't disagree without being disagreeable, Washington's warnings may
come to fruition, even more so than they have at times in the past 200+ years.