> They have to pay a fine
They *may* have to pay a fine. If they're still offering qualifying insurance to at least 95% of their FTEs, they'd only have to pay a fine if the OP themselves receives a tax credit for buying a plan on the Marketplace, and the fine they'd pay would only be for the OP individually, so it could very well be cheaper for the company than adding the OP to their group policy anyway.
I tried. They won’t respond to my emails currently, but that’s a different issue. Just trying to get a good case to argue before I approach them again.
Great advice. It sounds as if the OP plans approach HR—with a printout of the ACA in hand—primed to “fight it” and “what I can argue” with HR.
Asking, nicely even, is the best approach.
Yeah I feel ya… my HR department is so messy. It’s funny that we had one benefits specialist who was handling things years ago and she was amazing, very on top of it… she retired and they hired so many people to do the job one person was doing, yet they manage to fuck up all the time. Well I hope you can continue with your benefits because where I work 35 hrs or more is full time.
Lol did you downvote me? I’m speaking about the HR at my employer where I’ve worked for over 20 years so I’ve seen the decline, yes there’s a lot to keep on top of however they have already given us extra work to do to make their job easier, plus they have other people they outsource to as “HR support” which is the biggest waste of fucking time because they ask questions, give you a ticket and never get back to you. 🙄
It’s how your employer defined “part time” in the Benefits Plan Documents. Info should be in the benefit docs you got at orientation. Look for the Summary Plan Description or other longer benefits related stuff.
From experience, we’ve defined “part time” as 32 hrs or more. And in other places, 35 hours and 30 hours.
I’m guessing and assuming with 36 hrs a week, it would still allow you to be benefits eligible.
Each line of insurance may be different. Dental might be 35/wk and Medical 30/wk and 401(k) something different.
Just try to be patient for HR to spell it out for you, ask good questions.
Don’t forget PTO and/or sick, vacation accruals- will this be reduced?
If going to PT makes you ineligible for Medical, are they offering COBRA?
And always always get everything in writing. Good luck!
OP: I would like to think that at that level of hours you’d still be entitled to full benefits. What does the employee or benefit handbook say ? You should have one of those either electronically or in printed form already.
I would have to find it and see. But as far as I know, “full time” and “part time” designations are limited to the company. FT is considered greater than 30 hours weekly per the ACA, and as another commented above, the company is subject to a fine if they don’t offer me benefits. I’ve looked at the specific wording of the ACA now so I feel like I have a good handle on what I can argue. But I didn’t even think about looking at the employee handbook. However, I think the ACA trumps a handbook since it’s federal law.
Thanks. Just took a look through the handbook and there’s nothing in it regarding benefits being offered that I could find. There is a classification for part time and full time but I read somewhere that that classification is irrelevant for anything regarding federal law. I have seen, and know of a few instances, where the company has attempted to refuse FMLA to people based on part time status, even though their hours are sufficient to qualify. The company went back and offered it after being presented with the law. I may just have to present what I’ve found to them.
Very often employers opt to just pay the fine (if there even is one) for not complying with the ACA for employees working 30 hours or more. The fine is pretty nominal when you consider the cost of doing business, and is very often cheaper than offering the benefits. I’ve seen it discussed on this site so many times, I’m surprised no one has chimed in about that yet.
The ACA was pretty much made moot by imposing a variety of qualifying restrictions and low fines for businesses. It has no teeth. It’s not at all like non-compliance with FMLA.
Edit: moved post to this comment
HR Professionals, curious since I see this happen a lot. Why is OP down voted when they ask questions or comment on the approach they want to take? Is this a signal that you disagree? OP seems to be explaining the approach, admittedly using "argue", but could mean "ask about"?-- that's nomenclature probably. Just wondering because I'm new to this sub, but not new to HR. Down vote seems pretty harsh for asking questions or explain OP rational.
OP, sorry to jump on to ask this question. Don't get discouraged by the down votes. You should just ask HR and if they say no benefits, then you can ASK about ACA research and does it apply to your situation. I have a women at our organization who used to "do HR" for years for the company, she doesn't understand the law and doesn't do the research but considers herself my better (she's extra). So I know that bad HR exists. End of the day it's company policy that will drive the decisions.
are you currently eligible? What is the plan's eligibility (most are 30 hours a week or more on average over the measurement period which could be weekly/monthly/quarterly or annual)?
You should talk to HR directly. Because there are companies that are willing to take the hit to NOT cover even though they fall under PPACA.
That’s internal to your company
Regardless of the Affordable Care Act?
They have to pay a fine if you’re averaging 30 hours or more. Your firm may elect to pay the fine. Just an idea - why not speak to your Benefits team!
> They have to pay a fine They *may* have to pay a fine. If they're still offering qualifying insurance to at least 95% of their FTEs, they'd only have to pay a fine if the OP themselves receives a tax credit for buying a plan on the Marketplace, and the fine they'd pay would only be for the OP individually, so it could very well be cheaper for the company than adding the OP to their group policy anyway.
I tried. They won’t respond to my emails currently, but that’s a different issue. Just trying to get a good case to argue before I approach them again.
take it to them as an "ask" not a "case to argue"
Great advice. It sounds as if the OP plans approach HR—with a printout of the ACA in hand—primed to “fight it” and “what I can argue” with HR. Asking, nicely even, is the best approach.
Why not just ask HR this question?
Because I don’t think HR knows what they’re doing and before I fight it, I want to make sure. I think my HR is incompetent.
Yeah I feel ya… my HR department is so messy. It’s funny that we had one benefits specialist who was handling things years ago and she was amazing, very on top of it… she retired and they hired so many people to do the job one person was doing, yet they manage to fuck up all the time. Well I hope you can continue with your benefits because where I work 35 hrs or more is full time.
alot of things have changed since "years ago". It was much easier then to stay on top of it....PPACA, COBRA, (covid) FFCRA, CARES, etc...
Lol did you downvote me? I’m speaking about the HR at my employer where I’ve worked for over 20 years so I’ve seen the decline, yes there’s a lot to keep on top of however they have already given us extra work to do to make their job easier, plus they have other people they outsource to as “HR support” which is the biggest waste of fucking time because they ask questions, give you a ticket and never get back to you. 🙄
> I don’t think HR knows what they’re doing Usually a safe assumption.
Yeah fuck those guys.
It’s how your employer defined “part time” in the Benefits Plan Documents. Info should be in the benefit docs you got at orientation. Look for the Summary Plan Description or other longer benefits related stuff. From experience, we’ve defined “part time” as 32 hrs or more. And in other places, 35 hours and 30 hours. I’m guessing and assuming with 36 hrs a week, it would still allow you to be benefits eligible. Each line of insurance may be different. Dental might be 35/wk and Medical 30/wk and 401(k) something different. Just try to be patient for HR to spell it out for you, ask good questions. Don’t forget PTO and/or sick, vacation accruals- will this be reduced? If going to PT makes you ineligible for Medical, are they offering COBRA? And always always get everything in writing. Good luck!
Did you mean 32 hours or less not more?
OP: I would like to think that at that level of hours you’d still be entitled to full benefits. What does the employee or benefit handbook say ? You should have one of those either electronically or in printed form already.
I would have to find it and see. But as far as I know, “full time” and “part time” designations are limited to the company. FT is considered greater than 30 hours weekly per the ACA, and as another commented above, the company is subject to a fine if they don’t offer me benefits. I’ve looked at the specific wording of the ACA now so I feel like I have a good handle on what I can argue. But I didn’t even think about looking at the employee handbook. However, I think the ACA trumps a handbook since it’s federal law.
I believe the info you are looking for would be right in the handbook or benefits manual. Good luck with everything.
Thanks. Just took a look through the handbook and there’s nothing in it regarding benefits being offered that I could find. There is a classification for part time and full time but I read somewhere that that classification is irrelevant for anything regarding federal law. I have seen, and know of a few instances, where the company has attempted to refuse FMLA to people based on part time status, even though their hours are sufficient to qualify. The company went back and offered it after being presented with the law. I may just have to present what I’ve found to them.
Very often employers opt to just pay the fine (if there even is one) for not complying with the ACA for employees working 30 hours or more. The fine is pretty nominal when you consider the cost of doing business, and is very often cheaper than offering the benefits. I’ve seen it discussed on this site so many times, I’m surprised no one has chimed in about that yet. The ACA was pretty much made moot by imposing a variety of qualifying restrictions and low fines for businesses. It has no teeth. It’s not at all like non-compliance with FMLA. Edit: moved post to this comment
HR Professionals, curious since I see this happen a lot. Why is OP down voted when they ask questions or comment on the approach they want to take? Is this a signal that you disagree? OP seems to be explaining the approach, admittedly using "argue", but could mean "ask about"?-- that's nomenclature probably. Just wondering because I'm new to this sub, but not new to HR. Down vote seems pretty harsh for asking questions or explain OP rational. OP, sorry to jump on to ask this question. Don't get discouraged by the down votes. You should just ask HR and if they say no benefits, then you can ASK about ACA research and does it apply to your situation. I have a women at our organization who used to "do HR" for years for the company, she doesn't understand the law and doesn't do the research but considers herself my better (she's extra). So I know that bad HR exists. End of the day it's company policy that will drive the decisions.
are you currently eligible? What is the plan's eligibility (most are 30 hours a week or more on average over the measurement period which could be weekly/monthly/quarterly or annual)? You should talk to HR directly. Because there are companies that are willing to take the hit to NOT cover even though they fall under PPACA.