[Blood of Tyrants]

To play the devil’s advocate, wouldn’t this just allow companies to work people 39 hrs a week and still call them part time? Sure they would be getting more money but still no full time benefits.

[sheikdetailfeather]

Nine TEN! Questions on the House Vote to Tweak ObamaCare’s Employer Mandate

http://www.cato.org/blog/nine-questions-house-vote-tweak-obamacares-employer-mandate?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Boogieman]

“Sure they would be getting more money but still no full time benefits.”

Full time benefits (beside the Obamacare mandate) are entirely at the employer’s discretion anyway (unless its a union shop). So, this really doesn’t have any effect on that. If the employer wants to say you get full-time benefits at 35 hours a week, but nobody can work more than 39 (to avoid the Obamacare mandate), then they are free to do that, and a lot of them probably will.

[Liberty Tree Surgeon]

To play the devil’s advocate, wouldn’t this just allow companies to work people 39 hrs a week and still call them part time?

Yes. It will actually strip millions of people of health benefits. Walmart's many folks work 35-37 hours a week to control overtime, and those people would now be eligible to be dropped from insurance.

On the other hand, it eliminates the penalty to the employer for not providing insurance to 30-39 hour/week employees.

So, workers lose employer-provided insurance and employers lose the penalties, which is OK to unions and the Chambers of Commerce (who love amnesty) - something sounds a bit fishy, yes?