Quantcast

Comments about ‘House passes bill defining full-time work as 40 hours, White House promises veto’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 7 2014 11:48 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

hey come on 30 hours has always been full time work - hasn't it?? Barack and Joe say yes - must be true.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

I would like to veto this guy to Mars - a one way ticket!!!

CP
Tooele, UT

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.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

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.

Itsjstmeagain
Merritt Island, Fl

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.

darrynl
Bountiful, UT

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.

BU52
Provo, ut

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.

fcbenjamin
Chittenango, NY

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.

Gandalf
Salt Lake City, UT

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!

JBQ
Saint Louis, MO

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.

one old man
Ogden, UT

News headline: Large Elephant Seen Trampling American Workers

bandersen
Saint George, UT

You can keep your president if you want him!

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

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 time.

FT
salt lake city, UT

Corporations and the wealthy, proped up by the GOP, will always stay one step ahead of liberals. You can't legislate decency.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

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).

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

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.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

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 street?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'...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...?

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

"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?

kolob1
sandy, UT

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 Utah.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments