4 ms·
Or they knew exactly what would happen but went with it anyway so they'd have a bill that would actually get through the Senate. If you assume employer-provided
by extra88 12y ago
Or they knew exactly what would happen but went with it anyway so they'd have a bill that would actually get through the Senate. If you assume employer-provided insurance (which is bad but what the U.S. has), what's the alternative? Any part-time number you pick, some employers will schedule people just below it so if someone works even one hour, they get covered? How do you then sort out which of multiple employers actually provides insurance? Short-sighted, penny-pinching employers will always look for a loophole, if they couldn't get out of it by reducing hours, they'd do something like call each worker a "contractor" and not employee.
- fulafel 12y agoTo answer the "How would you you...", you enable the employee to sue if they are artificially given less than full work-hours. It's not a hard thing to prove if there's a nontrivial part time work force. These being the odds, the companies don't try to pull it off too often, even if the court cases would mostly come from ex-workers.