do benefits have to be given if full time employee?

[mafibisha]

Awhile ago i heard someone say that in their job with a huge, major company, they couldn't work more than 999 hours a year or their employer *had* to pay them benefits. That it was some sort of legal thing.

I'm looking at jobs and one is 35 - 38 hours a week and no benefits. It would definitely be more than 999 hours. Its not a very big company, so I didn't even think about it, and I really don't need benefits thanks to DH. But if they should be part of it, then I definitely want them.

Anyone know anything about this?

 

[akcire]

Awhile ago i heard someone say that in their job with a huge, major company, they couldn't work more than 999 hours a year or their employer *had* to pay them benefits. That it was some sort of legal thing.

I'm looking at jobs and one is 35 - 38 hours a week and no benefits. It would definitely be more than 999 hours. Its not a very big company, so I didn't even think about it, and I really don't need benefits thanks to DH. But if they should be part of it, then I definitely want them.

Anyone know anything about this?

There is no requirement for an employer to offer benefits, but pretty much everyone has to or they won't get "decent" people.

That said, my husband is employed by a Fortune 50 company, and no job I have ever found has benefits as good as the "platinum" medical benefits his offers. Since I can not find benefits that good, I have always declined benefits from my employers--however since I am saving them this money I negotiate a higher salary, more vacation, extra retirement, etc--pretty much what ever is important to me at the time I accept the offer.

If you are serious about this position I would try and negotiate a salary that is at least $10K more than being offered for a similar position in a job with benefits. That is the approximate cost the company is saving. I don't know what type of job this is, but if it is typically a $35K job, I would be looking for $45K. Of course, this is all dependent upon your skill set and the demand in your area.

 

[vicki_c]

Declining benefits that are offered in exchange for more of something else, though, is not the same as asking for more when benefits are not being offered in the first place. Sounds like the company already knows they can get people for that salary without benefits in that area, if they know what they are doing at all.

 

[tar heel]

I think the idea is that they have to treat everyone the same. They can't say you do x and work 30 hours a week and get benefits and another person does x and works 30 hours a week and does not get benefits. At my DH's company, part-timers are given a couple things, but you have to work 40 hours a week to get full benefits. At mine, we only have a couple things, we get vacation/sick leave with any number of hours, retirement match at 20 and health insurance at 30.

When you say "benefits," are you including vacation? I would be wary of taking a permanent job that close to full time without vacation.

 

[mafibisha]

Thank you for the feedback!

This is most definitely a professional position, ie it reguires a degree and some experience. The hours are likely less (38) to avoid benefits.

However, I spoke with the friend of the friend who had to work less than 999 hours, or benefits had to be paid "by law". She is with a HUGE, major Forture 500 (probably top 50) company also. That's just one reason why I'm very leery, too.

I've googled, trying to find something in writing. Does anyone know of websites or places I can find a definitive answer?

Thank you SO much. I really want this job - need this job - but don't want to be cheated out of benefits!!

 

[NeverlandClub23]

It is not a requirement. I work at a well known law office in my area and no one gets medical benefits (I'm assuming this is what you're talking about as far as benefits), even attorneys. We do get matching 401k and PTO/vacation but we have to get medical on our own. My last job a few years ago didn't offer medical either.

It may be the law that a company of that size has to OFFER medical (but not necessarily pay for, just offer) to employees working so many hours. State laws vary so I'm not sure.

 

[Jeff_G]

This is more likely a corporate policy, ask your friend which law, federal, state or local is requiring the company to give benefits.

 

[Disneychix]

At my work (top 25 Bank) p/t and f/t are offered the same vacation and health ins packages. Anyone who works over 30 hours per week (constitutes f/t) is also eligible for Long Term disability and life insurance. There are also some extra vacation perks like 'buying' extra vacation days.
I worked in an area where we had work until completion and we always had to stay on top of the hours of our p/ters so they didn't average over 29 hours per week in 1 month.

If truly this company was having you work 38 hours to avoid f/t benefits I would move on. That is really shady.

 

[Kathi OD]

Thank you for the feedback!

This is most definitely a professional position, ie it reguires a degree and some experience. The hours are likely less (38) to avoid benefits.

However, I spoke with the friend of the friend who had to work less than 999 hours, or benefits had to be paid "by law". She is with a HUGE, major Forture 500 (probably top 50) company also. That's just one reason why I'm very leery, too.

I've googled, trying to find something in writing. Does anyone know of websites or places I can find a definitive answer?

Thank you SO much. I really want this job - need this job - but don't want to be cheated out of benefits!!

Your friend is mistaken. It is not "law" that a company must pay benefits when you work more than 999 hours. It may be that company's policy, especially since it is such a large company, but it definitely is not the "law." If it were, there would be many companies who would be in violation of said "law."

 

[scrapquitler]

Thank you for the feedback!

This is most definitely a professional position, ie it reguires a degree and some experience. The hours are likely less (38) to avoid benefits.

However, I spoke with the friend of the friend who had to work less than 999 hours, or benefits had to be paid "by law". She is with a HUGE, major Forture 500 (probably top 50) company also. That's just one reason why I'm very leery, too.

I've googled, trying to find something in writing. Does anyone know of websites or places I can find a definitive answer?

Thank you SO much. I really want this job - need this job - but don't want to be cheated out of benefits!!

Maybe your friend is talking about the FMLA with the certain number of hours. I think you need to work 1080 per year with 50 employees employed to qualify for FMLA time off.

As far as I know, there is NOT a law stating that health insurance or other benefits need to be paid to employees.

Maybe you (or your friend) are thinking of a provision in the Obama Health Care bill http://www.heritage.org/research/re...d-the-employer-mandate-cutting-jobs-and-wages but that will not take effect until 2014.

 

[mafibisha]

Maybe your friend is talking about the FMLA with the certain number of hours. I think you need to work 1080 per year with 50 employees employed to qualify for FMLA time off.

As far as I know, there is NOT a law stating that health insurance or other benefits need to be paid to employees.

Maybe you (or your friend) are thinking of a provision in the Obama Health Care bill http://www.heritage.org/research/re...d-the-employer-mandate-cutting-jobs-and-wages but that will not take effect until 2014.

Its definitely not the Obama bill. This has been their *law* for several years.

It could be the FMLA regarding paid time off. That actually makes alot of sense.

I would LOVE to mention the company but for various reasons, I won't. But it was most definitely stated as *a LAW*. It was in writing and there were penalties, including dismissal, if violated.

 

[Kathi OD]

Its definitely not the Obama bill. This has been their *law* for several years.

It could be the FMLA regarding paid time off. That actually makes alot of sense.

I would LOVE to mention the company but for various reasons, I won't. But it was most definitely stated as *a LAW*. It was in writing and there were penalties, including dismissal, if violated.

Now that sounds even more strange. Just who, would be dismissed? It would be the company that didn't give the benefits.

I am sorry, but your friend is wrong. This is not a law, but the company policy.

On the federal level, the only benefits a company are required, by law, to provide are medicare/SSI, UE, and WC. http://www.e-magnify.com/resources_viewarticle.asp?ID=781 Additionally, "eligible employees of covered employers" are entitled to FMLA.

Anything else is something they choose to offer.

 

[vicki_c]

Just to be clear - under Government contracts, there are wage and hour laws for certain jobs that require holidays/benefits for the employees or for the employer to pay an equivalent amount to the employee, as well as minimum wages for that job/location, and overtime.

So that is a Federal law, but it doesn't apply to all companies at all times; it applies to those performing particular Government contracts (without going into too many technical and boring details, that's a nutshell version).

Based on what the OP wrote, a professional type job with (assuming) a private company not performing on a Government contract, there would generally be no legal requirement to provide benefits.

 

[DisneyCowgirl]

I think the idea is that they have to treat everyone the same. They can't say you do x and work 30 hours a week and get benefits and another person does x and works 30 hours a week and does not get benefits. At my DH's company, part-timers are given a couple things, but you have to work 40 hours a week to get full benefits. At mine, we only have a couple things, we get vacation/sick leave with any number of hours, retirement match at 20 and health insurance at 30.

When you say "benefits," are you including vacation? I would be wary of taking a permanent job that close to full time without vacation.

I'd bet this is what it is. Some people in the company ARE getting "benefits" but they do not want to have to provide to all employees.

 

[mafibisha]

Now that sounds even more strange. Just who, would be dismissed? It would be the company that didn't give the benefits.

I am sorry, but your friend is wrong. This is not a law, but the company policy.

On the federal level, the only benefits a company are required, by law, to provide are medicare/SSI, UE, and WC. http://www.e-magnify.com/resources_viewarticle.asp?ID=781 Additionally, "eligible employees of covered employers" are entitled to FMLA.

Anything else is something they choose to offer.

This was my SIL's company and I saw the manual. They were / are all part time employees and if they went over 999 hours per year, the company was required to pay benefits. Since these employees signed on with the understanding that no benefits (other than vacation) would be provided, they were subject to penalities up to, and including dismissal if they violated this policy. In addition, the employees direct supervisor / manager was as well, since s/he is responsible for the employee.

If it was FMLA, most likely the company didn't want to provide paid time off ect.

I saw this in print and this is a major, HUGE, MAJOR company. Oh how I would LOVE to say the name!!!!!

So if its indeed just corporate *policy* for that company, then I guess the company I'm considering isn't illegal, just cheap.
I will keep looking; I deserve better!

Thanks, all.

 

[4HppyCamprs]

I am a HR major and currently studying compensation and benefits. There are very few things that are required for employers to provide and almost all benefits are discretionary. For further info you can check out www.dol.gov which is the department of labor website

 

[msmayor]

This was my SIL's company and I saw the manual. They were / are all part time employees and if they went over 999 hours per year, the company was required to pay benefits. Since these employees signed on with the understanding that no benefits (other than vacation) would be provided, they were subject to penalities up to, and including dismissal if they violated this policy. In addition, the employees direct supervisor / manager was as well, since s/he is responsible for the employee.

If it was FMLA, most likely the company didn't want to provide paid time off ect.

I saw this in print and this is a major, HUGE, MAJOR company. Oh how I would LOVE to say the name!!!!!

So if its indeed just corporate *policy* for that company, then I guess the company I'm considering isn't illegal, just cheap.
I will keep looking; I deserve better!

Thanks, all.

I don't think I'd call them cheap...at least they are up front about what their policy is.

The company I work for part-time also is not required to pay me benefits unless I work a certain number of hours to 'qualify' as full-time status, as well as for overtime pay during the week. It is STRICTLY monitored for budget purposes. We are not permitted to remain on the clock over our allotted hours without manager permission, and even then they will monitor how it will affect our weekly hours to ensure a part-timer doesn't suddenly become a full-timer.

For some benefits there are indeed penalties that can be assessed to the company by the government based on formulas for benefits. They don't want to be assessed those fines for someone who AGREED upon hire to be part-time.

 

[blt2010]

Perhaps your position is called W2-Contractor. If that is the case, they won't pay benifits. It is most common in technogy/IT field. And the position is not a long-term ( under 18 mths). And the individual will be a member of local town chamber of commerce (or IEEE). And, they can negotiate premium for health insurance thay way. Employer will not provide health insurance or benifits.

 

[mafibisha]

I don't think I'd call them cheap...at least they are up front about what their policy is.

The company I work for part-time also is not required to pay me benefits unless I work a certain number of hours to 'qualify' as full-time status, as well as for overtime pay during the week. It is STRICTLY monitored for budget purposes. We are not permitted to remain on the clock over our allotted hours without manager permission, and even then they will monitor how it will affect our weekly hours to ensure a part-timer doesn't suddenly become a full-timer.

For some benefits there are indeed penalties that can be assessed to the company by the government based on formulas for benefits. They don't want to be assessed those fines for someone who AGREED upon hire to be part-time.

Yes. Regardless what others have said or believe, I know what I saw and I know the company. Everyone would.

It really doesn't matter what they did (or do) I guess, but I was asking regarding a potential position I'm considering. Because it that company could do it (considering their *status*), then I guess any company can.

 

[mafibisha]

Perhaps your position is called W2-Contractor. If that is the case, they won't pay benifits. It is most common in technogy/IT field. And the position is not a long-term ( under 18 mths). And the individual will be a member of local town chamber of commerce (or IEEE). And, they can negotiate premium for health insurance thay way. Employer will not provide health insurance or benifits.

No, nothing like that in any way. But thanks for the feedback!