What constitutes full time employee for benefits? 30 hours? 35 hours?

turbo · March 2004

I am in Texas, new to this job (11 months worth) and am questioning part time status vs. full time status.

Isn't 30 generally considered full time in order offer benefits that are offered to all other 'full-time' 40 hour plus employees?

If 30 hours is the marker, isn't it unethical to have an employee work 29 hours in order to not be eligible for benefits?

I am being told that 35 hours or more is considered full time here. I understand that FSLA doesn't define what is part-time and what is full time, however, is 35 hours now standard as full-time?

I've worked for employers over the past 22 years who all used 30 hours as the benefits marker. It must come from somewhere.

Help?

Grinch · March 2004

The benefits marker is generally a policy thing. And yes, an employer has the right to offer a position (and manage that limit) of 29 hours a week if 30 is the benefits marker. If the emploee accepts it, they know what they are signing up for.

Also, I can't recall exactly what it is, but you can have them work over that benefits marker but with certain restriction, or limits. This happens in cases of high staff demand/change as in call centers.

By the way, my experiance is that the benefits marker and what's considered part time do not always match. You can have part time ee's that are eligible to receive bene's.

As far as FMLA (I think that's what you mean) I'm stratching my head because I think I've used up my thinking power for today......

turbo · March 2004

FSLA Fair Standards and Labor Act.

not FMLA

so the company can make a benefits marker of 35 hours? it is not regualted by law at 30 hours somewhere?

marc · March 2004

Unless you are a very large company or providing a meaninful degree of self-insurance, these designations are largely dictated by your benefit providers. It is not unusual for these providers to designate the 30 hour cut-off, but I do not beleive FSLA cares about hours except for purposes of calculating overtime. Non-exempt positions have the 40 hour cut-off for a work week and the 8 hour cut-off for a work day when the hourly rate does not exceed a certain dollar per hour figure (I don't remember that number off the top).

Other than the overtime regulations imposed by FSLA and the full-time/part-time cut-offs recoginized by your insurance carriers, your company can designate other hourly work weeks that you can follow. You can be more generous than the FSLA (but who would want to?), but not less generous.

juju · March 2004

We consider FT 40 hours per week. Anything less would be considered PT. Our employees must work a 40 hour week to be eligible for benefits. We do not offer any benefits for PT employees. As a previous poster stated, the qualifying hours for full-time employment (company policy) and the hours per week an ee must work to be eligible for benefits (carrier policy) may or may not be the same.

Dutch2 · March 2004

If looking for a "rule of thumb" check with your insurance provider to find out the "norm" in the compaies they cover. I once worked for Wally-World and in their early years 19 hours was the break from F-T to P-T. They later increased this number. My current employer recently increased the number from 29 to 37 hours to be considered full-time. All we had to do was to notify our insurance providers of our change. We grand-fathered all existing employees in with the original lower number.
Good luck,
Dutch2

Smurf · March 2004

A prior employer I worked for had the 30 hour cut off to consider an employee a "FT" employee and eligible for benefits. But it caused issues because many employees wanted to cut their hours down to the 30 hpw because they knew they would get the same benefits, but the business had work to be accomplished by employees being there 40 hpw. The company changed their policy when they switched insurance plans as the solution requiring employees who work below 40 hpw to pay a portion of their premiums (down to 21 hpw as 20+ per week or lower were indeed PT and not eligible for benefits).

njjel · March 2004

Our employees must work 28 hours or more per week to be eligible for any of our insurance benefits.

Crout · March 2004

Uh, the last time I looked (about 20 seconds ago) it was called the FLSA, (Fair Labor Standards Act) not FSLA. And not only is there no magic number of hours for benefits, no company has to offer benefits.

Pork · March 2004

TURBO: It is my experience the the Wage and Hour folks in my state consider 32 hours a work week as that thresh hold in which an enrolled employee person would be considered as a part-timer and company benefits provided to full-time employees would not be required. I was also informed that when they find an employee that has worked for 16 continuous weeks and exceeded the 32 hours per week is automatically considered by the auditors as a full time employee and would require the company to enroll into all benefits bestowed to other full-time employees.

It is not a written rule, but at that time it was a guideline for the wage and hour auditors.

I have not had, in my vast opportunities, the privilege to support another "audit" by these fine folks, but I have installed that rule in the companies in which I have been employed without complaint or question.

I have never heard any other time, but then, I have not been questioned and I have not asked. Call your local Fed folks and ask them for guidance. Some states like CA have state laws that might also set a standard.

What constitutes full time employee for benefits? 30 hours? 35 hours?

Comments