In last week’s Reporter, Ms. Edenholm wrote, “Congressman Reichert supports me by voting for a 40-hour, full-time work week.” Unfortunately, that was a vote in support of corporations, not in support of working people.
The current law classifies a 30-hour week as full time with respect to the requirement that businesses provide health insurance to full-time workers. If the 40-hour definition were to be put into effect, many companies would schedule workers for 39 hours, so that they would not have to provide the benefit of health insurance.
With the 30-hour definition, it’s much less likely that companies would schedule employees for fewer hours.
I have a niece who worked for a chain drugstore for years, and almost every week she was scheduled for 39 hours, so that the company would not have to give her benefits.
We should always pay attention to the man behind the curtain.
– R. Wesley Aman
Talk to us
Please share your story tips by emailing editor@kentreporter.com.
To share your opinion for publication, submit a letter through our website https://www.kentreporter.com/submit-letter/. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We’ll only publish your name and hometown.) Please keep letters to 300 words or less.
