Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
when did part-time = 30 hours ?
Old 05-01-2017, 09:56 AM   #1
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 775
when did part-time = 30 hours ?

I was looking at a job ad on Indeed, and it said part-time.
Great. Good for me.

Then I read the job ad, and the ad says that the person must work at least 30 hours a week.

Isn't that full-time?

The games these employers play.
__________________

broadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-01-2017, 10:01 AM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
DFW_M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DFW
Posts: 5,517
Unfortunately, they typically do not have to provide benefits to part time employees. I believe the threshold is 30 hrs.
__________________

__________________
Doing things today that others won't, to do things tomorrow that others can't. Of course I'm referring to workouts, not robbing banks.
DFW_M5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 10:17 AM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,410
I've always considered 40 hours to be full-time, and most anything less to be part-time. I think as DFW says, 30 or less is what the US govt considered PT for purposes of whether employers have to give benefits. I'd probably call 35-40 full time, but certainly I wouldn't consider 30 to be full-time.


The ad was upfront about requiring 30 hours, so you hopefully didn't waste any time (other than here) on it filling out an app and interviewing if you wanted less. It doesn't sound like any sneaky game playing to me.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 10:17 AM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
exnavynuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Acworth
Posts: 1,172
At 30 or more hours an employee is considered full-time and qualifies for all full-time benefits at my work. I've read both 30 and 35 as "common" definitions for how many hours someone needs to work to be considered full-time, but I think it's all pretty much just "whatever the employer decides".
exnavynuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 10:37 AM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
I've always considered 40 hours to be full-time, and most anything less to be part-time. I think as DFW says, 30 or less is what the US govt considered PT for purposes of whether employers have to give benefits. I'd probably call 35-40 full time, but certainly I wouldn't consider 30 to be full-time.
I agree.
JustCurious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 10:45 AM   #6
Moderator Emeritus
laurence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,246
My megacorp (defense/engineering) allows you to keep benefits at a minimum of 24 hours a week, so that's what I work. At least locally that's becoming the norm. HR told me productivity is actually way up for part time workers, and since they pass on our costs via billing to the customer they'd rather keep us making money part time rather than lose us altogether.
laurence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:08 AM   #7
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 512
I consider myself part time. Im at work 40 hours a week but only do about 6 hours of actual work. Its great...and they keep paying me. CAnt make this stuff up.
ponyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:42 AM   #8
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadway View Post
Then I read the job ad, and the ad says that the person must work at least 30 hours a week.

Isn't that full-time?

The games these employers play.
Often, anything less than 32 hours is considered part-time.

Does it matter what they call it? What matters is
  • How many hours you want to work
  • Is it work you want to do
  • What they offer for pay and benefits
joeea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:53 AM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,295
I am in the full time is 40 or MORE camp...

Most professional jobs will want more than 40 and many more than 50...

So, anything less than 40 is part time.... and usually gets paid some way if they work more than was agreed too...
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:34 PM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RockyMtn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Scottsdale
Posts: 1,370
I was on the payroll at megacorp for five years after my retirement as a consultant with full time/part time status. 17 hours a weeks was what I was supposed to work for that status. Never even came close to that any given year. One year they never called me once! Really was more of a non compete than anything else. They did have me work on a couple of specialized projects over the years.

I did get health, dental, 401k, pension credits, etc. No stock options though but my existing options continued to vest.
__________________
FIRE'D in July 2009 at 51...Never look back!
RockyMtn is offline   Reply With Quote
as long ur employer is happy
Old 05-01-2017, 12:41 PM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,838
as long ur employer is happy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponyboy View Post
I consider myself part time. Im at work 40 hours a week but only do about 6 hours of actual work. Its great...and they keep paying me. CAnt make this stuff up.
the 6 hours u work must make up for the other 34 u dont. i know firemen that dont go to a fire for weeks , they watch tv , work out, cook. Then when they go to a fire they work may a few hours ,get burned , die ,rescue people, sure worth it to me that they only work a few hours. im sure happy they only work a few hours worth every penny they get paid. its all relative to productivity.
__________________
Withdrawal Rate currently zero, Pension 137 % of our spending, Wasted 5 years of my prime working extra for a safe withdrawal rate. I can live like a King for a year, or a Prince for the rest of my life. I will stay on topic, I will stay on topic, I will stay on topic
Blue Collar Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:51 PM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Fedup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Southern Cal
Posts: 4,032
When I was working at one project, it was 4 hours work and got paid 40 hours. I got to work at home to boot. I was also the most productive. Had the best reviews 6 years running. It's that kind of job that I wouldn't mind worked no again.
Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:53 PM   #13
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by laurence View Post
My megacorp (defense/engineering) allows you to keep benefits at a minimum of 24 hours a week, so that's what I work.
Interesting. The rule at my old Megacorp in the same field was: 32 hrs or more per week was considered full time and yielded full benefits. 19-32 hrs was considered part time and employees received 70% of full time benefits. Employees working fewer than 19 hr/wk received no benefits.

Needless to say the remorselessly analytical engineers recognized that the optimum situations were to work either 32.1 or 19.1 hrs/wk, and most of the last 10 years of my career I worked at one or the other of these two rates.
stepford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 01:18 PM   #14
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepford View Post
Interesting. The rule at my old Megacorp in the same field was: 32 hrs or more per week was considered full time and yielded full benefits. 19-32 hrs was considered part time and employees received 70% of full time benefits. Employees working fewer than 19 hr/wk received no benefits.

Needless to say the remorselessly analytical engineers recognized that the optimum situations were to work either 32.1 or 19.1 hrs/wk, and most of the last 10 years of my career I worked at one or the other of these two rates.
Ha! The other part of the equation is that, at least where I worked, full-timers usually worked more than 40 hours, often 50 or 60 or more. If you went to 30 hours part-time, you got 3/4 of the pay, but maybe only half the work hours. I opted for 20, because I wanted to work even less and didn't mind the partial reduction in benefits. I can't recall what the reductions were and whether they hit 30 hour workers too.

The reality is that 20 was just a target and it did ooze over that at times, but I didn't let it happen very often, and only for critical customer situations. I decided from the start that if I couldn't hold it to 20 most weeks I'd either get my official hours (and pay) bumped up, or leave.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 03:51 PM   #15
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,137
Back in my working days, I worked full-time and that was 35 hours per week. Then, in 1993 the standard work week was increased to 37.5 hours without any pay increase for salaried employees.


When I switched to working part-time in 2001, I reduced my weekly hours worked to 20. Many of my benefits were reduced, too, including the employer subsidy for health insurance. I had to pay 50% of the premiums instead of 25%. I don't know what the cutoff was to no longer be considered full-time. Working 20 hours per week was the minimum to remain eligible for group health insurance.


In 2007, I reduced my weekly hours from 20 to 12. This made me ineligible for group health insurance. I offered to pay 100% of the premiums, something I thought would be a no-brainer for the company to accept. But they turned me down, saying it was not "fiscally prudent" to include me because I had suddenly become "high-risk." I was now in a small group of employees, mostly those near age 65 (I was 45 at the time) who worked less than 20 hours per week. I was pretty annoyed. I also lost nearly all the rest of my few benefits. But it assured me of ER by the end of 2008 so it all worked out just fine.
__________________
Retired in late 2008 at age 45. Cashed in company stock, bought a lot of shares in a big bond fund and am living nicely off its dividends. IRA, SS, and a pension await me at age 60 and later. No kids, no debts.

"I want my money working for me instead of me working for my money!"
scrabbler1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 04:22 PM   #16
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrabbler1 View Post
Back in my working days, I worked full-time and that was 35 hours per week. Then, in 1993 the standard work week was increased to 37.5 hours without any pay increase for salaried employees.


When I switched to working part-time in 2001, I reduced my weekly hours worked to 20. Many of my benefits were reduced, too, including the employer subsidy for health insurance. I had to pay 50% of the premiums instead of 25%. I don't know what the cutoff was to no longer be considered full-time. Working 20 hours per week was the minimum to remain eligible for group health insurance.


In 2007, I reduced my weekly hours from 20 to 12. This made me ineligible for group health insurance. I offered to pay 100% of the premiums, something I thought would be a no-brainer for the company to accept. But they turned me down, saying it was not "fiscally prudent" to include me because I had suddenly become "high-risk." I was now in a small group of employees, mostly those near age 65 (I was 45 at the time) who worked less than 20 hours per week. I was pretty annoyed. I also lost nearly all the rest of my few benefits. But it assured me of ER by the end of 2008 so it all worked out just fine.

Well, another reason they probably did not offer you benefits is that it would open them up to a lawsuit... if the company policy was 20, then everybody below 20 might want what you asked for... not prudent to do...


Now, if the REALLY wanted you they could have reduced your pay and had you work 20 hours with 8 of them from home...
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 05:09 PM   #17
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Well, another reason they probably did not offer you benefits is that it would open them up to a lawsuit... if the company policy was 20, then everybody below 20 might want what you asked for... not prudent to do...


Now, if the REALLY wanted you they could have reduced your pay and had you work 20 hours with 8 of them from home...
I actually was working from home from 2001-2003, about 14 hours per week along with one 6-hour day at the office. It was working well until they company ended all open-ended telecommuting in late 2003. I knew then that this change would be my ultimate undoing. Ironically, my last day at the company was the 5-year anniversary of their ending my telecommuting.

I went on COBRA when I cut my weekly hours from 20 to 12. I had asked them to extend COBRA beyond the required 18 months but they balked at that, too.

In my exit interview, I told the HR flunkie how upset I was about their so-called fiscal prudence. I reminded them that they provide HI coverage for many, many people who do not contribute to their bottom line. They include retirees, spouses of covered employees, and children of covered employees. I told them if I were to quit working and marry a covered employee (not something I could do), I would gain HI coverage. I would no longer be contributing to their bottom line I wasn't really buying their fiscal prudence argument.
__________________
Retired in late 2008 at age 45. Cashed in company stock, bought a lot of shares in a big bond fund and am living nicely off its dividends. IRA, SS, and a pension await me at age 60 and later. No kids, no debts.

"I want my money working for me instead of me working for my money!"
scrabbler1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 06:32 PM   #18
Moderator
rodi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10,180
Where I worked the rule was originally 20 hours or more you got benefits. I used that info when I negotiated a 24hr week after having my older son. I upped my hours to 32hr/week as part of a job transfer. (I wanted the transfer back to San Diego, they wanted someone full time, I wanted to stay part time, and I was literally the perfect candidate for their open position. We split the difference.)

Then came various mergers, splits, acquisitions and the "part time and still get benefits threshold moved to 24 hours... but I was already working 4 days a week.

As mentioned - many megacorps, mine included, expected more than 40 hours for full time... And when I was full time, I typically put in 50 hours/week. When I dropped to 4 days/week my compromise was I typically worked through lunch and worked an extra 1/2-1 hour at the beginning or end of the day. But I didn't work weekends, didn't pull late nights and found a good work/life balance... something challenging for working moms.
__________________
Retired June 2014. No longer an enginerd - now I'm just a nerd.
micro pensions 7%, rental income 18%
rodi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 06:42 PM   #19
Moderator Emeritus
Ronstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: A little ways southwest of Chicago
Posts: 11,315
I went from 50 hrs a week to 20 over 8 years. I kept all benefits until my last year or two when I switched to DW's insurance, lost vacation/ holiday pay, but kept 401k to the end
__________________
The wilderness is calling and I must go.
Ronstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 08:13 PM   #20
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrabbler1 View Post
I actually was working from home from 2001-2003, about 14 hours per week along with one 6-hour day at the office. It was working well until they company ended all open-ended telecommuting in late 2003. I knew then that this change would be my ultimate undoing. Ironically, my last day at the company was the 5-year anniversary of their ending my telecommuting.

I went on COBRA when I cut my weekly hours from 20 to 12. I had asked them to extend COBRA beyond the required 18 months but they balked at that, too.

In my exit interview, I told the HR flunkie how upset I was about their so-called fiscal prudence. I reminded them that they provide HI coverage for many, many people who do not contribute to their bottom line. They include retirees, spouses of covered employees, and children of covered employees. I told them if I were to quit working and marry a covered employee (not something I could do), I would gain HI coverage. I would no longer be contributing to their bottom line I wasn't really buying their fiscal prudence argument.

They do have to follow rules or they can get in trouble...

But my point was 'work' at home meant no work.... just so they could say you were at 20 hours and not break the rules...
__________________

Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Part-Time ER vs Part-Time OMY: a Perspective 38Chevy454 Life after FIRE 29 05-29-2019 03:56 AM
Full time to part time...to no time! WestcoastRN Hi, I am... 13 11-17-2013 01:02 PM
Did You Find the Part-Time Work You Wanted After FIRE? headingout Life after FIRE 48 06-17-2010 07:36 PM
Taxes - Takes Too Much Time - 25 Hours So Far! Danny Other topics 32 02-28-2007 09:44 AM
Part time to no time Martha Life after FIRE 54 12-08-2006 10:29 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:15 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×