when did part-time = 30 hours ?

[broadway]

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.

[eytonxav]

Unfortunately, they typically do not have to provide benefits to part time employees. I believe the threshold is 30 hrs.

[RunningBum]

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.

[exnavynuke]

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".

[JustCurious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum 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.

[laurence]

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.

[ponyboy]

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.

[joeea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadway 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

[Texas Proud]

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...

[RockyMtn]

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.

[Blue Collar Guy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponyboy 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.

[Fedup]

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.

[stepford]

Quote:

Originally Posted by laurence 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.

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stepford 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.

[scrabbler1]

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.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrabbler1 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...

[scrabbler1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud 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.

[rodi]

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.

[Ronstar]

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

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrabbler1 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...