Dan Minette wrote:
> But, the idea he is pointing to as the solution...nationalizing health...is
> not going to be the solution the way he says it is. Now, I think that some
> mix of requiring employers to provide a level of health insurance to
> employees (including pro-rated by hours for non full-time workers to stop
> the 39 hour phenomenon) and governmental insurance will be needed as part of
> the plan. But, this has to be balanced with an attack on rising costs.
BTW, last I was aware, the cut-off for being able to get benefits in
Texas was 30 hours, not 40. So scheduling employees for 29 hours on the
last week they needed to work to qualify initially was a favorite tactic
of a particular company at least one of my friends worked for. (If you
realized what they were doing that week and fought hard enough, you'd
get your 30 hours and your insurance after that, but you had to fight.)
Then again, I stopped dealing with any of that sometime in 1998 or 1999.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
