Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> > --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> According to people I know who work at WalMart, they
> >> are not allowed
> >> to work more than 32 hours a week. This is done so
> >> that WalMart will
> >> not have to provide them with insurance or other
> >> benefits. This is a
> >> nationwide policy.
> >
> > It may be. On the other hand, more than 90% of
> > WalMart employees have health insurance, which I bet
> > is better than a lot of companies that get criticism
> > for not providing it all the time. It seems to me
> > that this is at least as much an indictment of
> > government policies that make benefits so expensive as
> > to strongly discourage employers from hiring people as
> > it is the employers who are making economically
> > rational decisions.
>
> For what it is worth I was wrong here. WalMart employess who work
> 32hrs/wk *are* eligible for insurance. Bad information on my part and
> bad interpretation of what I was told otherwise.
>
> My apologies and an admission of a head-up-the-ass event on my part.
I was going to jump in earlier, I had information as to the state of
laws regarding health insurance in Texas a few years ago. If you worked
30 or more hours a week, you would be eligible for health insurance.
(One business's practices I heard about was a 90-day trial period before
you'd be eligible for benefits, and on the 13th week of employment,
they'd schedule you for only 29 hours, so they wouldn't have to give you
the insurance. They'd make you start a new 90-day trial period if you
wanted the insurance. Some people would have worked there for 9 months
before they started getting insurance. There was much grumbling about
this.)
If Wal-Mart had had employees working in Texas for 32 hours a week and
not giving them insurance, that might have been illegal, and someone
would have blown a whistle.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
