Employment waiver

[quincy]

Yes, I'm well aware that not every employee of every business is entitled to benefits. I work in employee benefits, as you should remember. But Q, there is no restaurant exemption from the ACA. It is true that many restaurants are exempt because they do not meet the number of employees to be subject to it. However, the OP has said this employer has 4 to 5 locations. Even if it's four, and even if each restaurant has only thirteen employees total, that's going to be enough in total to make them subject to the ACA. And even if they don't meet the ACA requirement, as I indicated that's irrelevant for retirement benefits, as is the industry.

I know you know this.

But I am envisioning a much smaller operation than you are, despite the number of locations.

It would be nice if Serencorgi could return with some answers and some details.

 

[cbg]

And if it is smaller, that's fine. At least as far as the medical is concerned. We're still left with the retirement benefits. You're right; we need more information. But Serencorgi seems to want a dentist more than he does a legal forum.

 

[Serencorgi]

Will these same employees be returning to work at the business after their school term ends or were they only temporary, summer employees?

What sort of business is this (e.g., fast food)?

They were only summer employees—temporary.
This is a non union high end grocery store chain —5 other stores.

 

[quincy]

Thank you for answering my questions.

How many total employees are there, Serencorgi?

 

[Serencorgi]

They list 51-200 employees per store.

 

[Serencorgi]

I sure appreciate all the effort you all are putting into this.

 

[cbg]

But you have not answered mine, and it's very important; particularly now that we have more information about the size of the employer.

At the time that you were offered the waiver, was the increase in hours intended to be temporary or permanent. I understand that if you failed to sign the waiver you would not get the increased hours - that is not the question. The question is, if you DID sign it, was the increase expected AT THAT TIME to be permanent or temporary? I am not concerned with changes that may have taken place since then - only what the intent was at the time of the offer of the waiver.

 

[eerelations]

But you have not answered mine, and it's very important; particularly now that we have more information about the size of the employer.

At the time that you were offered the waiver, was the increase in hours intended to be temporary or permanent. I understand that if you failed to sign the waiver you would not get the increased hours - that is not the question. The question is, if you DID sign it, was the increase expected AT THAT TIME to be permanent or temporary? I am not concerned with changes that may have taken place since then - only what the intent was at the time of the offer of the waiver.

Good golly. OP please answer cbg's questions!!!

 

[Serencorgi]

But you have not answered mine, and it's very important; particularly now that we have more information about the size of the employer.

At the time that you were offered the waiver, was the increase in hours intended to be temporary or permanent. I understand that if you failed to sign the waiver you would not get the increased hours - that is not the question. The question is, if you DID sign it, was the increase expected AT THAT TIME to be permanent or temporary? I am not concerned with changes that may have taken place since then - only what the intent was at the time of the offer of the waiver.

They would not commit to saying “you are now a full time employee because you signed this waiver”. It was just said that you would not be kept at full time if you refused to sign the waiver.

 

[cbg]

Here's the thing. If there was an intent for you to be full time on a permanent basis, then they cannot ask you to waive your right to benefits that are protected under the law if you would otherwise qualify for them. Both health and retirement benefits are protected. However, if there is no intent that the full time status be permanent and there is every intention of eventually moving you back to part time, then it is not only legal but smart for them to have you sign the waiver. The fact that they are not committing to saying you will be full time, seems to indicate that there is no such intention and in that case, there is nothing illegal about asking for the waiver.

 

[Just Blue]

Here's the thing. If there was an intent for you to be full time on a permanent basis, then they cannot ask you to waive your right to benefits that are protected under the law if you would otherwise qualify for them. Both health and retirement benefits are protected. However, if there is no intent that the full time status be permanent and there is every intention of eventually moving you back to part time, then it is not only legal but smart for them to have you sign the waiver. The fact that they are not committing to saying you will be full time, seems to indicate that there is no such intention and in that case, there is nothing illegal about asking for the waiver.

I'm curious. What if OP signs the waiver, goes to 40 hpw...how long can that last before s/he would be considered a perm. full time employee? 3 months? 4? 3 years? Is there a time limit for this waiver?

 

[cbg]

It depends, and it's not necessarily the same for each benefit. For the retirement plans, if he works 1000 hours in a year he is likely eligible for retirement benefits. On the other hand, for medical benefits, the eligibility threshold is 30 hours per week and I don't recall off hand how many weeks he would need to work those 30 hours to be eligible. (My employer was already offering benefits to people working fewer hours than needed for ACA eligibility.) Tax will probably know. So it really would need to be temporary to be legal, but if the intent is for it to be temporary an acknowledgement that he does not qualify, in the long run, for full time benefits is smart.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

As far as medical is concerned there is also the issue of what the contract with the insurance carrier says about who is qualified and who isn't.

It is usually 30-90 days but I've seen them listed as early as the beginning of the month following hire.

 

[cbg]

For us it's date of hire or the first day of benefits-eligibility. So yes, that's a good point.

 

[Serencorgi]

Thank you all for your help and insight into this matter.