CVS is cutting benefits for part-timers

[BMBiology]

I know a couple of CVS pharmacists who recently got their benefits cut. Apparently you need to work 30 hours a week. One pharmacist told me she worked more than 30 hours a week but since she was only hired for 24 hours a week, CVS is no longer giving her any benefits.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PharmacistReb]

ObamaCare mandates that employers provide insurance for employees working 30+ hours per week. You work them less to avoid the mandate and you cut costs for the bottom line and so the rich get richer.

Nothing to see here.

 

[deleted480308]

ObamaCare mandates that employers provide insurance for employees working 30+ hours per week. You work them less to avoid the mandate and you cut costs for the bottom line and so the rich get richer.

Nothing to see here.

please share how you pay for insurance for your lawn guy, your barber, your babysitter and everyone who works for you part-time... no company pays more for a service than they need to in order to get the production level they want. It's bad business to do so

 

[PharFromNormal]

please share how you pay for insurance for your lawn guy, your barber, your babysitter and everyone who works for you part-time... no company pays more for a service than they need to in order to get the production level they want. It's bad business to do so

While I probably agree with your outlook this is a little off.

The lawn guy, your barber and your babysitter aren't employees of your business. My lawn guy is actually an employee of his own business, my barber of his own business, and I don't have kids but a babysitter would be of their own (but probably not formalized) business. Part of my reimbursement to them would include covering any overhead they may incur (whether they itemize it - like a plant for my garden or not - like gas for their lawnmower).

I agree though a benefit is provided to an employee of your business in order to attract and/or retain employees. If it's not doing its part in that and not mandated by law - cut the unnecessary expenses to reinvest in your business.

 

[confettiflyer]

One pharmacist told me she worked more than 30 hours a week but since she was only hired for 24 hours a week, CVS is no longer giving her any benefits.

Pretty sure this isn't legal, but it's CVS so I'm not surprised.

 

[Dred Pirate]

Pretty sure this isn't legal, but it's CVS so I'm not surprised.

how isn't that legal? I am sure it depends on state laws, but I know when I was a student I was hired for what was called "part time more" Which means I am guaranteed 16 hours every weeks, and it qualifies me for part time benefits, but often I would have 40+ hours but that didn't give me full time benefits.

 

[deleted480308]

how isn't that legal? I am sure it depends on state laws, but I know when I was a student I was hired for what was called "part time more" Which means I am guaranteed 16 hours every weeks, and it qualifies me for part time benefits, but often I would have 40+ hours but that didn't give me full time benefits.

part of the law is that regardless of hiring status, if you are worked above the threshold for a certain number of weeks you a considered full time for the purpose of health coverage.

 

[PharmacistReb]

part of the law is that regardless of hiring status, if you are worked above the threshold for a certain number of weeks you a considered full time for the purpose of health coverage.

What? Worked above the threshold for a certain number of weeks? Please post the link for this language or at least a tertiary source discussing the law as it relates to "threshold for a certain number of weeks"

The law clearly states that if you work 30 hours or more per week, that you are a considered full-time and that employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance.

The law de-incentivizes the major corporations from employing "full-time" employees. Why would the law not state that 40 hours+ is full-time? At least this way, workers could work 30-39 hours and then purchase their own insurance through exchanges and have extra spending money to boot. Much better than only having 25 hours.

 

[deleted480308]

What? Worked above the threshold for a certain number of weeks? Please post the link for this language or at least a tertiary source discussing the law as it relates to "threshold for a certain number of weeks"

The law clearly states that if you work 30 hours or more per week, that you are a considered full-time and that employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance.

The law de-incentivizes the major corporations from employing "full-time" employees. Why would the law not state that 40 hours+ is full-time? At least this way, workers could work 30-39 hours and then purchase their own insurance through exchanges and have extra spending money to boot. Much better than only having 25 hours.

It's the unintended consequence of government meddling. They set the line at 30 thinking "all these part time people will have insurance!" All they accomplished was everyone between 30-40hrs now has 29

 

[PharmacistReb]

It's the unintended consequence of government meddling. They set the line at 30 thinking "all these part time people will have insurance!" All they accomplished was everyone between 30-40hrs now has 29

Totally agree. And so would Ron Swanson.

 

[trailerpark]

At Walmart they got rid of benefits for part timers who work less than 30 hours.

 

[ChalupaBatman86]

The 30 hour requirement for benefits at CVS is calculated on a rolling basis and goes back something like 16 weeks. This is nothing new. Many PT employees don't sign up for benefits even if they are eligible. Managers get a monthly spreadsheet warning them of employees who are going to lose benefits.

 

[mgarph]

That's the same reason CVS is drawing such a hard line at 29 hours for techs as well, going over a week or two isn't the end of the world, but if someone starts averaging over 29 the managers are going to be all over you

 

[confettiflyer]

how isn't that legal? I am sure it depends on state laws, but I know when I was a student I was hired for what was called "part time more" Which means I am guaranteed 16 hours every weeks, and it qualifies me for part time benefits, but often I would have 40+ hours but that didn't give me full time benefits.

ACA, so wasn't in effect when you were in HS.

Already described in replies above. We had to move into ACA compliance as we were working some non-benefitted employees > 30hrs.

Basically, title doesn't matter, actual hours worked does.

 

[Dred Pirate]

part of the law is that regardless of hiring status, if you are worked above the threshold for a certain number of weeks you a considered full time for the purpose of health coverage.

that I didn't know - never had to worry about it

ACA, so wasn't in effect when you were in HS.

Already described in replies above. We had to move into ACA compliance as we were working some non-benefitted employees > 30hrs.

Basically, title doesn't matter, actual hours worked does.

well, that wasn't in HS, it was in college- in HS I didn't need to worry about getting my own insurance

 

[BMBiology]

This mainly affects:

(1) new grads; most of them don't even know benefits are worth about 30-40% of their salary
(2) pharmacists > 40 years old as their health deteriorates
(3) women who want to work part time and still raise a family

So in short, only healthy male pharmacists in their 30s are not affected except the ones who need Viagra. They will be affected too.

 

[confettiflyer]

well, that wasn't in HS, it was in college- in HS I didn't need to worry about getting my own insurance

Oops not sure where I got HS. Same thing though, pre-ACA.

 

[confettiflyer]

This mainly affects:

(1) new grads; most of them don't even know benefits are worth about 30-40% of their salary
(2) pharmacists > 40 years old as their health deteriorates
(3) women who want to work part time and still raise a family

So in short, only healthy male pharmacists in their 30s are not affected except the ones who need Viagra. They will be affected too.

If anything it's an extra cost...having to go to the insurance exchange for health care, putting away money no match and only a maximum $5500 (vs. $18k in the 401k).

I guess that's one way to keep pharmacists employed, lower their compensation!

 

[Dred Pirate]

If anything it's an extra cost...having to go to the insurance exchange for health care, putting away money no match and only a maximum $5500 (vs. $18k in the 401k).

I guess that's one way to keep pharmacists employed, lower their compensation!

yet another reason I am glad I don't work for a big corporation....yet

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

As another poster mentioned, any employee is entitled to health benefits if they work over 30 hours automatically.... averaging 5 weeks.

I am not sure what benefits were cut... so can you explain?

 

[SClENCE]

I only work on average 28 hours a week as a tech but myHR says that I now have 25 hours paid vacation and some PTO. Any ideas on how this happened? Maybe the union?

 

[confettiflyer]

While CVS is cutting benefits, they're also busy being racists, apparently:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/0...ination-by-ex-store-detectives.html?referrer=

 

[BMBiology]

While CVS is cutting benefits, they're also busy being racists, apparently:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/0...ination-by-ex-store-detectives.html?referrer=

No way that is true! Here's my prove: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/...kes-its-Debut-in-South-Florida-306057791.html

 

[zelman]

While CVS is cutting benefits, they're also busy being racists, apparently:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/0...ination-by-ex-store-detectives.html?referrer=

CVS is based in Maryland?

 

[pharm B]

please share how you pay for insurance for your lawn guy, your barber, your babysitter and everyone who works for you part-time... no company pays more for a service than they need to in order to get the production level they want. It's bad business to do so

I read this in Ron Swanson's voice. Thank you, sir.

 

[BidingMyTime]

I only work on average 28 hours a week as a tech but myHR says that I now have 25 hours paid vacation and some PTO. Any ideas on how this happened? Maybe the union?

Many businesses DO offer a certain level of benefits for part-time employees, though usually not as much as full-time workers. Just because you are part-time doesn't mean you have *zero* benefits. (PRN & contract workers are the ones with zero benefits.) So, I would assume that your employer does indeed give part-timers some benefits, which is why you have vacation/PTO time. Businesses often do give benefits to part-time workers, even if they are unionized, but obviously, if you are in a union, then your benefits would have been negotiated under the union contract.