Republicans will soon take up a measure that would change Obamacare’s definition of full-time work from 30 hours to the traditional official mark of 40 hours per week. The distinction is an important one. As matters now stand, employers will face fines for failing to insure workers who work as few as 30 hours per week.
This is causing many part-time employees — especially waiters and part-time employees of public school districts and colleges — to lose hours and thus lose wages. It might also be preventing the U.S. job market from returning to its previous balance between part-time work (which is now more common) and full-time work (which is now more scarce).
In fighting to repeal Obamacare, it is understandable that Republicans want to aim for something they believe might actually reach Obama’s desk, from which he has already promised a veto, as opposed to holding out for something perfect.
But even acknowledging that, they have an opportunity to think a bit bigger. In particular, Republicans should be thinking about repealing the employer mandate entirely, or delaying its implementation again until some distant future date when the rest of the law can be replaced.
At the very least, they should force a floor vote on repealing the mandate as part of the amendment process. The restoration of the 40-hour work week may help in some areas of the economy, but it will not stop the employer mandate from wreaking havoc on the U.S. job market.
It may help the 10 million American workers who, according to the Labor Department, work 30 to 34 hours per week. But many other employers will still have an incentive to reduce hours, avoid making their 50th hire that would trigger the mandate, and perhaps eliminate a few open positions or even lay off workers if they feel it is practical.
Even worse, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office notes, restoration of the traditional 40-hour threshold could make things worse for at least some of the 60 million people who work 40-hour weeks. It is not clear how severe the effect would be, but there will be a downside.
All of that said, Republicans are right to try to do something to mitigate Obamacare’s damage. If conservatives resist any piecemeal approach to dismantling Obamacare for political reasons, that is, out of fear that the coalition to repeal Obamacare will break up if pieces of the law vanish — then they will be inflicting years of needless suffering and expense upon the very voters who just elected them to stop Obama and his law.
The problems with the 40-hour provision highlight how Obamacare is like a booby-trapped time bomb. Each piece is part of the problem, yet removing any piece can make the problem even worse. This is also true of repeal of the employer mandate. It might prompt employers to dump their workers into the Obamacare exchanges, shifting more of the burden directly to taxpayers. But this is more of an argument for why the law ultimately needs to be fully repealed.
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear King v. Burwell, a case whose outcome could effectively abolish the employer mandate in as many as 37 states. This may be an argument to avoid acting on the mandate until after the justices rule, a decision that could force a broader reform of the law.
But it doesn’t mean Republicans should wait until all the stars are aligned for full repeal (the earliest opportunity being 2017 if a Republican takes over the White House) to make any attempt to mitigate the harm caused by Obamacare.
Republicans are right to busy themselves giving Obama as many opportunities as possible to veto measures that would reduce the harmful effects of Obamacare and help them make the case for replacing the law in 2016. They just aren’t thinking big enough.
