Madam Speaker, as many of my colleagues have already pointed out, H.R. 2575 would provide a lifeline to hardworking part-time workers threatened by cuts to their take-home-pay on account of the ACA re-defining full-time work as 30 hours a week.  Today I’d like to share a local perspective on the impact of this full-time definition.

I was first approached about this issue by Steve Palmer, one of the owners of Palmer Place.  Since Ruth and Mike Palmer opened the restaurant in 1983, it has become an institution in La Grange, Illinois.  This is a family business committed to their employees and the community.  They recognize the importance of health insurance coverage and offer it to their workers when possible.  But this coverage is not free, and like any business, the Palmers must plan their expenses based on their income.  Based on those calculations, they have had to make some tough decisions on how to provide insurance and to whom.  Because of the nature of the business, many of their employees are part-time and work flexible schedules.  But the ACA’s definition of full-time work has put the Palmer family’s one restaurant on the cusp of being classified as a large business.  The family thus finds itself facing a hefty new expense.  They will either have to pay for health insurance for many employees they were never able to cover before or they will have to pay a substantial new fine.  This is the scenario being repeated at thousands of offices and kitchen tables across America as family-owned businesses make the same calculations and struggle to plan for the future.  

And the workers at some of these businesses are about to get a far different deal than they bargained for when they accepted their jobs.  As a result of the 30 hour full-time rule, part-time employees working between 30 and 40 hours per week could see – and some already have seen – their hours reduced.  The CBO has confirmed that shifting to a 40-hour full-time definition wouldlead to some workers seeing an increase in their take-home-pay.

In addition to lost wages, many workers could lose the scheduling flexibility currently available through many part-time jobs.  In some jobs, workers are currently able to swap shifts and change their hours from week to week in order to accommodate family needs or emergencies.  But with a 30-hour definition of full-time work, employers may no longer permit this flexibility, as workers would cycle in and out of full-time status from week to week.

The Administration has already acknowledged the difficulty in implementing the employer coverage rules of the ACA through delays and substantial administrative changes. In July 2013, the employer mandate was delayed for a year for all employers. In February, the mandate was delayed for another year for employers with 50-99 workers and significantly loosened for larger employers.  Clearly the Administration knows there are problems with the employer coverage rules as currently contained in the law.  And today it is reported that former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “I don’t think the employer mandate will go into effect.”

Madam Speaker, let’s do right by America’s part-time workers and by family businesses.  Let’s pass this bill and fix this broken part of the ACA.  I yield back the balance of my time.