On January 8, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 252-172(all voting Republicans plus 12 Democrats) to pass the SaveAmerican Workers Act (H.R. 30), a piece of legislation designed torepeal the Affordable Care Act's 30-hour definition of full-timeemployment and replace it with a 40-hour standard.

The number of full-time workers on an employer's payroll isimportant, since the ACA requires employers to offer healthinsurance benefits if they have 100 or more full-time employees asof January 1, 2015, and 50 or more full-time employees as ofJanuary 1, 2016.

Rep. Todd Young (R-Indiana), who sponsored the legislation, andhis over 150 co-sponsors, believe that the ACA's 30-hour definitionof full-time employment will cause employers to reduce the numberof hours many of their employees work, or even cut jobs, in orderto avoid the current ACA requirements, resulting in hardships onthese employees. That is, employers are likely to convert some ormany of their full-time workers to part-time (29 hours or less)status.

The concerns seem to be legitimate. The Bureau of LaborStatistics recently reported that there are almost seven millionAmericans working part-time who would rather have full-time jobs.In addition, according to the BLS, the number of full-time workersdropped by 150,000 in November 2014, while the number of part-timeworkers increased by 77,000.

In introducing the bill, Rep. Young stated, "When the employermandate became effective on January 1, up to 2.6 million Americanswere at risk for seeing lost hours and wages at work. Ironically,this unintended consequence hurts most those Obamacare was claimedto help - low- and middle-income Americans working hourly jobs.Repealing this provision and restoring the traditionalunderstanding of a 40-hour week is necessary to protect theirpaychecks."

Besides being co-sponsored by over 150 other representatives,the bill was supported by over 300 business organizations,including the American Benefits Council, the National Associationfor the Self-Employed, the National Association of HealthUnderwriters, the National Federation of Independent Business, theNational Small Business Association, the Small Business &Entrepreneurship Council, the Small Business Council of America,the Small Business Legislative Council, the Society of HumanResource Management, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In voicing support for the bill, James A. Klein, president ofthe American Benefits Council, noted, "Because final regulationsimplementing the employer mandate include many complex standardsfor determining whether an individual is a 'full-tie employee,'passage of H.R. 30 is one helpful step Congress can take toalleviate employer concerns." He added, "Many employers areconcerned that, despite best efforts to comply with the law, theycould be subject to penalties given the complexity of administeringcoverage to comply with the law, particularly with respect toemployees who work a variable schedule, short-term employees,temporary, seasonal or similar contingent workers."

Another voice of support was the National Federation ofIndependent Business. "One of the most easily foreseeableconsequences of the Affordable Care Act is the pressure it imposeson small firms to reduce or avoid adding full-time positions," saidDan Danner, president and CEO of the NFIB. "Health insurancecoverage is a very big expense for small companies, and if theydon't have the sales to cover the cost, then they've got to makeother adjustments. By defining down the definition of full-timework, the law creates a terrible dilemma for small businesses.Repealing it should be an immediate priority."

Turning the act into law, however, still faces a couple ofhurdles.

First, companion legislation must pass the Senate. Last week,Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana)re-introduced the "Forty Hours is Full-Time Act" (S. 30), whichSen. Collins first introduced in 2013. As of January 13, 32senators, including two Democrats, had signed onto the bill.However, despite the fact that the Senate is controlled byRepublicans, there is question as to whether the bill will be ableto garner the 60 votes required to prevent a filibuster. The 60votes would require "yea" votes by all Republicans plus at leastsix Democrats.

Second, President Obama has threatened to veto the bill if itgets to his desk.