Do your work hours qualify for benefits? Ask HR
Do your work hours qualify for benefits? Ask HR
Johnny C. Taylor Jr. tackles your human resources questions as part of a series for USA TODAY. Taylor is president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management, the world's largest HR professional society and author of "Reset: A Leader's Guide to Work in an Age of Upheaval.'
Have a question? Submit it here.
Question: I'm a college student who recently took a part-time summer job. For the last two weeks, my employer has relied on me for over 40 hours a week. If I'm working at this rate, should I qualify for full-time benefits? – Gordon
As a college student taking on a part-time summer job, navigating the intricacies of work hours and benefits can indeed be perplexing. Let's break this down to provide you with a clearer understanding.
First, it's important to note the distinction between full-time and part-time employment isn't universally defined by federal law. Instead, employers often determine their own criteria for classifying employees unless specific state or local laws indicate otherwise. This means your employer may have the discretion to set the parameters differentiating full-time from part-time status.
Given that you've been working over 40 hours per week, it's natural to question whether you qualify for full-time benefits. While federal law doesn't offer a one-size-fits-all definition, some regulations could apply depending on your situation. For example, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), if you work for a company with 50 or more employees, you generally become eligible for health insurance if you consistently work at least 30 hours per week. Additionally, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), working 1,000 hours within a year may grant you eligibility to participate in your employer's retirement plan.
It's worth reviewing your company's employee handbook or consulting your human resources (HR) department to understand their specific policies regarding employment classification and benefits eligibility. HR can clarify the criteria they use to determine whether an employee is considered full-time or part-time and what benefits you may be eligible to receive based on your current work schedule.
Balancing work hours and school commitments can be challenging, and it's essential you feel secure in your employment status and benefits. As you continue to navigate this busy period, ensure you take the time to have this important conversation with HR. This will provide you with the guidance you need and ensure you receive all the benefits you're entitled to under your employer's workplace policies.
Best wishes, and I hope your concerns are resolved promptly to your satisfaction.
More career advice from 'Ask HR': Can a worker be fired without a reason?
Question: I've spent my career cultivating relationships with customers, colleagues and vendors. I want to start making a career shift. How can I best leverage my career relationships to aid in my job search? – Dina
First, let me commend you on your foresight and aptitude in fostering relationships throughout your career. It's a skill many overlook, but one that can significantly ease the transition into a new role or industry. Leveraging these cultivated connections effectively can provide you with more opportunities than you'd expect.
Begin by clearly defining your career goals. You need to have a firm grasp of what you're looking for in your career shift. This clarity not only guides your search but also enables your connections to assist you more effectively. When reaching out to your network, articulate your aspirations clearly: Be specific about the type of roles, industries and environments you're considering. This specificity helps your contacts connect you with relevant opportunities and provide tailored advice.
As you prepare to reach out, prioritize genuine reconnection over immediate needs. Contact former colleagues, clients and vendors with whom you've maintained professional relationships. A casual coffee date or a friendly chat can go a long way in reigniting those connections. Use platforms such as LinkedIn to your advantage, but don't neglect traditional avenues like phone calls or in-person meetings. The aim is to rebuild rapport, making it a natural segue when discussing your new career path.
Consider expanding your network by joining professional associations within your industry of interest. These groups offer excellent opportunities to meet new contacts, stay informed about industry developments, and even discover unadvertised job openings. Moreover, such associations often host events, workshops and seminars — each a golden opportunity to introduce yourself and your career aspirations to industry veterans.
Don't hesitate to lean on your network for advice. People in your circle possess valuable insights and might suggest training programs, workshops, or conferences that could hone your skills further. When asking for advice, acknowledge your contact's expertise and express your appreciation for their guidance. This approach builds trust and may encourage them to go out of their way to support your transition.
If you plan to use individuals as references, reach out to them beforehand. Requesting their permission not only demonstrates your respect but also ensures they're prepared to offer the strongest possible endorsement.
Remember, networking revolves around cultivating lasting and reciprocal relationships. Your connections can be instrumental now, and your success in your new role may position you to return the favor in the future. A consistent engagement with your network, grounded in sincerity and mutual respect, will allow these relationships to flourish continually.
Also, remember: Your career network is dynamic — it's a two-way street, with periods of giving and receiving. Don't hesitate to call upon the support you've nurtured over the years; it's a testament to the solid relationships you've built. Your diligence in maintaining these connections is likely to yield significant advantages over the course of your career. Good luck!
Professional advice from 'Ask HR': Can a worker be fired without a reason?
The views and opinions expressed in this column are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of USA TODAY.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
14 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Michael Hiltzik: Social Security is still in good shape but faces challenges
The annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees provide yearly opportunities for misunderstandings by politicians, the media, and the general public about the health of these programs. This year is no exception. A case in point is the response by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, to the Social Security and Medicare trustees' projections about the depletion of the programs' reserves: "Doing nothing to address the solvency of these programs will result in an immediate, automatic, and catastrophic cut to benefits for the nearly 70 million seniors who rely on them." The reports say nothing about an "immediate" cut to benefits. They talk about cuts that might happen in 2034 and 2033, when there still would be enough money coming in to pay 89% of scheduled Medicare benefits and 81% of scheduled Social Security benefits. House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith, R-Missouri, used the release of the reports to plump for the budget resolution that the House narrowly passed on orders from President Trump and that is currently being masticated by several Senate committees. The reports, Smith said, make clear "how much we need pro-growth tax and economic policies that unleash our nation's growth, increase wages, and create new jobs." The budget bill "would do just that," he said. Neither Arrington nor Smith mentioned the leading threats to the programs coming from the White House. In Social Security's case, that's Trump's immigration, taxation and tariff policies, which work directly against the program's solvency. For Medicare, the major threat is a rise in healthcare costs. But those have flattened out as a percentage of gross domestic product since 2010, when the enactment of the Affordable Care Act brought better access to medical care to millions of Americans. That trend is jeopardized by Republican healthcare proposals, which encompass throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. Policy proposals by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. such as discouraging vaccinations can only drive healthcare costs higher. Let's take a closer look. (The Social Security trustees are Kennedy, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and newly confirmed Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, all of whom serve ex officio; two seats for public trustees are vacant. The Medicare trustees are the same, plus Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.) The trust funds are built up from payroll taxes paid by workers and employers, along with interest paid on the treasury bonds the programs hold. At the end of this year, the Medicare trust fund will hold about $245 billion, and the Social Security fund - actually two funds, consisting of reserves for the old-age and disability programs, but typically considered as one - more than $2.3 trillion. Trump has consistently promised that he won't touch Social Security and Medicare, but actions speak louder than words. "Trump's tariffs and mass deportation program will accelerate the depletion of the trust fund," Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy priorities observed after the release of the trustees' reports this week. "The Trump administration's actions are weakening the country's economic outlook and Social Security's financial footing." Immigration benefits the program in several ways. Because "benefits paid out today are funded from payroll taxes collected from today's workers," notes CBPP's Kiran Rachamallu, "more workers paying into the system benefits the program's finances." In the U.S., he writes, "immigrants are more likely to be of working age and have higher rates of labor force participation, compared to U.S.-born individuals." The Social Security trustees' fiscal projections are based on average net immigration of about 1.2 million people per year. Higher immigration will help build the trust fund balances, and immigration lower than that will "increase the funding shortfall." All told, "the Trump administration's plans to drastically cut immigration and increase deportations would significantly worsen Social Security's financial outlook." A less uplifting aspect of immigration involves undocumented workers. To get jobs, they often submit false Social Security numbers to employers - so payroll taxes are deducted from their paychecks, but they're unlikely ever to be able to collect benefits. In 2022, Rachamallu noted, undocumented workers paid about $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes. Trump's tariffs, meanwhile, could affect Social Security by generating inflation and slowing the economy. Higher inflation means larger annual cost-of-living increases on benefits, raising the program's costs. If they provoke a recession, that would weigh further on Social Security's fiscal condition. Trump also has talked about eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. But since at least half of those tax revenues flow directly into Social Security's reserves, they would need to be replaced somehow. Trump has never stated where the substitute revenues could be found. Major news organizations tend to focus on the depletion date of the trust funds without delving too deeply into their significance or, more important, their cause. It's not unusual for otherwise responsible news organizations to parrot right-wing tropes about Social Security running out of money or "going broke" in the near future, which is untrue but can unnecessarily unnerve workers and retirees. The question raised but largely unaddressed by the trustee reports is how to reduce the shortfall. The Republican answer generally involves cutting benefits, either by outright reductions or such options as raising the full retirement age, which is currently set between 66 and 67 for those born in 1952-1959 and 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. As I've reported, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut by another name. It's also discriminatory, for average life expectancy is lower for some racial and ethnic groups than for others. For all Americans, average life expectancy at age 65 has risen since the 1930s by about 6.6 years, to about 84 and a half. The increase has been about the same for white workers. But for Black people in general, the gain is just over five years, to an average of a bit over 83, and for Black men it's less than four years and two months, to an average of about 81 and four months. Life expectancy is also related to income: Better-paid workers have longer average lifespans than lower-income workers. The other option, obviously, is to leave benefits alone but increase the programs' revenues. This is almost invariably dismissed by the GOP, but its power is compelling. The revenue shortfall experienced by Social Security is almost entirely the product of rising economic inequality in the U.S. At Social Security's inception, the payroll tax was set at a rate that would cover about 92% of taxable wage earnings. Today, rising income among the rich has reduced that ratio to only about 82%. That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues. The payroll tax is highly regressive. Those earning up to $176,100 this year pay the full tax of 12.4% on wage earnings (half deducted directly from their paychecks and half paid by their employers). Those earning more than that sum in wages pay nothing on the excess. To put it in perspective, the payroll tax bite on someone earning $500,000 in wages this year would pay not 12.4% in payroll tax (counting both halves of the levy), but about 4.4%. Eliminating the cap on wages, according to the Social Security actuaries, would eliminate half to three-quarters of the expected shortfall in revenues over the next 75 years, depending on whether benefits were raised for the highest earners. Taxing investment income - the source of at least half the income collected by the wealthiest Americans - at the 12.4% level rather than leaving it entirely untaxed for Social Security would reduce the shortfall by an additional 38%. Combining these two options would eliminate the entire shortfall. Social Security has already been hobbled by the Trump administration, Trump's promises notwithstanding. Elon Musk's DOGE vandals ran roughshod through the program, cutting staff and closing field offices, and generally instilling fears among workers and retirees that the program might not be around long enough to serve them. In moral terms, that's a crime. Those are the choices facing America: Cutting benefits is a dagger pointed directly at the neediest Americans. Social Security benefits account for 50% or more of the income nearly 42% of all beneficiaries, and 90% or more of the income of nearly 15% of beneficiaries. The wealthiest Americans, on the other hand, have been coasting along without paying their fair share of the program. Could the equities be any clearer than that? Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Burlington set to open new Michigan locations. Where they will be
Michigan shoppers, get ready to welcome more Burlington stores this summer. The New Jersey-based discount department store chain will open two new locations in the state this summer, USA TODAY reported. The stores in Brighton and Burton are expected to open July 25. Burlington plans to open about 100 new locations by the end of 2025, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Kristin Kendrick Wolfe told USA TODAY on June 9. The retailer has already opened 22 locations in both rural communities and major metropolitan areas in 2025, Wolfe said. More expansions will be coming in 2026. "In fact, Burlington is on track to grow to 2,000 stores nationwide," Wolfe said in a statement. "We're excited to keep growing and bringing amazing deals on top brands to shoppers across the country." Here's what to know. Burlington will open new locations in Brighton and Burton. The two new Burlington stores in Michigan will open July 25, 2025. Each new store will include Burlington's new store layout and the company's new motto that reads "Deals. Brands. WOW!," USA TODAY reported. "The refreshed store layout provides a better and more enjoyable shopping experience, making it easier for consumers to discover deals and savings on their favorite brands," Wolfe said. All new stores have the latest format, while half of the brand's locations have already been converted. The rest of the company's locations will be converted by the end of 2026, Wolfe said. Nationwide Burlington openings are set to occur in waves during summer 2025 on the following dates: June 27 July 4 July 11 July 18 July 25 Aug. 8 Aug. 15 The company has over 1,100 stores across 46 states, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, USA TODAY reported. Burlington currently operates locations in the following Michigan cities: Allen Park Ann Arbor Auburn Hills Benton Harbor Bloomfield Township Chesterfield Dearborn Farmington Hills Flint Grand Rapids Holland Jackson Kalamazoo Lansing Mt. Pleasant Norton Shores Novi Portage Redford Rochester Hills Roseville Saginaw Southfield Sterling Heights Taylor Traverse City Troy Walker Warren Westland Burlington will also open new stores in the following areas this summer: Arizona California Connecticut Florida Georgia Illinois Kansas Massachusetts Missouri Nevada New York North Carolina Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Tennessee Texas Washington A full list of anticipated openings can be found at Burlington already opened locations in 2025 in the following states: Arizona California Florida Illinois Indiana Massachusetts North Carolina Pennsylvania Texas Washington Wisconsin USA TODAY contributed. Contact Jenna Prestininzi: jprestininzi@ This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Where new Burlington stores will open in Michigan
USA Today
18 hours ago
- USA Today
Former In-N-Out employee accuses burger chain of discriminatory firing for natural hair
A former In-N-Out employee is suing the West Coast burger chain for alleged discriminatory treatment and termination due to his natural hair. Elijah Obeng filed a lawsuit against In-N-Out, alleging he was discriminated against and fired based on his natural hairstyle and texture. Obeng claims he has suffered damages from the termination, including emotional distress, reputational harm and loss of employment, court documents state. He is seeking $3 million in damages and $200,000 in pay he would have earned since his firing or could have earned in the future. In-N-Out declined to comment to USA TODAY on June 18, citing ongoing litigation. Obeng and his lawyer did not immediately respond to request for comment. Lawsuit accuses In-N-Out of 'humiliating and discriminatory' action According to court documents, Obeng began working at an In-N-Out restaurant in June 2020 after graduating from high school. He continued to work for the chain until he was terminated in spring 2024. Obeng went to work with his natural hair, in accordance with In-N-Out's grooming and uniform policy, the lawsuit reads. When Obeng's hair got longer, he was instructed by management to cut or alter it to fit under the required uniform hat. In an effort to comply with the policy, Obeng began wearing his hair in braids. Management then told him, court documents state, that he needed to cut his sideburns, which Obeng found "humiliating and discriminatory." When he did not cut his sideburns, Obeng began experiencing different treatment. He was punished for minor policy violations, like not attending work meetings, which Obeng claims his colleagues did not face, the lawsuit reads. In-N-Out's grooming and uniform policy is not readily accessible online, but Indeed forums indicate that male workers must arrive to shifts clean-shaven, with no facial hair. On around May 25, 2024, Obeng clocked in for what would be his last shift at In-N-Out. Upon his arrival, management told him to go home, shave his sideburns and return, court documents state. Instead, Obeng left and texted his supervisor that he would return for his next shift. A few days later, Obeng was fired, which In-N-Out claimed was due to prior write-ups, according to court documents. Obeng, however, alleges that his termination was because of his "ancestry, color and race, including his natural hairstyle and hair texture." Former employee says In-N-Out violated CROWN Act In the lawsuit, Obeng says In-N-Out violated the CROWN Act, a law that prohibits employers from discrimination based on hairstyle and texture. Standing for "Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair," the law was first passed in California in 2019 with the help of Dove, the CROWN Coalition and Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly Mitchell. As of June 18, the CROWN Act is law in 27 states, according to The CROWN Act website. Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@
