Copyright

Volume 23 For Publication Date: October 3, 2003 No. 20

Ask SSC . . .

Will We Need to Provide Health Benefits
to Part-Time Employees under SB 2?

Q. Our district currently provides health coverage for 4-hour employees up to 8-hour employees; classified 8-hour and certificated 7-hour per day employees are considered FTE and receive full benefits at no cost. The classified part-time hourly employees may elect to participate in our health coverage with a percentage out-of-pocket cost to pay for the premium-dependent on hours worked. We also allow our shared assignment teachers to opt into an out-of -pocket premium percentage plan.

Would this process cover the mandate for health benefits being available to part-time employees? The only criteria we do not cover is the substitute. We hire lots of substitute teachers for long-term assignments.

A. Thank you for responding to our recent article on SB 2 ( Burton , D-San Francisco). While the Governor has not yet signed SB 2-and it would not take effect until January 1, 2006 , even if it is signed-your questions are timely. It appears that your full-time classified and certificated employees have full benefits and, coupled with the fact that they are in bargaining units with collectively bargained contracts, they would not be affected by the law.

You don't mention whether or not your part-timers and long-term subs are represented by unions. If they are, they appear to be unaffected. Usually we find that they are not represented. If that is the case, they would fall under SB 2 if it is enacted. That is, they would be entitled to benefits for themselves and their spouses, children, domestic partners, and other dependents if they work at least 100 hours a month for three consecutive months.

So, for your affected unrepresented employees, including long-term temporary employees, you would need to offer benefits at least equal to those specified by the state (not yet determined). If, for example, you do not currently extend coverage to domestic partners, this bill would require you to offer that coverage to this group of employees or, alternatively, pay a fee to the state insurance pool to pay for the cost of that coverage.

It sounds like you are generous in the benefits you offer and will likely be in compliance in most areas. Still, you may be impacted. We expect substantial changes to this bill before it is enacted in 2006 or at any other time. We will post changes as they occur.

-Ron Bennett