—–
One of the aims of the health care reform legislation is to encourage employers to provide health insurance for their employees. In order to close the loophole that would allow employers to hire many part-time workers (and avoid paying benefits for them), the new law looks at the total number of hours worked to determine “full time equivalent 
employees”. On page 309-310 of the Senate Bill, the math is explained:
“The term ‘full-time equivalent employees’ means a number of employees equal to the number determined by dividingthe total number of hours of service for which wages were paid by the employer to employees during the taxable year,by 2,080.“
Overtime is not counted, as explained in section B of that paragraph. Neither are seasonal employees, “unless the worker works for the employer on more than 120 days during the taxable year.” (page 312). That detail is likely to have a significant impact on Colorado’s ski resorts. Colorado has 28 ski resorts, and the high elevation here means that our ski season is longer than it is in many other states. Resorts here open in October/November, and some of them don’t close until the end of May or even later. It’s true that the resorts employ seasonal workers, but the season is a long one. There are ski resorts in other states with seasonal employees who fall under the 120 days/year limit, but here it’s quite common to have seasonal employees working for more than half the year at ski resorts.
This is just a guess, but I assume that many seasonal ski resort workers would still pick the ski resort job if they were given the option of having a seasonal job elsewhere that provided health insurance, versus having a seasonal job at a ski resort with no health insurance benefits. They are there specifically because they want to work on a ski mountain – they get a free ski pass, and can hit the slopes any time they aren’t working, which is what a lot of them do. The ski resorts are providing seasonal employment that is in high demand; people come from all over the world to spend the winter working at resorts in the Colorado mountains; they obviously aren’t coming for the health insurance benefits.
I think it would make sense to add a provision to the law that specifically deals with ski resorts and other seasonal jobs that are open for a good chunk of the year, but not all year. Otherwise, states like Colorado, with lots of ski resorts and a relatively long ski season, will be impacted more than other states if the resorts have to start providing health insurance for seasonal workers. Perhaps the fine should be lower for employers with employees who work more than 120 days per year, but are still truly seasonal. Or maybe a compromise could be worked out that would allow ski resorts to give seasonal employees an option to enroll in the resort’s health insurance program, but with a higher employee contribution for the first season that an employee works.
The provision in the new law that will allow young adults to remain on their parents’ health insurance policies until age 26 is likely to help with the situation, as many of the seasonal workers at ski resorts are young and taking a year or two off between high school and college, or between college and a career. In addition, the individual fines that people will face if they choose to remain uninsured will likely encourage some seasonal workers to purchase health insurance on the own. One way or another, it is imperative that seasonal ski resort workers be covered by health insurance, just like everyone else. But if the resorts end up shouldering the burden of paying for the coverage, it makes sense that the employment situation at the resorts will change in 2014.
