Joe Pitts doesn’t know if Republicans have the votes to dramatically undercut the ACA. | M.Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO Mandate delay a 'full time' headache

Restaurants and other employers essentially got an extra year to push for Obamacare changes when the administration delayed the law’s employer mandate. But it isn’t as good as it sounds.

The decision to delay the mandate until 2015 left two big sticky issues standing in the way for employers: a lowered sense of urgency in Congress to enact the changes they want and sharp divisions among House Republicans over how to approach the law.


The biggest concern for employers is the health law’s definition of full time.

( Also on POLITICO: TOP 5 complaints about Obamacare)

The law defines coverage-eligible, full-time workers as those clocking 30 hours per week. But many businesses are hoping to get that raised to 40 hours, the more traditional definition of full time. The Senate already approved that change in a nonbinding vote last spring, but it could be held up in the House by some conservative Republicans who won’t vote to improve Obamacare, short of repealing or defunding the entire law.

“We have a good bloc of our members who will not vote to, what they call, ‘fix the law’ — they want to repeal the law,” Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Pitts, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, told POLITICO. “I don’t think [leadership has] the votes.”

Employer groups say that while they’re happy for a yearlong reprieve from the law’s reporting requirements and mandate, they view it as a Catch-22: All their complaints about the law remain and Congress can more easily put the issues on the back burner.

“It took some of the wind out of our sails by delaying [the employer mandate],” said Matt Haller, vice president of the International Franchise Association. “Our focus right now is on re-creating that sense of urgency.”

( Also on POLITICO: Obamacare's missing mandate)

Scott DeFife, a lobbyist for the National Restaurant Association, said the delay “cuts both ways.”

“Some people are going to react to what the administration did by saying, ‘We don’t have to act on it right away,’” he said. “We have more time to make our case to build support for our legislative ideas. At the same time, some people are going to get temporarily distracted.”

The employer mandate requires companies with more that 50 full-time workers to offer those employees affordable health coverage, with full time meaning 30 hours a week.

Employers have been furiously lobbying Congress to change that to 40 hours, attracting bipartisan attention on the Hill, including from Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, who has said he’s hearing from constituents about the issue but hasn’t yet backed legislation. Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) has co-sponsored a bill to change the definition, and more than 120 House Republicans have signed on to legislation introduced by Rep. Todd Young (R-Ind.).

Congress has passed — and President Barack Obama has signed — legislation repealing or defunding parts of the law seven times, including those as part of larger spending deals.

But in the current climate, it’s unclear whether GOP House leaders will get the 218 votes they’d need to pass legislation changing the workweek definition. Their attempt earlier this year to shift funds in the law toward high-risk pools failed when conservatives revolted, partly because of fears they’d appear to be propping up the law. That legislation was sponsored by Pitts.

“We don’t have 218 members to do very much,” Pitts said. “You saw what I tried on pre-existing conditions. I couldn’t get to 218, so that’s what we’re dealing with.”