Forgot your password?
Or sign in with one of these services
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.
Guest CatofWar, 23 May 2009
Posted 26 May 2009
I get that shit anyway.
The problem that I have with the current workforce view by big employers is the way they put people on part time, with no O/T, not as a temporary workaround but as corporate policy to maximize profits. People who would have at least had some health care benefits among other things are left out in the cold regardless of how good a job they do because the employers have decided that treating employees like cattle is sound business policy.
If part time employment reverted to the more traditional definition, I would be more hesitant about this part of the idea - but as it stands, there does need, IMHO, to be some kind of balance in favor of the employee with these pretty draconian policies that are just the status quo these days.
You mean people who were hired as FT then get demoted to PT?
What company (ies) are you referencing? UPS?
Wal-Mart is pretty notorious for that.
Most retail outfits these days as far as I can see are using people that basically work 40 hours a week as "part time" and reverting them from full time to do it as well. Managers have a huge juggling game going on to keep this up, and really have no incentive to move good motivated workers to full time unless they are going to be store managers or something like that.
So making them give all workers paid vacation will improve the lives of their workers in general how exactly? My guess is that Wal-Mart will then hire fewer PT employees, make some of the ones they have FT such that they are on salary and require them to do more work fro the same pay as they now get since the cost/employee will rise DRAMATICALLY if they are forced to give benefits.
Well if they are F/T and they have to do more work because of it, they don't have to stay there.
Of course the cost/employee will rise - thats the point I'm making; the current trend is to screw the employee in any way possible and IMHO it's out of hand.
Hell, lets just hire all illegals, treat them like dirt and be done with it, whaddya say?
And if you are PT, you are not working to support anyone (unlike FT workers) so you have even MORE freedom to leave, no? Certainly I wouldn't even dream of thinking I should get paid vacation for a PT job. My old company did it, and lost a lot of dollars and had high turnover because a lot of PTers wanted to work there due solely to the benefits offered, sucked all the benefits up then left. Training/hiring new workers over and over costs money too. Prices will be raised which affects far more people than PT Wal-Mart workers.
Employment laws are pretty protective of malingerers/poor employees in my experience in personnel with my old and HUGE company. Some of it is fear of lawsuits IMO. The fault of companies in my experience is in not treating good FT employees better, not what benefits they offer to PTers.
If Part Time jobs were used for their intentions, like I said, I would have no problem saying no to vacation. But now we have 39.5 hours a week part time employees all over the place and it's kind of making things screwy.
And we wonder why most of our jobs have gone to other countries.
Mexicans and Asians will work their asses off for less than $2.00 an hour and not stop but all we Americans want is 'more time off.'
I personally like having time off, yes.
If it makes you feel more American, I'll be glad to take any extra vacation you have off of your hands.
Started 3 hours ago
Started Sunday at 11:34 AM
Started 17 hours ago