Jump to content


- - - - -

Paid Vaction Act


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
27 replies to this topic

#11 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,398
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:31 AM

Certainly there should be some regulations, but your point, unless I misunderstood it, seemed to juxtapose paid vacation with the function of govt protecting people hence my response.
It's already tough for a small business right now, that would damn near kill them. Not what we should be looking to do ever, but especially at this point. Another ivory tower type bill. PART TIMERS getting required paid vacation? Give me a break. If this ever passes, IMO, this will lead to companies doing everything possible to get around it because it is far too ridiculous to have to deal with.

#12 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,872
  • Reputation: 5,779
Moderators

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:31 AM

You should be striving to be anyone but who you are currently

#13 Carolina Husker

Carolina Husker

    I hate football

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 10,530
  • Reputation: 393
HUDDLER

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:36 AM

I get that shit anyway.

#14 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,415
  • Reputation: 2,347
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:38 AM

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.

#15 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,398
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:48 AM

You mean people who were hired as FT then get demoted to PT?
What company (ies) are you referencing? UPS?

#16 Carolina Husker

Carolina Husker

    I hate football

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 10,530
  • Reputation: 393
HUDDLER

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:57 AM

Wal-Mart is pretty notorious for that.

#17 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,415
  • Reputation: 2,347
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:04 AM

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.

#18 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,398
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:13 AM

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.

#19 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,415
  • Reputation: 2,347
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:31 AM

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?

#20 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,398
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:42 AM

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.