EDIT: (Since Marv whined I "didn't read" his post and implied I'm not a "sophisticated reader," I needed to spend some time deconstructing his "argument"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marv a couple posts below this one
If you had read my post, you would see that I specifically pointed out that part-time hires are not always feasible. I also never said it was MY place of employment, but apparently, I am familiar with more businesses than you.
It may not sound true to someone whose best job has been burger flipping at MacDonalds, but I'll let the more sophisticated readers decide on its veracity.
|
hahaha, ok, that's rich. Perhaps you can enlighten all of us non-"sophisticated readers" how you think your argument holds any water with something approximating evidence rather than personal insults on my reading abilities--in fact, why don't we look at your
writing ability...
Quote:
|
Depending on the size of your company, the additional time off can easily reach a total equal to the annual hours of one or more full-time employees. It's not a matter of simply finding one part-timer.
|
If the total time off reaches a full-time employee's yearly income, then that frees enough overhead to pay the salary of an extra full-time employee (your own operational definition hinges on that being true). Time correctly, if you have a rotating worker filling in during the off days of your "regulars", that person can end up working five straight days--or less. Some people even desire split shifts and it wouldn't be difficult to find someone willing to work "on call."
You almost raised a valid point in all of this, up until now I didn't address the overhead associated with training new employees. The reason I didn't do so is because I was under the assumption, because you said so, that you knew what the hell you were talking about.
As any "sophisticated reader," "employer," or anyone who has a grasp of the data on this issue or real-world knowledge associated with small and large business management knows, the cost of training one additional full-time employee pales in comparison to the costs associated with extremely high turnover rates within the minimum wage sector or compared to the cost of burnout by their salaried employees.
Quote:
If that isn't enough, in some lines of work, it is difficult to find people who only want part-time work. Even when it is possible, there are a great many costs that a business incurs that are in direct proportion to the number of employees, both part-time and full-time:
1. Health insurance (!!!!!)
2. Uniforms
3. Training
4. Continuing education
5. Paid holidays
6. Paid vacations
7. Sick days
8. 401 K matches
9. Employee discounts on the company's products
10. Employee-specific protective clothing/accoutrements
11. Bonuses, both production oriented and holiday
12. Background check expenses
13. Down time in which to conduct interviews
14. Down time to check references
15. Advertising for employees/employment agency finder's fees
16. Payments to temporary employee agencies
17. Additional fees to payroll processing companies
The above are some of the reasons it is cheaper for many companies to pay overtime routinely, rather than hire more employees.
|
It's not difficult to find someone to work part-time. Which version of the US states are you witnessing? It can't certainly be the same one we have hard numbers on because those numbers describe a picture where part-time jobs continue to rise, full-time workers continue to lose benefits and jobs, increasing numbers of US citizens are taking multiple part-time jobs to make ends meet, and salaried workers continue to work longer hours than any other industrialized nation.
The service-oriented sectors hire multiple part-timers because it's cheaper. It's cheaper because they aren't required to contribute to pension plans, pay for health insurance, grant paid or unpaid vaccations, pay for sick days, allow for sick days, pay for uniforms (what jobs are we discussing here; low-wage service or corporate jobs--because the former recycle uniforms and the latter pay for their own suits), continuing education (just where the hell are you working to be getting all of these benefits? Who believes this?), employee discounts (these are a 'cost' of doing business now? LMAO).
Corporate sectors salary their employees (and a number of low-wage corporations are following suit).
If your hypothesis were accurate, we would see it operate among salaried workers because it would make most sense for a salaried worker to work less than 40 hours whenever they could. Except we don't, in the article you completely glossed over below, our salaried workers are working more than they would in any other industrialized nation on the planet. Wages have increased over time. As wages have increased, so have hours worked. The evience directly contradicts your hypothesis.