Inchworm (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-24-10 12:23 PM
Original message
You know how some workplaces are loaded with part-time workers...
Who absolutely refuse to allow employees to work more than 32 hours, so they remain part-time.
The reason for that is so they don't have to pay for benefits, right?
Is it just health insurance, or is there more to it?
I was thinking... McDonalds, Lowes, Wal-mart, etc would be highly affected if it was just because of insurance. They could have less workers but each worker making full paychecks.
It could be a cool thing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8005936dkf (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-24-10 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. In this time of high unemployment it's probably better to have
More workers with less hours.
True, but when the insurance mandates kick in, it will be cheaper to have fewer employees working more hours. Even part timers are mandated to be covered, by companies under 0BamaCare.
terrell9584 (502 posts) Wed Mar-24-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. That's one reason
Also the fact that benefits actually do cost money so by having more workers who cost less overall they can run more efficent operations. And right now, sales are really really crappy so even if you don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt and view them as anti-worker thugs you have to cut them slack.
But right now I'd say keeping everyone in a job who can be kept in one should be priority # 1. Because at some point, we're either going to get everyone back to work or some really really bad shit is going to happen. There are countries on earth that can handle high unemployment and even adjust to it.
The United States was a country like that in the 30s. We are no longer that country. The populace has changed and if people go without for too long shit will break out.
Too bad Lord Zero has made jobs such a non-priority.
NYC_SKP (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-24-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yes, this is one strategy for keeping more people employed.
My carpenters' union was doing that a couple decades ago.
We had "black fridays" or mondays, I've forgotten, but it was one day every other week and allowed for a 10% drop in work without any job losses.
How to provide HC to these people is the important matter, not just paychecks.
That ain't gonna fly with minimum wage workers where the benefits will cost more than salaries.
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-24-10 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. They do it to enhance profit...
Those laws were written to give big corporations with thousands of employees a legal way to deny them the health insurance benefit otherwise required by law.
Now, without those protections, companies will move to fewer full time workers, or they will use temp agencies.
Inchworm (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-24-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. But now...
Wouldn't big corporations benifit with less employees if health insurance was the reason they did that?
That is my concern/question/quandry.
Why, yes they will. Unemployment will surely rise, which will drive more people to Medicare/Medicaid and drive them further into the red.
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-24-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Full time employess also get overtime and other benefits...
What these companies want in disposable employees. So they give them as little as they can legally get away with. A full time employee has certain benefits. Part time employess don't get unemployment benefits. Companies pay a cetain amount to guarantee thos benefits depending on their number of full time employees. This save comopnies a lot of money. If McDonalds or Wallmart used full time employees, they would have to provide health care, this is a lot of money.
In order to maximize their profits they have decided to use part time employees because they can evade providing benefits. Money in their pocket. It is more than just health care. It is bottom line.
Profit is the bottom line for everyone, even individuals that work at their jobs, DUmbass.
