4 ms·

I think the unethical part we get into with Target/Walmart/et al is the staffing of multiple shifts of part time work when it's obvious by the numbers that they

by dv_dt 7y ago

I think the unethical part we get into with Target/Walmart/et al is the staffing of multiple shifts of part time work when it's obvious by the numbers that they're avoiding paying benefits for the hiring of fewer full time workers. The systemic question here is if we should allow it to be a financial advantage for companies to do that - especially large profitable ones with a footprint all over our nation.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
alasdair_ 7y ago
>The systemic question here is if we should allow it to be a financial advantage for companies to do that - especially large profitable ones with a footprint all over our nation. The tying of health insurance to employment is the core issue. We give massive tax breaks to corporations via tax-deductible health insurance which naturally favors those employers with larger labor pools (who can therefore negotiate the best discounts). We need to move to medicare for all and then treat health insurance over and above that like any other taxable benefit provided by an employer.
UnFleshedOne 7y ago
Ironically, consolidating the same amount of hours in fewer employees suffers the same effects people say raising minimum wage does -- reducing the total number of people involved. Some people get more hours and benefits, others get fired.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  Yes that's a poor and hopefully temporary side effect - but it would get more people covered with medical benefits. It may also not be that bad en effect because unfair scheduling practices for the part time hires. The part-time scheduling is reported to take up essentially full time commitments to be on "standby" with poor stability in the scheduled times on/off. So if one wasn't instantly available to come off standby, one would get penalized - to avoid that, you couldn't take other part time work.

4 ms·

I think the unethical part we get into with Target/Walmart/et al is the staffing of multiple shifts of part time work when it's obvious by the numbers that they

by dv_dt 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
alasdair_ 7y ago
>The systemic question here is if we should allow it to be a financial advantage for companies to do that - especially large profitable ones with a footprint all over our nation. The tying of health insurance to employment is the core issue. We give massive tax breaks to corporations via tax-deductible health insurance which naturally favors those employers with larger labor pools (who can therefore negotiate the best discounts). We need to move to medicare for all and then treat health insurance over and above that like any other taxable benefit provided by an employer.
UnFleshedOne 7y ago
Ironically, consolidating the same amount of hours in fewer employees suffers the same effects people say raising minimum wage does -- reducing the total number of people involved. Some people get more hours and benefits, others get fired.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  Yes that's a poor and hopefully temporary side effect - but it would get more people covered with medical benefits. It may also not be that bad en effect because unfair scheduling practices for the part time hires. The part-time scheduling is reported to take up essentially full time commitments to be on "standby" with poor stability in the scheduled times on/off. So if one wasn't instantly available to come off standby, one would get penalized - to avoid that, you couldn't take other part time work.