4 ms·

It's unfortunate that people have to split their time between two separate jobs but these stats never mention the number of hours worked which is the key metric

by pb7 6y ago

It's unfortunate that people have to split their time between two separate jobs but these stats never mention the number of hours worked which is the key metric. If you have a job that is only 10-20 hours a week, picking up another job with equal hours, while less ideal than holding one with twice the hours, is not worthy of the headlines.

diob 6y ago
I'm not sure I agree that it's not worthy of headlines. One of the big trends I see with those 10-20 hr a week jobs, is that they are automated in terms of scheduling to try and optimize profit. In other words, they call you in for an 1hr on Monday, but then another 2 hrs later in the day. It's so chopped up that it's hard to coordinate a second job. And part of the automation is to also ensure employees don't accidentally hit full time, to avoid benefits. So now they hold two jobs, each chopping their day into tiny bits of unusable time (commute, prep, etc.). And neither has to pay any benefits. It's a win win for companies, and a lose lose for everyone else.
- pb7 6y ago
  I agree that companies should be disincentivized/punished for doing that. The overhead of an additional job can't be overstated. I would still like to see the total hours, but ideally the hours spent at each job, to see the depth of the problem. It would also help draw attention to the exact thresholds that businesses are abusing to draw up better legislature.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  This is why Uber/Lyft were so good. They allowed people to dodge the bin-packing problem by allowing someone to convert time and an asset smoothly into cash flow.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  Are such short shifts legal in the US? Last time I worked retail in Canada the law was that if you were called in to work you had to be paid for at least 3 hours even if you were sent home.
  - diob 6y ago
    It's state by state, and at least in Arizona (where I'm from), there is no minimum. Link to our laws: https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/state-wage-and-hour-laws/arizona/hours-worked/ https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/sta...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
I disagree. Generally working 40+ hours at one company brings significant benefits like health insurance or retirement plans. Working two part-time jobs wouldn't do that. Plus there's a significant cost with context switching. 40 hours at two jobs will have more overhead than 40 hours at one job.
- pb7 6y ago
  Agreed with all points and that's likely the case for the majority of these people. But there is probably still a non-trivial number of people that are working 32+ hours at one job and 10-20 at another that would fall into these statistics that would receive benefits. More data can't hurt. Existing laws are clearly being gamed. Edit: Also, these stats will exclude people that are working just one job but still under the benefits threshold which is not good either. "Working two jobs" is just too broad of a statement to be actionable.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by pb7 6y ago

diob 6y ago

I'm not sure I agree that it's not worthy of headlines. One of the big trends I see with those 10-20 hr a week jobs, is that they are automated in terms of scheduling to try and optimize profit. In other words, they call you in for an 1hr on Monday, but then another 2 hrs later in the day. It's so chopped up that it's hard to coordinate a second job. And part of the automation is to also ensure employees don't accidentally hit full time, to avoid benefits. So now they hold two jobs, each chopping their day into tiny bits of unusable time (commute, prep, etc.). And neither has to pay any benefits. It's a win win for companies, and a lose lose for everyone else.

pb7 6y ago
I agree that companies should be disincentivized/punished for doing that. The overhead of an additional job can't be overstated. I would still like to see the total hours, but ideally the hours spent at each job, to see the depth of the problem. It would also help draw attention to the exact thresholds that businesses are abusing to draw up better legislature.
renewiltord 6y ago
This is why Uber/Lyft were so good. They allowed people to dodge the bin-packing problem by allowing someone to convert time and an asset smoothly into cash flow.
AlexandrB 6y ago
Are such short shifts legal in the US? Last time I worked retail in Canada the law was that if you were called in to work you had to be paid for at least 3 hours even if you were sent home.
- diob 6y ago
  It's state by state, and at least in Arizona (where I'm from), there is no minimum. Link to our laws: https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/state-wage-and-hour-laws/arizona/hours-worked/ https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/sta...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

I disagree. Generally working 40+ hours at one company brings significant benefits like health insurance or retirement plans. Working two part-time jobs wouldn't do that. Plus there's a significant cost with context switching. 40 hours at two jobs will have more overhead than 40 hours at one job.

pb7 6y ago
Agreed with all points and that's likely the case for the majority of these people. But there is probably still a non-trivial number of people that are working 32+ hours at one job and 10-20 at another that would fall into these statistics that would receive benefits. More data can't hurt. Existing laws are clearly being gamed. Edit: Also, these stats will exclude people that are working just one job but still under the benefits threshold which is not good either. "Working two jobs" is just too broad of a statement to be actionable.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]