4 ms·

So they were both reduced hours and beholden to their jobs with no time off?

by soperj 6y ago

xphilter 6y ago
How is that contradictory?
- soperj 6y ago
  if they have reduced hours, then they have time to find another job.
  - ska 6y ago
    What about irregular scheduling? Surely that can have a big impact on ability to find/keep other work I imagine.
koolba 6y ago
Easily possible. Show up for one hour, ever other hour, to perform task X. I pay you for four hours and you need to be on call for eight daily.
- fastball 6y ago
  So... quit?
vertex-four 6y ago
When you’re paid minimum wage in the US, and you’re not permitted to perform a full-time job, you probably have to hold down multiple jobs; you probably also don’t get things like healthcare from any of them. Zero hours contracts in theory mean you can refuse work (at least that’s how it works in the U.K.), but obviously you’re going to be fired for doing so, so you’re essentially constantly on call for both/all your jobs.
- soperj 6y ago
  if you have multiple jobs, then you clearly have time to find another job.
  - dcrn 6y ago
    Many times, if you're having to take on another job, you don't have the luxury of "time" to find the best one, e.g. pays well, has benefits, etc. You take the first or second job that comes to you and work for as much time as possible at that one as well. Speaking from experience, people don't take on multiple jobs just to work them for an hour or two a day.
  - ruined 6y ago
    no, working an additional job does not give you more hours in a day. rather it consumes time. what do you do at work?
    - soperj 6y ago
      I'm responding to what's written. If you have a job at walmart, they can't both have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at walmart and have another job.
      - Cederfjard 6y ago
        ...but they can have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at Walmart, and to the other job? You're saying they should keep the Walmart job and get rid of the other, and spend the time freed up searching for one that's full time and paid enough to replace both, right? But if you can't support yourself and your dependants on the Walmart job alone, then that's risky.
        soperj 6y ago
        if they have the other job already, then they clearly had time. I'm not saying they should do anything. I'm saying it doesn't make sense that you can be beholden to a job because of too many hours, and have reduced hours. It's one or the other.
balabaster 6y ago
Both situations applied to different people. I'd find it weirdly paradoxical for one person to find themselves in both situations simultaneously.
wittyreference 6y ago
39 hours + "you come running when we call or you lose it." It's just shy of full-time (to withhold benefits), but not exactly the same thing as a side gig. And you're bent over a barrel.

So they were both reduced hours and beholden to their jobs with no time off?

by soperj 6y ago

So they were both reduced hours and beholden to their jobs with no time off?

xphilter 6y ago

How is that contradictory?

soperj 6y ago
if they have reduced hours, then they have time to find another job.
- ska 6y ago
  What about irregular scheduling? Surely that can have a big impact on ability to find/keep other work I imagine.

koolba 6y ago

Easily possible. Show up for one hour, ever other hour, to perform task X. I pay you for four hours and you need to be on call for eight daily.

fastball 6y ago
So... quit?

vertex-four 6y ago

When you’re paid minimum wage in the US, and you’re not permitted to perform a full-time job, you probably have to hold down multiple jobs; you probably also don’t get things like healthcare from any of them. Zero hours contracts in theory mean you can refuse work (at least that’s how it works in the U.K.), but obviously you’re going to be fired for doing so, so you’re essentially constantly on call for both/all your jobs.

soperj 6y ago
if you have multiple jobs, then you clearly have time to find another job.
- dcrn 6y ago
  Many times, if you're having to take on another job, you don't have the luxury of "time" to find the best one, e.g. pays well, has benefits, etc. You take the first or second job that comes to you and work for as much time as possible at that one as well. Speaking from experience, people don't take on multiple jobs just to work them for an hour or two a day.
- ruined 6y ago
  no, working an additional job does not give you more hours in a day. rather it consumes time. what do you do at work?
  - soperj 6y ago
    I'm responding to what's written. If you have a job at walmart, they can't both have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at walmart and have another job.
    - Cederfjard 6y ago
      ...but they can have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at Walmart, and to the other job? You're saying they should keep the Walmart job and get rid of the other, and spend the time freed up searching for one that's full time and paid enough to replace both, right? But if you can't support yourself and your dependants on the Walmart job alone, then that's risky.
      - soperj 6y ago
        if they have the other job already, then they clearly had time. I'm not saying they should do anything. I'm saying it doesn't make sense that you can be beholden to a job because of too many hours, and have reduced hours. It's one or the other.

balabaster 6y ago

Both situations applied to different people. I'd find it weirdly paradoxical for one person to find themselves in both situations simultaneously.

wittyreference 6y ago

39 hours + "you come running when we call or you lose it." It's just shy of full-time (to withhold benefits), but not exactly the same thing as a side gig. And you're bent over a barrel.