4 ms·

Ripe for "The Law of Unintended Consequences". Without changes to what is classified as Part Time Work (usually 30 hours), employers will get rid of full time s

Ripe for "The Law of Unintended Consequences". Without changes to what is classified as Part Time Work (usually 30 hours), employers will get rid of full time staff and in some cases be able to avoid paying almost all benefits. UPS comes to mind, they would only hire part time drivers to avoid paying benefits. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/parttimeemployment https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/parttimeemployme... The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not address part-time employment. I wouldn't be surprised if employers jump all over this to allow them to save billions by getting rid of full time work. Edit: Spelling/Grammar

thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
>> Ripe for "The Law of Unintended Consequences". That is what concerns me too. Well-meaning laws that do not consider the second- and third-order effects can be easy for employers to game. "If you want to work more than 30 hours per week, you have to become an independent contractor."
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Without changes to what is classified as Part Time Work (usually 30 hours), employers will get rid of full time staff and in some cases be able to avoid paying almost all benefits. Yeah, I’m sure that missing out on that is the kind of thing that would fly right by AFL-CIO, SEIU, and the other labor organizations that endorsed this, who are generally completely clueless about the legal context of labor and how employers exploit it. Unfortunately, official text for H.R. 4728 [0] is not yet available, though, so we can't really resolve this. [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4728 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4728