4 ms·
> there are lots of hourly employees who work 32 hours and would like to work 40 hours and get benefits. benefits should not depend on how many hours your work
by thescriptkiddie 3y ago
> there are lots of hourly employees who work 32 hours and would like to work 40 hours and get benefits.
benefits should not depend on how many hours your work
- wahnfrieden 3y agoyep: multiple things can in fact improve
- nateb2022 3y ago>benefits should not depend on how many hours your work Ideally, yes. However, there are many small businesses and franchises who cannot afford to offer benefits to all their part-time workers. This would result in a marked decrease/elimination of part-time employment opportunities -- opportunities often essential to the livelihood of the working class, who work part-time to supplement their full-time income. For many of these people, who are among the hardest workers in our society, that part-time job is the only thing holding preventing them from sinking under. They don't want, or need, benefits from their part-time job when they already receive benefits from their full-time job, receive federal/state sponsored health insurance OR pay for their own especially when said benefits come at the cost of their ability to financially support themselves. Most people would rather be able to provide for themselves than exist in an inescapable state of welfare-dependency brought on by well-intentioned but damaging initiatives.
- euroderf 3y agoCan't a legislature mandate that the benefits currently available to full-time workers (currently defined as ~40h/wk) are suddenly now available to full-time workers (newly redefined as 32h/wk) ? No new assertions of power, just a redefinition of a threshold.