3 ms·

Personally, I think part time jobs should have to come with the same benefits as full time, by law. That would encourage companies to offer full time positions

by hedora 3y ago

Personally, I think part time jobs should have to come with the same benefits as full time, by law. That would encourage companies to offer full time positions. Current law (in the US) financially penalizes full time employers, which is why most part time workers end up working multiple part time jobs.

chongli 3y ago
My dad (and loads of other gig workers) don’t want full time Uber jobs. They like gig work because it gives their lives flexibility. The employer-employee relationship is about more than money & benefits, it’s about power. A full time job gives your employer the power to dictate your life schedule to you. Your boss wants you at your desk at 8am but you have to take your kid to school at 8:30? Too bad! You’re there at 8 or you’re fired. It’s even worse in retail and food service, as I alluded to in my original post. These workers get their schedules a week ahead, with shifts all over the place. One day you’re opening at 6am. Next day you’re closing at 9pm. Good luck having any kind of life outside of work with a schedule like that!
PixyMisa 3y ago
This has been tried. It results in eliminating part-time jobs, overloading full-time employees, and increasing unemployment.
- tremon 3y ago
  increasing unemployment That is irrelevant, because of how it's measured: 1 person working 40 hours/week and 9 people not working gives an unemployment of 90%, but 10 persons working 4 hours/week gives an unemployment of 0% -- yet both scenarios have the same amount of work. Of course using part-time jobs reduces the unemployment figures. It says nothing, however, about the availability of work.
alborzb 3y ago
> "part time jobs should have to come with the same benefits as full time, by law." All this does is eliminate more jobs. In your hypothetical scenario, a company that hires 2 or 3 people part-time would need to do health insurance for each of them, benefits for each of them and the additional full-time equivalent paperwork for each of them... In that scenario, the company would end up just hiring 1 person full-time for the hours, and have much less added overhead costs. This would lead to higher unemployment, because now instead of 3 people being employed part-time, only 1 person is employed. Where's the good in that? Maybe I'm just not seeing it from my perspective, if anyone else can chime in?
- gkmcd 3y ago
  Do you know this is exactly how it works in most first world countries already? (except for the health insurance bit, because most first world countries have a public health system). Part-time workers get holiday pay, sick leave, and every entitlement of full-time workers, at a rate commensurate with their hours.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]

by hedora 3y ago

chongli 3y ago

My dad (and loads of other gig workers) don’t want full time Uber jobs. They like gig work because it gives their lives flexibility. The employer-employee relationship is about more than money & benefits, it’s about power. A full time job gives your employer the power to dictate your life schedule to you. Your boss wants you at your desk at 8am but you have to take your kid to school at 8:30? Too bad! You’re there at 8 or you’re fired. It’s even worse in retail and food service, as I alluded to in my original post. These workers get their schedules a week ahead, with shifts all over the place. One day you’re opening at 6am. Next day you’re closing at 9pm. Good luck having any kind of life outside of work with a schedule like that!

PixyMisa 3y ago

This has been tried. It results in eliminating part-time jobs, overloading full-time employees, and increasing unemployment.

tremon 3y ago
increasing unemployment That is irrelevant, because of how it's measured: 1 person working 40 hours/week and 9 people not working gives an unemployment of 90%, but 10 persons working 4 hours/week gives an unemployment of 0% -- yet both scenarios have the same amount of work. Of course using part-time jobs reduces the unemployment figures. It says nothing, however, about the availability of work.

alborzb 3y ago

> "part time jobs should have to come with the same benefits as full time, by law." All this does is eliminate more jobs. In your hypothetical scenario, a company that hires 2 or 3 people part-time would need to do health insurance for each of them, benefits for each of them and the additional full-time equivalent paperwork for each of them... In that scenario, the company would end up just hiring 1 person full-time for the hours, and have much less added overhead costs. This would lead to higher unemployment, because now instead of 3 people being employed part-time, only 1 person is employed. Where's the good in that? Maybe I'm just not seeing it from my perspective, if anyone else can chime in?

gkmcd 3y ago
Do you know this is exactly how it works in most first world countries already? (except for the health insurance bit, because most first world countries have a public health system). Part-time workers get holiday pay, sick leave, and every entitlement of full-time workers, at a rate commensurate with their hours.
AniseAbyss 3y ago
[dead]