5 ms·

It's interesting to note that this guy NEVER gets more than 30 hours. This is most likely to make sure the employee can't be considered full-time. I'm sure Goog

by altoz 13y ago

It's interesting to note that this guy NEVER gets more than 30 hours. This is most likely to make sure the employee can't be considered full-time. I'm sure Google would rather hire 15 guys at 40-60 hours instead of 40 guys at 20 hours, but the sad reality is that the costs of compliance for a full-time employee are just not worth it.

angersock 13y ago
but the sad reality is that the costs of compliance for a full-time employee are just not worth it. My heart bleeds for these poor, hamstrung corporations.
- menacingly 13y ago
  Does it bleed for the human consequences of the very rational decisions they'll make in that environment?
dkokelley 13y ago
Google hasn't hired anybody. The security company was awarded a contract to provide security services, which is fulfilled by employing some people at < 30 hours/week. If there is an issue with the < 30 hours/week loophole, the security company is where it should be addressed. "But Google is benefiting from this exploitation!" you might say. Yes. Google can pay less for security services because the guards ultimately cost less. If the guards worked 40 hours/week, the contract cost would have to increase, and another lower cost security company may have won the contract. The reality is that security services are only worth so much. Not every job (even at full time) can or should be expected to pay a livable wage.
- lhc- 13y ago
  What do you propose for those people who work these non-livable jobs (including security jobs, janitors, restaurant service workers, and whatever else) to allow them to, well, live? Because you can't just ignore it and say they should get better jobs: someone has to do these things.
  - dkokelley 13y ago
    I apologize for the late reply. The truth is some jobs are simply not worth much to the employer. The minimum wage laws generally are designed to ensure a livable (albeit uncomfortable) income for a single adult working full time. In California, the minimum wage is $8/hr, and scheduled to increase to $10/hr within a couple years. This combined with government assistance programs will generally ensure that individuals with the will to work can afford to live near their livelihood ($500/month room with utilities in the bay area with BART access http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/roo/4250779898.html http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/roo/4250779898.html). Of course there are several other factors that impact one's ability to sustain themselves: Dependants - There is government assistance available for dependant children. Lack of work - The man from this article does not work full time. The availability of full-time jobs aside, it is not reasonable to expect a livable income on part time, unskilled work. Major unplanned expenses - Things such as unplanned medical expenses or enormous college tuitions or loan repayments will be a burden to someone making minimum wage. My point is, 1) I do not accept the assumption that certain jobs are non-livable by definition. For an individual working full time without dependants or edge-case financial burdens, you can generally get by in America. 2) "non-livable" jobs only exist when certain edge case financial hardships arise. In general, assistance is available in these cases, and we have systems in place to support people who fall on hard times. Whether these systems are working as intended is beyond the scope of employee compensation, although there is definitely a case for improving these systems. There is a third, unspoken point about "non-livable" jobs. People who work these jobs are usually not expected to stay very long. Sometimes these are "stepping-stone" opportunities for the young and inexperienced. Other times these jobs act as a safety net for workers who have lost their higher-paying jobs and need to survive until they can be fully employed. I accept there are people who have no plans or hopes of moving on from these jobs, either due to a lack of marketable skills or even language barriers. I don't believe the answer is in regulating these jobs to pay better. I think the answer lies in educational outreach. Instead of bettering the job, let's try to better the individual so they can get a better job. Finally, I agree that "someone has to do these things". The market will ensure that the things that need to get done are done. Assuming that everyone "gets better jobs", the supply of unskilled laborers will decrease. From economics, I would guess that a lack of supply for certain menial tasks will have one of two outcomes: the price for the menial task will increase ("non-livable" jobs now become more livable), or a substitute will eliminate the need for the work (automation).
runako 13y ago
>> costs of compliance for a full-time employee I'm not sure this is the driver. Instead, the primary factor is likely the fact that hourly employees cost a 50% more the moment they cross 40 hours in a week. >> Google would rather hire 15 guys at 40-60 hours instead of 40 guys at 20 hours Not if they are paid hourly, they wouldn't. It would just be throwing money away. In my way-back days working hourly jobs in retail/fast food/etc., we would game this by trying to get as many excess hours as possible early in the week, so that we could get to 40+ hours by the 5th/6th day. Then, we'd aggressively try to get extra shifts from people who called in sick, etc. But management always tried to prevent this.
- altoz 13y ago
  Overtime laws definitely affect the cliff at 40 hours. That said, there's something to be said for reliable and consistent employees. I know that a lot of small business owners I know would rather have a few trusted employees than many not-as-trustworthy ones. There's a trust cost to adding each additional employee that may or may not offset the overtime costs.
eplanit 13y ago
True. That's partially due to Obamacare. If more than 30 hours, the employer has to provide coverage, which greatly increases the cost of that employee.
- lhc- 13y ago
  If only we could just make these people work for free and not provide any benefits, and just let them die in the street or go bankrupt because they got sick, the market would fix everything and the world would be perfect.

by altoz 13y ago

angersock 13y ago

but the sad reality is that the costs of compliance for a full-time employee are just not worth it. My heart bleeds for these poor, hamstrung corporations.

menacingly 13y ago
Does it bleed for the human consequences of the very rational decisions they'll make in that environment?

dkokelley 13y ago

Google hasn't hired anybody. The security company was awarded a contract to provide security services, which is fulfilled by employing some people at < 30 hours/week. If there is an issue with the < 30 hours/week loophole, the security company is where it should be addressed. "But Google is benefiting from this exploitation!" you might say. Yes. Google can pay less for security services because the guards ultimately cost less. If the guards worked 40 hours/week, the contract cost would have to increase, and another lower cost security company may have won the contract. The reality is that security services are only worth so much. Not every job (even at full time) can or should be expected to pay a livable wage.

lhc- 13y ago
What do you propose for those people who work these non-livable jobs (including security jobs, janitors, restaurant service workers, and whatever else) to allow them to, well, live? Because you can't just ignore it and say they should get better jobs: someone has to do these things.
- dkokelley 13y ago
  I apologize for the late reply. The truth is some jobs are simply not worth much to the employer. The minimum wage laws generally are designed to ensure a livable (albeit uncomfortable) income for a single adult working full time. In California, the minimum wage is $8/hr, and scheduled to increase to $10/hr within a couple years. This combined with government assistance programs will generally ensure that individuals with the will to work can afford to live near their livelihood ($500/month room with utilities in the bay area with BART access http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/roo/4250779898.html http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/roo/4250779898.html). Of course there are several other factors that impact one's ability to sustain themselves: Dependants - There is government assistance available for dependant children. Lack of work - The man from this article does not work full time. The availability of full-time jobs aside, it is not reasonable to expect a livable income on part time, unskilled work. Major unplanned expenses - Things such as unplanned medical expenses or enormous college tuitions or loan repayments will be a burden to someone making minimum wage. My point is, 1) I do not accept the assumption that certain jobs are non-livable by definition. For an individual working full time without dependants or edge-case financial burdens, you can generally get by in America. 2) "non-livable" jobs only exist when certain edge case financial hardships arise. In general, assistance is available in these cases, and we have systems in place to support people who fall on hard times. Whether these systems are working as intended is beyond the scope of employee compensation, although there is definitely a case for improving these systems. There is a third, unspoken point about "non-livable" jobs. People who work these jobs are usually not expected to stay very long. Sometimes these are "stepping-stone" opportunities for the young and inexperienced. Other times these jobs act as a safety net for workers who have lost their higher-paying jobs and need to survive until they can be fully employed. I accept there are people who have no plans or hopes of moving on from these jobs, either due to a lack of marketable skills or even language barriers. I don't believe the answer is in regulating these jobs to pay better. I think the answer lies in educational outreach. Instead of bettering the job, let's try to better the individual so they can get a better job. Finally, I agree that "someone has to do these things". The market will ensure that the things that need to get done are done. Assuming that everyone "gets better jobs", the supply of unskilled laborers will decrease. From economics, I would guess that a lack of supply for certain menial tasks will have one of two outcomes: the price for the menial task will increase ("non-livable" jobs now become more livable), or a substitute will eliminate the need for the work (automation).

runako 13y ago

>> costs of compliance for a full-time employee I'm not sure this is the driver. Instead, the primary factor is likely the fact that hourly employees cost a 50% more the moment they cross 40 hours in a week. >> Google would rather hire 15 guys at 40-60 hours instead of 40 guys at 20 hours Not if they are paid hourly, they wouldn't. It would just be throwing money away. In my way-back days working hourly jobs in retail/fast food/etc., we would game this by trying to get as many excess hours as possible early in the week, so that we could get to 40+ hours by the 5th/6th day. Then, we'd aggressively try to get extra shifts from people who called in sick, etc. But management always tried to prevent this.

altoz 13y ago
Overtime laws definitely affect the cliff at 40 hours. That said, there's something to be said for reliable and consistent employees. I know that a lot of small business owners I know would rather have a few trusted employees than many not-as-trustworthy ones. There's a trust cost to adding each additional employee that may or may not offset the overtime costs.

eplanit 13y ago

True. That's partially due to Obamacare. If more than 30 hours, the employer has to provide coverage, which greatly increases the cost of that employee.

lhc- 13y ago
If only we could just make these people work for free and not provide any benefits, and just let them die in the street or go bankrupt because they got sick, the market would fix everything and the world would be perfect.