4 ms·

All the points you raise are about significant issues and you are right in all the concerns you have. But why do you think that we can't combine flexible jobs w

All the points you raise are about significant issues and you are right in all the concerns you have. But why do you think that we can't combine flexible jobs with all the benefits of the traditional full-time work? Why can't we, as a society, go one step forward towards what we want and set the standard to be that freelancers get insured properly, for example? * Mind you; we are talking about a particular industry here and we start the discussion with all the facts about our industry. Artists, for example, still don't have a lower-wage.

dogma1138 12y ago
Because it's hard to have the cake and eat it, temporary, seasonal and other type of short time jobs are a market necessity. The beef I have is with the (not so) recent trend of them encroaching into the territory that used to be exclusive to full and long term "career" like jobs. Were partly to fault at that, just look at how many Jobs you had and compare it to your father, now I'm not saying that going back to the 2-3 jobs before retirement average is needed, but some middle ground has to be set. Because how i see it the jobs companies can't outsource today to low income countries they try to fill with low income or to be more accurate low cost jobs, partially because they no longer can reap the benefit of employees staying for 10 or more years (since very few employees choose to do so today) and partially because market dynamics dictate it. But it's also because we allow them to do so by both accepting such jobs and by legalizing jobs, when companies can advertise a part time position permanently, when zero hour contracts can be established with no limits, and when firing an employee can be as easy as to give them no notice at all something is wrong. Now again this isn't advertisement for the Dutch workforce system where firing some one with a permanent contract requires a court appearance, no need for such extremes, although the Dutch economy seems to be doing just fine even with them. From my fairly short perspective over the past 8 or so years of employment (5 of them for a single company) I've seen a horrible decline in job security, companies offer less benefits, less security, all under the "pretense" of flexible hours and less work. However I've not seen any actual benefits, people work more get paid less (whether in actual or effective salary e.g. benefits). If you want more freedom how about legalizing a shorter work week and more lenient hours rather than offering companies less security in their employees and accepting a less secure position in return?
- sebkomianos 12y ago
  Again, all the points you raise hold true. But I still don't get why you see illegality as the result of flexible hours, just to pick an example. I am not saying that we should give companies the legal framework to, let's say, hire you for X hours and pay per minute without providing any insurance, retirement benefits, etc.. What I am saying is quite the opposite - and it stands in parallel with your example for a shorter week: We should start looking at the needs and wants of people that sell their labour. We should start listening at the growing voice that says, hey, it's important for me to work less hours, please give me an opportunity to do so. I don't see why you take it for granted that this opportunity will be wrapped by a layer of traps and dangers for the employee. As more and more people ask for such opportunities, it becomes society's duty to deliver them in the best possible environment.
  - dogma1138 12y ago
    Because you can't expect companies to pay for insecurity either. If you demand security you have to offer it, a company which cannot relay on it's employees because they work remotely, work at odd hours, or work inconsistent hours each month takes on a huge risk. That risk is accepted based on the fact that said company pays less for that specific job than it does for a full employee due to less payouts in benefits and employer contributions, shorter and cheaper employee on-boarding, and in some cases less competitive pay. Without those cost reductions "flexible" hour contracts do not make sense for jobs that otherwise would be occupied by a full time employee.

dogma1138 12y ago

Because it's hard to have the cake and eat it, temporary, seasonal and other type of short time jobs are a market necessity. The beef I have is with the (not so) recent trend of them encroaching into the territory that used to be exclusive to full and long term "career" like jobs. Were partly to fault at that, just look at how many Jobs you had and compare it to your father, now I'm not saying that going back to the 2-3 jobs before retirement average is needed, but some middle ground has to be set. Because how i see it the jobs companies can't outsource today to low income countries they try to fill with low income or to be more accurate low cost jobs, partially because they no longer can reap the benefit of employees staying for 10 or more years (since very few employees choose to do so today) and partially because market dynamics dictate it. But it's also because we allow them to do so by both accepting such jobs and by legalizing jobs, when companies can advertise a part time position permanently, when zero hour contracts can be established with no limits, and when firing an employee can be as easy as to give them no notice at all something is wrong. Now again this isn't advertisement for the Dutch workforce system where firing some one with a permanent contract requires a court appearance, no need for such extremes, although the Dutch economy seems to be doing just fine even with them. From my fairly short perspective over the past 8 or so years of employment (5 of them for a single company) I've seen a horrible decline in job security, companies offer less benefits, less security, all under the "pretense" of flexible hours and less work. However I've not seen any actual benefits, people work more get paid less (whether in actual or effective salary e.g. benefits). If you want more freedom how about legalizing a shorter work week and more lenient hours rather than offering companies less security in their employees and accepting a less secure position in return?

sebkomianos 12y ago
Again, all the points you raise hold true. But I still don't get why you see illegality as the result of flexible hours, just to pick an example. I am not saying that we should give companies the legal framework to, let's say, hire you for X hours and pay per minute without providing any insurance, retirement benefits, etc.. What I am saying is quite the opposite - and it stands in parallel with your example for a shorter week: We should start looking at the needs and wants of people that sell their labour. We should start listening at the growing voice that says, hey, it's important for me to work less hours, please give me an opportunity to do so. I don't see why you take it for granted that this opportunity will be wrapped by a layer of traps and dangers for the employee. As more and more people ask for such opportunities, it becomes society's duty to deliver them in the best possible environment.
- dogma1138 12y ago
  Because you can't expect companies to pay for insecurity either. If you demand security you have to offer it, a company which cannot relay on it's employees because they work remotely, work at odd hours, or work inconsistent hours each month takes on a huge risk. That risk is accepted based on the fact that said company pays less for that specific job than it does for a full employee due to less payouts in benefits and employer contributions, shorter and cheaper employee on-boarding, and in some cases less competitive pay. Without those cost reductions "flexible" hour contracts do not make sense for jobs that otherwise would be occupied by a full time employee.