6 ms·
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 sayi
by 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 agoBecause 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.