Are part time jobs replacing full time?

[mmntech]

I've been noticing that an awful lot of the jobs being advertised now are part time. This applies to both general and professional positions alike. Even jobs that are looking for skilled workers with 2-5+ years experience.

Are part time jobs replacing full time? Job numbers released by the feds seem to back this up. I've been looking for a new job to replace my low income but full time job. It's got me a bit concerned, as it's impossible to make a living on part-time work.

When you think about it, part time jobs offer a number of benefits to employers. Observations based on where I work.
-No need to pay costly benefits
-Part time workers generally don't get/get smaller raises
-Part time workers generally get paid lower hourly rates
-Part time workers generally don't get bonuses
-Part time workers generally aren't unionized
-More on-call staff to replace those who are sick or go on extended leave
-Fools Mr. Government into thinking you're hiring more people than you really are. Twice the staff for the pay of one.

 

[Texashiker]

Are part time jobs replacing full time?

Welcome to the world of wal-mart. Where have you been for the past 10 or 15 years?

What I see happening is jobs being part time so the company does not have to pay benefits. If you want health insurance, sign up on medicaid.

Companies are going to get where they hire 2 part time people for the price of 3 full time employees. Want benefits? lol, no chance of that happening.

 

[mmntech]

Welcome to the world of wal-mart. Where have you been for the past 10 or 15 years?

What I see happening is jobs being part time so the company does not have to pay benefits. If you want health insurance, sign up on medicaid.

It's not so much that, it's professional positions that's got me worried. It's not just for minimum wage monkeys anymore. Guess it's taken longer to filter through here in Canada. Recession really triggered it.

 

[BoomerD]

Yep...it's getting more and more common.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yup. They dont have to pay benefits this way of any kind. Welcome to the GOP wet dream

 

[Riverhound777]

I work part time (30 hours a week) but I get full benefits. And then I do consulting work on the side when I feel like it. It's the best of both worlds

 

[Farmer]

Unemployment is replacing employment.

 

[ImpulsE69]

My wife manages a retail store that is part of a 40 store chain across the US (just to point out that it's not Walmart).

Recently, she was told by the uppers that no current part time or future employees would ever be full time. Yes, simply so they don't have to pay benefits. What does this mean?
* No opportunity to move up
* no benefits
* no possibility of additional hours

In the same breath, they complain that they can't get decent employees that want to work. I'm sorry, but if you are telling people up front there is no room for growth or opportunity to move up, then you are only going to get the bottom of the barrel, as anyone with any motivation at all will constantly be looking for a job and soon your employee base is just a revolving door.

The way they get around this also is to just tell the management they cover all sick people, overtime, etc. It makes it very difficult to hire anyone that is half way competent.

Case and point, Walmart. I'm sorry, but I HATE Walmart. Not because it's Walmart, but because of it's employees. They are 99% useless and just drones. They hate their jobs and it shows (except maybe the door greeters).

 

[spidey07]

Yup. They dont have to pay benefits this way of any kind. Welcome to the GOP wet dream

Actually, it's the high costs of complying with Obamacare that provide a huge disincentive to hire full time employees. They can get around that by using part-time labor which is exactly why we're seeing this.

 

[Texashiker]

It's not just for minimum wage monkeys anymore. Guess it's taken longer to filter through here in Canada. Recession really triggered it.

My opinion, since large companies like wal-mart can hire so many part time employees and get around having to provide benefits, why cant everyone else?

Need a vacation? Your part time with plenty of free time.

Need health benefits? Your part time working for barely over minimum wage, sign up on medicaid and let the tax payers pay for it.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Actually, it's the high costs of complying with Obamacare that provide a huge disincentive to hire full time employees. They can get around that by using part-time labor which is exactly why we're seeing this.

Exactly this.

 

[MotF Bane]

ffs pn trolls

 

[pontifex]

dunno about part time but i've seen tons of contract/temp jobs instead of full employment.

 

[dmcowen674]

Yup.

They dont have to pay benefits this way of any kind.

Welcome to the GOP wet dream

Yep, keep voting Republican

No one to blame but yourselves.

 

[ShawnD1]

Actually, it's the high costs of complying with Obamacare that provide a huge disincentive to hire full time employees. They can get around that by using part-time labor which is exactly why we're seeing this.

Party this. Very slight mistakes in policy can have severe consequences.
For lots of US companies, only full time employees get benefits. Since rewriting the company policy can be difficult, the easiest way to slash cost is to stop hiring full time people. If the government says your full time people get special perks, then stop hiring full time people.

Some places have the opposite problem. A construction company I worked for was covered by a union and union policy said ALL employees must get full time benefits like medical care, dental care, work boots allowance, safety glasses, etc. The result of that was 12 hour shifts, 6 days per week. Due to the benefits situation, it was cheaper to have people work themselves into an early grave than it was to just hire more people.

So there's your choice system. If you say full time employees must get benefits, you'll see a drop in full time employment. If you say all employees get the same benefits, you'll see 72 hour works. Leaving it to The Free Market™ will end up somewhere in the middle.

 

[Scouzer]

Party this. Very slight mistakes in policy can have severe consequences.
For lots of US companies, only full time employees get benefits. Since rewriting the company policy can be difficult, the easiest way to slash cost is to stop hiring full time people. If the government says your full time people get special perks, then stop hiring full time people.

Some places have the opposite problem. A construction company I worked for was covered by a union and union policy said ALL employees must get full time benefits like medical care, dental care, work boots allowance, safety glasses, etc. The result of that was 12 hour shifts, 6 days per week. Due to the benefits situation, it was cheaper to have people work themselves into an early grave than it was to just hire more people.

So there's your choice system. If you say full time employees must get benefits, you'll see a drop in full time employment. If you say all employees get the same benefits, you'll see 72 hour works. Leaving it to The Free Market™ will end up somewhere in the middle.

I don't think leaving it to "The Free Market" produced very good results. 46 million people without health care and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world are pretty bad metrics.

 

[ShawnD1]

I don't think leaving it to "The Free Market" produced very good results. 46 million people without health care and the highest infant mortality rate in the first world are pretty bad metrics.

And yet Obamacare manages to make the situation even worse. Before obamacare, you'd have 40 hours per week and no health care. Now, you only get 20 hours per week and no health care because slashing your hours was the loop hole that allows them to not give out any benefits. Ain't that a bitch.

 

[nonameo]

You can't mandate a 40 hours only workweek, but you can raise OT to 1.75 or 2 to make hiring new employees more attractive. As a consolation, make the new workweek 45 hours instead of 40. Also, at least offer your employees some kind of low(er) cost disaster health plan... you know, 2500 deductible 80% till 5 grand or something like that. This keeps it manageable so that people can at least still afford to pay off their medical debts, and they'll get the negotiated rate, too.

 

[bmaverick]

Three years ago, my dad's company stopped hiring people direct. Only top management is direct, all other people work for contract houses in a large 200 person office space for the company he is in. AND guess what. The top management is always looking at how to reduce the current staff of direct people. The number keeps getting small. Soon, that office will have less than 10 people direct and 180 contract/temps.

 

[ShawnD1]

Three years ago, my dad's company stopped hiring people direct. Only top management is direct, all other people work for contract houses in a large 200 person office space for the company he is in. AND guess what. The top management is always looking at how to reduce the current staff of direct people. The number keeps getting small. Soon, that office will have less than 10 people direct and 180 contract/temps.

What's interesting is how The Free Market™ is driving the US to look more like Canada, UK, and all of those other socialist countries. Instead of the employer giving out health benefits, slash hours until everyone is eligible for government (medicaid) health benefits! :awe:

 

[spidey07]

What's interesting is how The Free Market™ is driving the US to look more like Canada, UK, and all of those other socialist countries. Instead of the employer giving out health benefits, slash hours until everyone is eligible for government (medicaid) health benefits! :awe:

That is his plan, don't you know.

 

[bruceb]

Sorry to say, but this and contracting work seems to be the trend. Sometimes the contractor is local or in some cases, the work goes to places like India. Work that can be by computer is likely to go out of the USA where cost is low. Work that must physically be done, like at cell site tower, goes to local contractors. And yes, they do save on providing benefits, especially if you are on 1099 and not W-2, but if you are 1099, you do get some deductions from your income tax, but no unemployment when the contract ends. You would get that if you are paid by W-2

 

[Via]

Call me naive and overly optimistic, but I truly believe that if you're a skilled, quality person with a decent attitude there's plenty of room for you in the workforce.

Someone will hire you full time.

 

[Blackjack200]

Companies are not supposed to be able to hire employees as contractors and 1099 them. But the government lets them get away with it, so now almost all new hires are "consultants". It's complete bullshit.

 

[Gibson486]

Companies are not supposed to be able to hire employees as contractors and 1099 them. But the government lets them get away with it, so now almost all new hires are "consultants". It's complete bullshit.

yeah, what is even worse is that you used to compensated for insurance and other benefits as well, so if the job paid 60K, you would get essentially an 80K contract.Now the trend is just to give them the hourly wage of what they would get in salary.