You know how some workplaces are loaded with part-time workers...

[Inchworm]

Who absolutely refuse to allow employees to work more than 32 hours, so they remain part-time.

The reason for that is so they don't have to pay for benefits, right?

Is it just health insurance, or is there more to it?

I was thinking... McDonalds, Lowes, Wal-mart, etc would be highly affected if it was just because of insurance. They could have less workers but each worker making full paychecks.

It could be a cool thing.

:shrug:

[dkf]

1. In this time of high unemployment it's probably better to have

More workers with less hours.

[Inchworm]

2. That is in my thinking as well

But, looking for why businesses do that.

[terrell9584]

4. That's one reason

Also the fact that benefits actually do cost money so by having more workers who cost less overall they can run more efficent operations. And right now, sales are really really crappy so even if you don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt and view them as anti-worker thugs you have to cut them slack.


But right now I'd say keeping everyone in a job who can be kept in one should be priority # 1. Because at some point, we're either going to get everyone back to work or some really really bad shit is going to happen. There are countries on earth that can handle high unemployment and even adjust to it.


The United States was a country like that in the 30s. We are no longer that country. The populace has changed and if people go without for too long shit will break out.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Yes, this is one strategy for keeping more people employed.

My carpenters' union was doing that a couple decades ago.

We had "black fridays" or mondays, I've forgotten, but it was one day every other week and allowed for a 10% drop in work without any job losses.

How to provide HC to these people is the important matter, not just paychecks.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. They do it to enhance profit...

Those laws were written to give big corporations with thousands of employees a legal way to deny them the health insurance benefit otherwise required by law.

[Inchworm]

6. But now...

Wouldn't big corporations benifit with less employees if health insurance was the reason they did that?

That is my concern/question/quandry.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Full time employess also get overtime and other benefits...

What these companies want in disposable employees. So they give them as little as they can legally get away with. A full time employee has certain benefits. Part time employess don't get unemployment benefits. Companies pay a cetain amount to guarantee thos benefits depending on their number of full time employees. This save comopnies a lot of money. If McDonalds or Wallmart used full time employees, they would have to provide health care, this is a lot of money.

In order to maximize their profits they have decided to use part time employees because they can evade providing benefits. Money in their pocket. It is more than just health care. It is bottom line.

[Inchworm]

10. Thanks Ozymanithrax

I understand more now, and that was my goal :)

:yourock:

[gvstn]

8. More than just health insurance

Full time employees get health insurance, pension/IRA benefits, vacation benefits. They all add up.

If a company can hire a teen/college student that is already on their parents insurance and has no plans on staying with the company long enough to care about retirement benefits it saves them money. If McDonald's paid into a pension fund for every employee it would be a waste of their money since so few employees actually make a career out of working for the company. The problem is once a company sees it can get away with no benefits they often choose to discourage people from staying with the company long enough to get promoted to full time. They start looking for ways to keep employees from ever getting benefits rather than supplementing their full time workforce with part time employees.

The savings is significant. A bare bones medical/pension benefit probably costs $400 month.

4 part-time employees working 120 hours a month at $7 an hour with no benefits. $3340.00

3 full time employees working 120 hours a month at $7 an hour with minimum benefits. $3340.00 + $1200 = $4540.00

2 full time at 80 hours and two part-time at 20 hours each. $3340 + $800 = $4140.00

Any way you do the math it is cheaper to have more part time employees even if they are less loyal and don't work as hard. It really is time to move away from the employer based model for health care. Premiums are going up way too fast even for good employers who want to help provide for their employees.

[Inchworm]

9. Gotcha, thanks for the detailed explanation

You answered my wonder perfectly.

:yourock: