Published: Monday, Oct. 22 2012 9:00 a.m. MDT
This isn't rocket science.Companies have learned that they can get
more from the employee, by changing them to part-time rather than providing the
full-time job.One large local company that everyone would
recognized, cut jobs and fired many "due to the economy". Yet,
everyone knew that sales barely suffered.They brought in a high-paid
"expert" to run one portion of the company, and after the
"expert" glutted the most profitable portion of the company, he got a
big golden parachute. That payout would have paid the wages of *all* the jobs
eliminated by the "expert" in the short time he was there.Will this long-time Utah company survive its third generation of family
ownership? Time will tell, but the MBA-style leadership has given them a
business that's far less vital than ten years ago.It's not
the economy. It's the need to give profits to the every-increasing number
of family stockholders.....few of whom even work there but are entitled.
If companies value loyal, full-time employees, why are they rejecting them? Why
is the bargaining table tilted so much toward the employers? Doesn't the
law of supply and demand work in the labor market any more?
I am also an involuntary part-time employee. I have a bachelors degree, but
went back to school to earn a certificate in a medical field. Finished in 2010
after the "crash" and haven't been able to find a full-time job
since. Full-time workers in my field are holding onto their jobs so there are
few, if any, openings, especially here in SLC. I work PRN (as needed), but I
should really like to work full-time in a career I've worked hard to
Mot Truthful and Patriotic, that is one of the most truthful and patriotic
comments I've seen here in a long, long time.Thank you.
Big difference in a few hours and the benefits it brings. So
business cuts half a million jobs to part time, and that means the economy is
improving? Only before an election.
Employers have been doing this kind of thing for a very long time. It's
not just the new health law. Many companies have made it their policy to hire
two part-time employees instead of one full-time employees because they
aren't expected to provide any benefits (retirement, vacation, paid sick
leave, and healthcare). Only when competing for workers does this diminish.
This country, and its freemarket economy would benefit greatly if we could
separate health insurance from employment. I have met many, many people who
tried to start up their own company, but had to stay tethered to their old job
at the same time because of fear of losing health insurance. How many more
people would take a risk and create an innovative company if they needed to only
worry about their income. The current system strongly benefits larger
corporations that can negotiate insurance benefits. You want to help small
businesses? Support a single-payer system.
Obamacare is accelerating the death of full time jobs
Most Truthful. I concur. Well put
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments