Thread: GOP Dead
View Single Post
Old 05-08-2013, 10:52 AM   #133
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,345

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
We've also discussed this fallacy before, haven't we? If youve ever been in management, cut, which I'm assuming you haven't by some of the things you've said, companies are ALWAYS trying to turn full time positions into part time. Now they're just using the ACA to blame it on. In fact, I spoke to the contacts I have within my old theater company, an sure enough they just had a GMs meeting where the owners blamed the ACA and told them to keep everyone under 30 hours and if you have to, just hire more people. When a manager asked how it would be any different than what they've been doing since the beginning, there was a "long, hilarious pause", then a few minutes of them "fumbling over themselves uncomfortably".

It's been happening since forever. Good businesses eventually find out (for skilled positions) that its actually more detrimental to have two people do the work of one. You're doubling training costs, doubling turnover, and so on.
Agreed. I just was under the impression you had to work at least 32 hours a week to be considered a full-time person.

And from my experience in the fields I've done, having one solid full time worker is better than a couple of part-timers. When I worked in the legal realm as a project manager, HR hired a guy who was a part-timer -- and because he was snuffed out of a full-time gig, barely put forth any effort. They also hired another part-time person to place on my shift along side of him (a woman) because they thought having two people who were there half the time could get just as much work done as one person who would have been there 40-50 hours a week.

After about two months of him fumbling away on his shifts, staring into outer space and missing deadlines -- I had to let them know they made a big mistake. The one dude got fired and a few weeks down the road, the girl they hired decided she couldn't cut the mustard. The legal jargon and business was too much for her. May have not been my place, but since it related to people who worked under me and I had to manage, I told them it'd be in the best interest for the team to hire someone full-time. I am not big on referring friends / nepotism, but had a good friend who was just finishing up his degree and was looking for work. I told him to throw in a resume.

They hired him. He struggled a bit at first (big learning curve with programs, legal terminology and knowing what clients want), but he has been a solid employee for them for almost two years now. He has also been promoted from where he started and is on route to be in the position I was in right after school. It was the right call to make. His production was double both of them combined because he was thankful to have a good wage, great benefits and the comfort of working with someone he had in other avenues (was in student government and other programs with him). . . and he wasn't a functional retard.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote