23 total posts
Sounds like a good business plan
I guess he was keeping employees on the job when there were no customers.
Less employees to manage? How come there isn't a management cut? THAT would save them a couple more bucks.
"I'm hoping that I can get some sort of promotion because then I would get my hours
Give them a slap and wake them up.
Oh wait...reduce hours of work, replace them with others
MORE employees working less hours.......
Obamacare Creates jobs!!!!!!
yes, that's exactly what we've said
Remove mandatory healthcare and there would be more jobs! It seems in spite of Obamacare, it's all working to our plan still, LOL!
not as much as
a non white living in 95.7% white New Brunswick.
Not as much, but still a nervous laugh.
New Brunswick, Canada or New Brunswick, NJ?
I'm not aware of any notable racial problems in either place, but was curious which one you meant.
Do you just naturally assume that if someone is in a minority that they have reason to be nervous?
are you implying they're in danger? threats?
goodness, let's hope not!
Obamacare or not
I've been telling these people for quite a while now that no matter what kinds of screws the liberal/progressive government tries to implement against capitalism with their fines, regulations, new whatever, in order to get, the bigger the company, the more tax and other attorneys they have on staff in order to fine ways around the rules, etc. The smaller companies fold or get eaten/merged into the bigger ones.....less taxes collected all the way around EXCEPT the actual people who wind up footing the bills. BUT, when the screws get tight enough, the companies will lay off or fire people in order to try to stay afloat as long as possible while they find newer ways to get around the garbage being dumped upon them by the greedy liberals, and the tax base from the people themselves now gets smaller and smaller.
Thatcher said.......sooner or later you run out of other people's money........progressives don't care and are so short sighted that they can only see the 'food' in front of them at the moment. The smallest creatures know that you have to store up the food during the summer to get thru the winter.......the progressives can't see that far ahead to know they are going to put everyone, including themselves, into bread lines hoping for other countries to now come to their rescue.
given Wendy's had already gutted their employee insurance
when Dave died, it's no wonder they would do anything to keep from paying.
Even though Dave supposely was completely out of the business, it was less than 6 months after his death when Wendy's raised their employee's health insurance deductible to $2500 from $200 per insured per year.
And even if you met it, by talking with employees back then, you still had all sort of trouble collecting benefits. A coworker of a relative in Texas (yes I know that's hearsay, but anyway) had a baby and had trouble getting his Wendy's insurance paying for any of it.
Many employees just dropped it after multiple employee cost increases even after raising the deductible to $2500.
Besides the ObamaCare issue raised in the post, one shouldn't so readily blame it all on ObamaCare alone. It has often been used that time hrs. are reduced in order to keep from paying any benefits or reduce whatever payouts. This falls under the full and part-time employee area. Hours are given to part-time employees just so they reach the magic mark and then that's it. Otherwise, they're considered full time and usually qualify or rewarded the full employee package, etc..
As for the Wendy's given hrs., Wendy is already into restructuring. They probably couldn't provide other than what they did. While the ObamaCare may have crossed "their line" in benefits normally given, it was needed to reduce costs, plain and simple. But, the Wendy's region or franchise given did this, it may not be a corporate plan only local to that franchise. These are outfits that instruct their people to not provide napkins unless asked. -OR- condiments are given per tray and not self-serve counter area.
Benefits: Gary Burdette, Vice President of Operations for the local franchise,
tells the station that his restaurants cannot afford to pay for health
coverage for all their employees under the new Affordable Health Care
Act." >>>> I bet the pinons got the squeeze but the back office or higher-ups aren't complaining. -------Willy
Well WalMart has long be accused of using 4 people
to fill one job.
Now stores like that need a large part time flexible hour pool of workers, no doubt. Schedules changing weekly sometimes daily stresses employees, that's why there is a huge turnover in those type jobs when other more stable jobs are available. Some of the rescheduling is also due to part time employees who can't work the hours originally scheduled because it conflicts with their primary job scheduled hours that week. I remember an acquaintence talking about the headache of trying to schedule waitresses because half of the staff their available hours changed from week to week. Many of them worked the same type job at more than one location, and basically it was whichever job posted hours first the others had to work around.
WalMart is just the largest example that comes to mind, there have been others mentioned in the news also from time to time. WalMart use to point out their full time pay was above minimum wage and that their full time employees pay and benefits were equal or better than most in the field. They didn't point out that roughly a third or more of their employees are below the full time hour mark. Or that was the percentage I recall being claimed by critics at the time of the argument. That has been some time ago, so it could well be different now.
There are certainly people who only want
part time work and the reasons are many. I know a few retirees who work 2 or 3 short shift days a week at places like Lowes. I've met a few older gentlemen there whose work made them very knowledgeable of many home repair jobs and are anxious to offer advice. The younger employees might know where in the store to find something but it's these part timers who know how to do things. I've heard that some places like to hire older folks to do part time work. As well as being low maintenance as far as salary and benefit needs, they tend to be friendlier to customers and more reliable as far as actually showing up on time to work. Who can blame places like WalMart for hiring a herd of such people to keep around and fill gaps where career oriented people either do not fit or aren't interested in these jobs?
Some part time and temp work force is necessary
and can benefit both employee and employer.
But it can also be used to avoid hiring full time to avoid benefits, particularly when unemployment is high and many have to take whatever they can get.
I bet many of the part time at many places would love to be full time, even at their current job.
There are many who only want part time work, for many different reasons, good, indifferent, and bad.
The same is true of employer reasons for hiring part time, the reasons include good, indifferent, and bad.
Like everything else, temporary and part time employment has both good and bad. It can be useful, necessary. It can also be used to increase business profits by reducing cost by the simple means of lower cost workers.
A longgggg time ago, I used to work for HP as a FE on a "temp basis". Yeah, temp meant I worked full time hrs., but that could go on up to 2-years. Of course, all my benefits were from the agency not HP or greatly reduced from HP. But heck, I fixed HP stuff, left and right and next to reg. HP person or not. Do you think 2-yrs. is a temp. job? That temp process is still being used if applicable. Now, its more of the "contract" principle, you do a task and get laid-off or re-assigned. Contract works means you're own boss, but pay into into your own benefits or what have you, totally leaving the employer off the hook for practically anything that's an employee benefit. Yeah, you're not a real employee but that's how they do it now. I forget who I work for and they make it a stickler that you "represent x-co.", even the end user doesn't know. hahahahahaha!, nervous laugh...nope! -----Willy
Yeap, a public relation and politically correct
means of cheaper labor, even skilled.
It would be just as fair for the employer to just hire employees without benefits as the scenario you describe. Hire on a day to to day basis, no benefits, etc. However, it would be a public relation handcap and make many not consider working there if they can avoid it.
Some independent contractors are people that want to work that way, even many of them. Others again is because that is the best work they can get where they live.
I worked as a temp for most of my life.
I preferred it. As soon as things got boring, you were out the door. I worked at the local utility company for ten years as a temp. The last few years I've worked as many as three jobs part-time to make ends meet or at least wave at each other.
I'm now working full time at a temp agency that does call centers so, when one project is done, you can go to another one.
different strokes for different folks I guess
though working for a fair size temp agency in a denser populated area will normally keep you working fairly steady.
Working at different rates, different hours, uncertain times off, all that can make budgetting difficult. Besides the recent lax mortgage loan time, temp work can also make it more difficult to get a loan, or it could in the past and may again with the recent crashes. I'm not certain about current difficulties for lower or uncertain income borrowers.
Even on a supposely full time job there is always a chance of a downturn resulting in layoffs. Personally I prefer a regular steady pay. Of course, while any job can get routine, doing maintenance work on wide variety of equipment means it isn't exactly the same job every day.
IMO, 10 yrs. is just not temp work, its a way for them to take advantage. But, if it works for you, then what can I say, to each they're own. good luck -----Willy
even if you met it, by talking with employees back then, you still had all sort of trouble collecting benefits. A coworker of a relative in Texas (yes I know that's hearsay, but anyway) had a baby and had trouble getting his Wendy's insurance paying for any of it.