U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-04-2013, 05:49 PM
 
Location: U.S.A., Earth
657 posts, read 182,720 times
Reputation: 417
Default Why do companies hire more PT workers rather than giving existing ones more hours?

I've read up that PT (part time) workers, such as in grocers, retail stores, etc. are frustrated because they can't log in more hours. When there IS more work to be done and they're hopeful they'll get more hours, management just hires more PT workers. Some PT-ers can't work more hours, but some of them mentioned in news articles say they WANT TO work more hours to make more $$ to make ends better meet. Isn't it a bigger pain in the ass to go through the process of hiring new employees (even if it's in an industry with higher turnover rate and not as much background screening required for more "corporate" positions) than giving more work to existing ones?

What are some of the reasons behind this? Is it the same deal as a decade or 2 ago about keeping them at PT status (below the 40 hour a week mark) so they don't have to pay for FT (full time) benefits? Are there other reasons too I'm missing?

My readings also indicated that companies now use scheduling software to determine how much business they'll get around certain times of the day and days of the year (holidays, changes in weather, traffic, etc.) and are able hire just enough workers to save $$.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-04-2013, 06:05 PM
 
Location: St Thomas, US Virgin Islands
20,551 posts, read 22,567,353 times
Reputation: 21431
Quote:
Originally Posted by ackmondual View Post
Is it the same deal as a decade or 2 ago about keeping them at PT status (below the 40 hour a week mark) so they don't have to pay for FT (full time) benefits?
In a nutshell, yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 06:17 PM
 
805 posts, read 360,386 times
Reputation: 680
For purposes of the affordable care act, the definition of full time is 30 hours. So that employers who have more than 50 employees will soon have a choice of either offering health insurance for such workers or paying a penalty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 06:25 PM
 
47,586 posts, read 32,249,742 times
Reputation: 21458
Fewer benefits like health insurance is one big reason. Many hire part time and then offer more hours which the employee often wants -- so the employer gets the benefit of part time when it's convenient and full time when it's convenient.

Also it's smart to hire people part time because many won't be employees you really want to keep. Then when a full time position opens, you can select the better quality employee to fill it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 06:26 PM
 
47,586 posts, read 32,249,742 times
Reputation: 21458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_the_facts View Post
For purposes of the affordable care act, the definition of full time is 30 hours. So that employers who have more than 50 employees will soon have a choice of either offering health insurance for such workers or paying a penalty.
Not so soon now --- they have now delayed it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 06:51 PM
 
7,360 posts, read 6,509,955 times
Reputation: 4707
yep, it's about not paying benefits and not paying overtime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 06:55 PM
 
2,482 posts, read 1,836,015 times
Reputation: 3418
Flexibility is also part of it. If you only have 5 PT workers and need somebody to fill a difficult shift like a Friday night you may have trouble finding somebody. If you have 10 PT workers your scheduling is much easier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 06:59 PM
 
3,624 posts, read 2,579,545 times
Reputation: 1811
1) Its a trend, a fashion (like every fashion) which stores follows - "me too".
2) Many employees are women with kids and P/T employment suits them.
3) No need to pay full benefits
4) For some reason, it may be easier to fire a P/T employee then a permanent one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 08:21 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle, originally from SF Bay Area
12,693 posts, read 13,965,117 times
Reputation: 8303
I wouldn't call it a fashion as much as a necessity. If others are doing it everyone else will have to in order to remain competitive. Not paying as many benefits helps keep prices lower. The healthcare mandate will take this to extremes never imagined, where people will be working two part time jobs and having to go onto their state's minimal plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Anchored in Phoenix
1,708 posts, read 2,170,192 times
Reputation: 1216
This is also going on in white collar jobs. I have been a contractor for thirteen years in engineering. The staffing firm I have been working for all these years is growing by leaps and bounds. I figure they are getting a whole bunch other white collar temps. The staffing recruiters are getting cocky now and driving down the rates they allow the temps (and pocketing the extra $ that should have gone to the temps). However the kicker is that the billing rates are not going down. How can this be so? Well the newbie temps are naive and accept the low hourly rates. This means the veteran temps are competing against the newbies to temping. The veterans are getting priced out. But the newbies are making about the same as a direct hire would make plus compensation. This is causing the veterans to either sit out for months for a rare good hourly rate contract or just go direct.

And I just went direct. Rather than argue with my long time recruiter. I have been buying the staffing company stock from 2007 to March of this year and of course it's been doing very well since 2008. Well that is part of why I did not argue. Now I'm cashing in on my gains. I think it's prudent to take the gains ( ) before temping gets so saturated that no one wants to do it anymore and the staffing firms stop growing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top