Do you think the whole "temp" thing is being abused? (collecting, unemployment)

[dragonborn]

I don't think it's being abused, I know it's being abused, from first hand experience.

I worked as a temp for 7 months, for a large corporation. As soon as I started, there was little training and I was shoved in a cubicle in the noisiest part of the office, furthest away from my supervisor. I busted my ass and worked harder than any of the permanent members of staff, kept going with a promise that they planned on making me permanent, which was never going to materialise. I was excluded from all meetings, treated like a second class citizen. The final straw was when they dumped me with a project that I didn't have the expertise to do; a project that no one else would do, because it was so outlandishly impossible.

I ended up walking out because I felt like I was being taken advantage of, plus the 60-90 minute commute (each way) was destroying my car, while the job destroyed my self-esteem. The company were using many temps to fill full time positions and it made me sick. You get no benefits, no paid time off and have no rights. Companies should not be relying on temps to fill permanent positions.

I think that laws should be changed to limit the usage of temporary workers to just 3 months. Temps are supposed to cover, not be used as cheap labour substitutes for permanent employees by companies who are too cheap to pay benefits. It's a sorry state of affairs that job boards are literally saturated with temp jobs, many of which you still have to jump through hoops to be considered for. Recruitment agencies are profiteering from this mess.

[hatgirl007]

Yes. Capitalist America. See a weakness and exploit it to the fullest. Not only will companies replace full time needs with temps so they don't have to pay benefits and more money.
Boston sounds cool. Temp is supposed to be temporary needs otherwise you have this abuse of poor economic situations by employers.

[rgarjr]

Originally Posted by dragonborn

I think that laws should be changed to limit the usage of temporary workers to just 3 months. Temps are supposed to cover, not be used as cheap labour substitutes for permanent employees by companies who are too cheap to pay benefits. It's a sorry state of affairs that job boards are literally saturated with temp jobs, many of which you still have to jump through hoops to be considered for. Recruitment agencies are profiteering from this mess.

Yeah over here there's tons of companies that use temp workers. U walk inside and all the workers are temp except for management.

The company I worked for supposedly had a policy that you couldn't be there for more than 11-months. So what do they do when your time comes up? They just call the temp agency and order more disposable workers. Also if you weren't needed in a particular day, they would simply call the temp agency and request for you not to show up that day, that's the thing that pissed me off the most.

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by BingCherry

I know there are pros and cons,but I'm starting to feel like temping is being utterly abused. It's horrible. I heard, in Boston, it's illegal to use a temp for my than 6 months. I think that should be a law everywhere. Even 6 months is a long time. That's half a year. For MOST positions, the company should be able to tell within 3 months. Then, if they hire the person, they're on another 90 days probation. That's a total of 6 months and seems like more than enough time for me. I read stories and bump into so many people who have been temping for the last 2 years and some have been temping at the same position for 6-24 months. I feel their pain, because the economy is bad right now, but I feel like the temping stuff is being completely abused in this country. At the rate our country is going, I don't see things ever getting much better.

I was a temp for 1.5 years once. It was a low point for me.

Anyhow, my thought is that there should be two tiers

Tier A- General temps, who are not tied to a specific project. These would be like receptionists, general accounting, etc. There should be a 3 month restriction per year on a temp for this type of position. This would accomplish 2 things

1. Cap the temp length for any one person at any company at 3 months
2. In order to stop companies from endlessly staffing one position with a temp indefinately by hiring a new person for the same job every 3 months, restrict each company by size, to a certain number of "general temps" that can be hired by each job type.


Tier B- Project Temps. There should be a 6 month cap on these temps, and it should be clearly communicated to them that they are project temps, the project they are assigned to, and their exact duties on that project. They should not be used as "general temps". Tier B would follow the same first point in the Tier A section, but Tier B employees would require a specific filing with the federal government and temp agency specifically highlighting the project, and explaining how it is beyond their normal business demands. Companies would be limited in the number of special projects they could claim per year, but not the number of temps used on each one.


In addition, there should be federal restrictions on the "buy out" and "non compete clauses" on temp agency contracts. I would say a 6 month non compete to any employer the temp worked for, and a cap of 1% of their yearly salary as a buyout. This would restrict temp agencies from making it financially unreasonable to "purchase" full time employees under their contract, and essentially keeping their employees trapped in temp jobs.

[Rambler123]

Originally Posted by Randomdude

I was a temp for 1.5 years once. It was a low point for me.

Anyhow, my thought is that there should be two tiers

Tier A- General temps, who are not tied to a specific project. These would be like receptionists, general accounting, etc. There should be a 3 month restriction per year on a temp for this type of position. This would accomplish 2 things

1. Cap the temp length for any one person at any company at 3 months
2. In order to stop companies from endlessly staffing one position with a temp indefinately by hiring a new person for the same job every 3 months, restrict each company by size, to a certain number of "general temps" that can be hired by each job type.


Tier B- Project Temps. There should be a 6 month cap on these temps, and it should be clearly communicated to them that they are project temps, the project they are assigned to, and their exact duties on that project. They should not be used as "general temps". Tier B would follow the same first point in the Tier A section, but Tier B employees would require a specific filing with the federal government and temp agency specifically highlighting the project, and explaining how it is beyond their normal business demands. Companies would be limited in the number of special projects they could claim per year, but not the number of temps used on each one.


In addition, there should be federal restrictions on the "buy out" and "non compete clauses" on temp agency contracts. I would say a 6 month non compete to any employer the temp worked for, and a cap of 1% of their yearly salary as a buyout. This would restrict temp agencies from making it financially unreasonable to "purchase" full time employees under their contract, and essentially keeping their employees trapped in temp jobs.

Agreed.

I also think that we as a nation need to separate healthcare benefits from employment status. That would get rid of another reason corporations use to avoid hiring full-time employees. I'm getting really tired of organizations with money looking for every chance to pass the costs of society on to people who don't have money.

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by Rambler123

Agreed.

I also think that we as a nation need to separate healthcare benefits from employment status. That would get rid of another reason corporations use to avoid hiring full-time employees. I'm getting really tired of organizations with money looking for every chance to pass the costs of society on to people who don't have money.

I agree with the healthcare point. I am 100% in favor of a national healthcare system and also eliminating profit from medicine altogether.

[bobtn]

Term limits on temps would just lead to temp churn. I do think though the IRS restrictions on ICs could apply well here, with a twist. ICs must not be restricted from working with ones competitors-the idea being you are buying a service, not a person. For that reason, I think the IRS should not allow corps INTERVIEWING particular temps. You are buying a service, not a person, from the temp agency.

[INTN]

I'm in a contract/temp employee position. I've been looking for something else, but can't fiind anything to match the pay. One downside, among a few other with the position, it will still end :-)

I guess I should add I've already been in this position 8 months.

[crashoran]

Originally Posted by dragonborn

I don't think it's being abused, I know it's being abused, from first hand experience.

I worked as a temp for 7 months, for a large corporation. As soon as I started, there was little training and I was shoved in a cubicle in the noisiest part of the office, furthest away from my supervisor. I busted my ass and worked harder than any of the permanent members of staff, kept going with a promise that they planned on making me permanent, which was never going to materialise. I was excluded from all meetings, treated like a second class citizen. The final straw was when they dumped me with a project that I didn't have the expertise to do; a project that no one else would do, because it was so outlandishly impossible.

I ended up walking out because I felt like I was being taken advantage of, plus the 60-90 minute commute (each way) was destroying my car, while the job destroyed my self-esteem. The company were using many temps to fill full time positions and it made me sick. You get no benefits, no paid time off and have no rights. Companies should not be relying on temps to fill permanent positions.

I think that laws should be changed to limit the usage of temporary workers to just 3 months. Temps are supposed to cover, not be used as cheap labour substitutes for permanent employees by companies who are too cheap to pay benefits. It's a sorry state of affairs that job boards are literally saturated with temp jobs, many of which you still have to jump through hoops to be considered for. Recruitment agencies are profiteering from this mess.

Almost the exact situation. The company that I work for (or soon won't by the end of the week) fills all positions with temporary workers until they get fed up and leave. It's a continuous cycle for them.

[NJBest]

These stories are anecdotal, but this worked out well for my girlfriend. She worked as a temp through an agency for a large advertising conglomerate. She got hired full time 16 months later. She went from project manager to director during the hire.