Results 1 to 10 of 11
Thread: Yaaaay, more jobs in the U.S. - at McDonald's
-
08-03-13, 05:57 PM #1
Yaaaay, more jobs in the U.S. - at McDonald's
This is depressing. So more jobs were added (which is a good thing), but a majority of them are part-time, low-paying, or both (which is a bad thing). Great. Time to watch this economy explode with wealth. Woohoo!
It's a good read, but it's also depressing at the same time.
New jobs disproportionately low-pay or part-time - Yahoo! Finance
Sigh. Time to go flip some burgers.
-
08-03-13, 06:01 PM #2
Re: Yaaaay, more jobs in the U.S. - at McDonald's
What really grinds my gears is this,
Part-time work has made up 77 percent of the job growth so far this year. The government defines part-time work as being less than 35 hours a week.
Analysts say some employers are offering part-time over full-time work to sidestep the new health care law's rule that they provide medical coverage for permanent workers. (The Obama administration has delayed that provision for a year.)
..... fuckers.
-
-
-
-
08-03-13, 07:35 PM #6
Re: Yaaaay, more jobs in the U.S. - at McDonald's
I believe there are few that made the call on what would happen back before the law actually passed. I also believe we were told we didnt know what we were talking about. Honestly what did every one expect to happen? Did they think companies would just start pissing money away because Obama said companies wouldnt do this? Just another example that came to fruition of why obamacare needs to be removed.-Lazarus- liked this post
-
-
-
08-04-13, 05:19 PM #9
Re: Yaaaay, more jobs in the U.S. - at McDonald's
Things were trending in this direction even pre-Obamacare, though that's certainly accelerated the process. A few years back, when I worked for Regions Bank (I wanna say from like 2007-2009) they were already starting to cut down on full-time employees in favor of part-timers. Some of it was benefit-related, some of it was turnover related (if someone left, it was easier to increase a part-timers hours temporarily to cover the loss while finding a new employee, then it was to temporarily move people between branches or anything else they'd done).
Basically though, there were already employers moving towards part-time employees during the tail-end of the Bush era, so this isn't a surprise to me at all.
~MorningfrostSmokenScion liked this post
-
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks