Part time workers

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JamesATyler

Guest
I work for a retail company that enjoys a large volume of customers. It has a employee structure that is common in America, i think. I am not an expert though.

We have 2 full time salaried managers. We have 5 full time hourly paid supervisors. Finally we have 12 part time hourly paid associates.

I have been with the company for over 6 years. There is a great deal of frustration among management concerning the level of commitment. I have seen a range of tactics used to motivate hourly associates from near concentration camp style and reminding employees that they are easily replaceable, to trying to make the employees feel essential and valuable. Truthfully, they are valuable and essential. The business cannot function without them.

I think i have finally realized that the problem is simple. I think American businesses will not commit to their workforce. They employ part time workers to cut down on labor cost. The businesses do this knowingly and the literal aim is not to commit to offering a career with a good wage and good benefits. Yet, the managers need a career minded level of commitment from the employees to perform well.

On top of this, in our business, the employees enjoy a range of commitment from none (part timers) to fully commited (salaried). That puts those who enjoy more commitment from the company trying to make the business work with people who the company actually, willfully, won’t monetarily value highly. Yet, the company doesn’t seem to understand why these employees don’t act like they are completely commited to the company’s success.

The reason is, it is mutual.
 
I agree. I think it also has to do with insurance. If businesses hire people full time, they have to provide health care.

I just left the Catholic school system, and this issue is very much in play in that realm too. Teachers can only afford to work there if their spouse makes a considerable sum. Lots of part time teachers where I was.
 
Gone are the days when Labor and Capital were considered partners. Maybe they never were equal partners, but there were better days around the middle of the last century.

Now we are back to The Golden Rule: He who has the Gold makes the Rules.
 
Last edited:
Do the part-time workers want to be part-time?

I worked part-time for a long time by my own choice. I needed extra money to pay for my daughters’ extra-curricular activities (non-essential expense, but nice to have), but I didn’t need the benefits because at that time, our whole family was covered under my husband’s workplace benefits.

I would say that I had a good work ethic (because I am a Christian), but the company certainly wasn’t my main priority–my family was. If I was asked to stay late, I would do it, and I would be willing to trade my days with others if they needed a day off. I worked very hard while I was at work and gave my company my all. But at that time, I was not willing to work full-time or take on big projects at the company that would involve working longer hours on a regular basis or put me in a position of authority. So I’m guessing that to some people, I looked like I didn’t want to work as hard as they did.
 
Last edited:
Seek out a full time position if you are unhappy with your current position.
 
Yes, there are people who are specifically looking for part time work, like you were, but my impression is that most people would like to have a career.
 
I am full time in my position. The post in primarily about my belief that companies with this business model can expect employees to be about as committed to them as they are to their employees. Some companies prefer to spend as little as possible and it is for the good of the company’s bottom line, we think. Logical. My point is, if a company wants commitment, it has to buy it. Yet, in my experience, management often is pushed to expect a very high return on the minimal investment the company puts into some employees, and more often, managers don’t get a very high return, they get a minimal return.
 
Last edited:
This business model has been going on a long time and the main reason for it is that companies don’t want to pay for benefits like health care. Often when you see this, the part time employees aren’t even true employees of the company; they’re temps or subcontractors.

It’s pretty obvious why they have no motivation to help the company do better.

I also imagine that by setting impossible goals for managers at low levels, the company has an excuse not to pay them much either, on the basis that they don’t achieve their management objective of getting some big level of commitment.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, those part time workers who wish to move to full time would be advised demonstrate responsibility and hard work.
 
My employer after Obama care was certified cut all non supervisory and union positions. So ramp and gate agents to 29 hours.
 
Wouldn’t these part-time positions normally be filled by students who are on their parent’s health care anyway?
 
That is the way it typically works. Management does try to promote those who perform the best and some employees do try to commit to the company for promotional opportunity. I would guesstimate that about 5% to 10% of the people who have worked as part time employees at my company have done so. I would be confident in saying that if you talk to an employee in my business, you have better than a 50% chance that you are talking to someone who really doesn’t care if you ever come back. I don’t know that this problem can be fixed inside this model.
 
Maybe, but I don’t see how that makes them want to help the company more. If anything, since the company provides even less to them, they care less.
 
That is in an interesting point. I would be willing to believe that they may actually believe that the managers are at fault. I think that higher level corporate decision makers might not even realize that trying to find people with a strong work ethic as the sole means of getting good performance doesn’t work very well. They can take their best performing managers or hire new ones and drastically reduce their rate of pay to something beneath what is competitive , remove benefits, and I could feel confident that these managers will perform worse and will be harder to retain. The same holds true for all employees, i believe.

I really wonder if this business model is more profitable.
 
Last edited:
I noticed supermarkets using automatic checkout machines, self certified check out etc. I try not to use them because I want to support human workers. I realise that the companies are juggling labour costs with profit margins and trying to remain competitive but at the end of the day we share the same planet and the same society.

Unless people are payed an allowance to stay at home equivalent to a working wage then companies will find they have a shrinking patronage. That won’t do them or anyone else any good eventually. I think we should seriously reconsider our definition of progress as far as automation is concerned.

People need gainful employment and the opportunity to cooperate and contribute to society. We are more than numbers.
 
I am going to be looking for a first job soon as I am finishing college. I will just be excited enough to finally be making my own money. Also, I will put in a lot of effort in hopes of landing glowing future reference.
 
Here is a thought. Machines don’t spend money. Every human that is replaced by a machine and ceases to earn should shrink the economy. Society could never be fully automated because there would be no customers.
 
The places I worked, promotions from the floor were almost nonexistent. Decisions about hiring and firing were made at a corporate office by managers who rarely even visited the worksite. It also really favored those who could be more available, which tended to be the workers who had someone else supporting them (so they didn’t have a second job or other responsibilities they couldn’t avoid).

The days of starting in on the ground floor at a store and working your way up are pretty much gone. At best you may get a good reference, but I’d say that’s about 50-50 depending on the supervisor you get. A lot of them either just wouldn’t give references, or I wouldn’t trust them to have any clue who was a good employee.

The biggest issue, I think, is tying benefits to being employed full-time. As it stands now, working part-time means no health insurance, no paid sick time, no leave protections if you get sick. We’re really setting it up so that we’re expecting young adults to be relying on parents for several years after 18, even though the parents have no legal obligations to them at that age (or not for very long after).
 
Lee1 said:
companies will find they have a shrinking patronage. That won’t do them or anyone else any good eventually
Click to expand...
I agree James.

What does it profit a man …if he has no customers!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top