×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

America's Second-largest Employer Is a Temp Agency

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the get-a-job dept.

United States 541

cold fjord writes "From the Examiner: '...the second-largest employer in America is Kelly Services, a temporary work provider. ... part-time jobs are at an all-time high, with 28 million Americans now working part-time. ... There are now a record number of Americans with temporary jobs. Approximately 2.7 million, in fact. And the trend has been growing. ... Temp jobs made up about 10 percent of the jobs lost during the Great Recession, but now make up a tenth of the jobs in the United States. In fact, nearly one-fifth of all jobs gained since the recession ended have been temporary.' The NYT has a chart detailing the problem."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

541 comments

lack of unions and workers rights (2, Interesting)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 9 months ago | (#44218937)

and some places make you an 1099 but boss and work you like an W2 one.

Re:lack of unions and workers rights (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#44219053)

I haven't seen a legitimate use of a 1099 in my life.

Re:lack of unions and workers rights (4, Funny)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#44219119)

No doubt. Legitimate users of 1099s are competent, top of their field people. Obviously _you've_ never seen one.

Re:lack of unions and workers rights (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219407)

By definition, if you have time to read slashdot, you are certainly not at the top of your field. Those kinds of individuals no longer have free time to do as they please, lest they get pushed off the top rung of the ladder.

Re:lack of unions and workers rights (1)

SOOPRcow (1279010) | about 9 months ago | (#44219123)

I haven't seen a legitimate use of a 1099 in my life.

I use to do some contract development work in my spare time (Scripting and putting together Winamp3/5 skins) and would get a 1099-MISC form at the end of the year. It was pretty darn legitimate. Wasn't constant work and was on a per-skin basis.

Re:lack of unions and workers rights (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#44219149)

Oh, I'm sorry, I meant in the corporate world. It's an important clarification, I suppose.

Re:lack of unions and workers rights (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219109)

Workers rights, good. Unions? Not so much. They just add an layer of management. It's too easy for companies to get away from unions. You end up with an approach to worker's rights that's weak, fragmented, and outside of trade negotiations. The current union system put the nail in its own coffin due to its Internationalist ambitions, stemming from its roots in global socialist movements. When Free Trade became an issue, the movement was split between those who saw it as an opportunity to extend US-style worker protections to 3rd world countries, and those who saw Free Trade and globalization as a move my corporations to escape from US-style worker protections. Guess which side turned out to be right?

The proper approach is not unions in their current form. Instead, it's a concept of minimum wage and benefit broken down by profession. Plainly, it should be higher or lower based on your profession. The min wage is currently only relevant to low-end service sector positions. Unions will also have to give up on counter-productive contract positions such as tenure and seniority, which cross over from worker's rights into the realm of workers sitting on their asses and getting paid for it like the bosses do.

They also need to get out of the public sphere, where they're actually oppressing the majority of labor via taxation and cronyism. Where it the justice in low-end service workers of private industry paying taxes to support tenured teachers who fail to educate their children, so they end up working low-end service jobs too?

Any real worker's rights movement has to further the positions of laborers whether they pay dues or not.

Such labor reform will not fly in the Democratic Party (dependant on the current union regime) or GOP (dependent on the business regime). It will have to be a plank in a true populist 3rd party platform. The "Spirit of Wisconsin" that is attempting to demolish PEUs is actually the true pro-worker movement, not the PEUs. It will take time, but eventually reform minded leftists, True Progressives, will realize this.

Re:lack of unions and workers rights (5, Insightful)

Viewsonic (584922) | about 9 months ago | (#44219187)

It's all for naught anyways. Our population and technology has out paced job growth. We need to realize there simply wont be any more jobs for the majority of the population as time marches forward. Unions wont matter, free markets wont matter. The only thing that will matter is how governments will deal with rationing out services to their population. Eventually everything will just be entirely automated, so we will have to deal with a lot of free time to continue our educations and explore the world. Stuff like arguing over unions, capitalism, socialism is pointless. We're on the cusp of it all being entirely irrelevant.

Re:lack of unions and workers rights (5, Interesting)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about 9 months ago | (#44219297)

Russell called it a long time ago, and look at where we are now. Sometimes I wonder if we'll really transition to a post-consumerist, post-scarcity society, like Paul Fernhout often describes here, or if we'll keep endlessly inventing jobs and functions that do not add to our lives but are infinitely scalable as long as at least two parts are fueling the market in opposite ways, like advertising, laywering, pateting, lobbying etc.

Re:lack of unions and workers rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219343)

No we aren't. As long as there are greedy fucks at the top who know how to use this system it will stay in place. It will only fail when civilization falls, all money becomes worthless, and the rich are destroyed by their own malice. I think we're nearly a century away from that.

Re:lack of unions and workers rights (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44219385)

It will have to be a plank in a true populist 3rd party platform.

Fascist dictators are 'populists'. We shouldn't let the 'populous' define our rights.

CIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44218943)

It takes at least ten CIA agents to create and maintain a false-front job for me.

Re: CIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219035)

And yet they still can't get you a Slashdot ID for you. How sad.

employers don't want to paying for health insuranc (3, Interesting)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 9 months ago | (#44218955)

at least under the new bill part timers and temps can get real health insurance with out pre existing conditions or mini med planes that don't cover much.

It Will Only Increase Because of Obamacare (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44218963)

And that is the truth. Obamacare and all the myriad regulations creating roadblocks to full time employment.

Re:It Will Only Increase Because of Obamacare (4, Insightful)

Lendrick (314723) | about 9 months ago | (#44219265)

Agreed.

Single-payer health care would definitely be a way to fix this.

Corporate executives are smart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44218965)

Fire one full time employee and hire three temps at half the salary. This is a real money saver untill Obamacare makes you pay for benefits for anyone over 30 hours.

Re:Corporate executives are smart. (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 9 months ago | (#44219025)

This is a real money saver untill Obamacare makes you pay for benefits for anyone over 30 hours.

No, they'll just all follow suit with Wal Mart and make sure nobody ever gets enough hours to tip over that threshold.

Re:Corporate executives are smart. (5, Informative)

bryguy5 (512759) | about 9 months ago | (#44219171)

Mod parent up. The intended effect was to give minimum wage employees free healthcare but the actual affect is to reduce their hours from 40 hrs a week + overtime to a strict less than 30 hours a huge paycut for a group that was living pay check to pay check as it was.

Re:Corporate executives are smart. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219301)

Mod parent up. The intended effect was to give minimum wage employees free healthcare but the actual affect is to reduce their hours from 40 hrs a week + overtime to a strict less than 30 hours a huge paycut for a group that was living pay check to pay check as it was.

... which will force them to go on government assistance (thus making a large portion of our population even more beholden to Uncle Sam), which will cause many to have to voluntarily cut their hours (thanks to the ever-increasing welfare income gap), or have to forgo college so they can get a second job with which to feed their families (thereby guaranteeing their own progeny a similar life at the bottom of the fiscal ladder)...

Anyone who doesn't realize these obviously shit ideas that get voted into law are that way by design, has to have their heads encased firmly in their own rectums.

-- CanHasDIY, preserving some well deserved mods

Re:Corporate executives are smart. (1, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 9 months ago | (#44219245)

Well, to be honest, this is the making of (D) politics and policies. The world doesn't work like those that live in ivory towers believe. While trying to help th "little guy" by passing things like ObamaCare, have dramatically changed how the little guy is employed. No longer able to find full time work (thanks Reid/Pelosi) because employers cut back "full time" employees to part time, and from 40 Hours to 25 hours a week to avoid increases in costs due to ObamaCare.

Then all the liberals start whining about how "unfair" it is that employers try to save their businesses by not incurring new taxes (aka ObamaCare). Well who didn't see this coming? Well, Reid and Pelosi didn't. Probably, because they didn't read the bill until after it was passed. And that is what you get when you don't read something before you vote on it.

So, if you want to blame anyone, blame those that tried, and failed, to fix a problem by making it worse than it was before. Oh, and delay the implementation of ObamaCare until after the next election. If you voted for these clowns, you're getting the idocracy you so deserve.

Re:Corporate executives are smart. (4, Insightful)

tibit (1762298) | about 9 months ago | (#44219331)

Then all the liberals start whining about how "unfair" it is that employers try to save their businesses by not incurring new taxes

Yeah, because it's just oh so great that the businesses are "saved" by pissing on their employees and not providing them with adequate health care coverage.

Re:Corporate executives are smart. (3, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 9 months ago | (#44219351)

Obamacare is a Republican idea. That's the reason that it's a byzantine maze of profiteering middlemen: Republicans love their corporate welfare.

Liberals originally wanted single-payer system like that found in most civilized countries.

Re:Corporate executives are smart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219305)

Then they would be forced to increase their workforce to get the same amount of work done. This will incur per capita costs for hiring, training and maintaining these new workers.

Re:Corporate executives are smart. (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 9 months ago | (#44219341)

This is nothing new. Some summer jobs in the 1980's I had often limited me to 19 hours a week, because at 20 you were no longer considered part-time and thus would be eligible for benefits.

Re:Corporate executives are smart. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219255)

Companies typically pay the temp agency twice what the employee's hourly wage is, so any actual saving is limited.

.

Out with the old... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44218981)

...in with the sharks.

A shall-remain-unnamed agency pulled a fast one. They said, "We lost the contract" AFTER I started working; redrew it... several times during my employment... and got away with making more than 2x what I was earning. Suffice to say, I would never want to work as a temp / contracted employee for such-a-business that shall remain unnamed.

Oh, yeah; and the bozo who "lost" my contract, quit the same day he lost it, which was the day AFTER I started working.

Anyway. Don't be fooled by numbers like these. I seriously doubt an organization as large as Kelly, with it's horrible reputation, could actively employ -- and handle -- ALL of these employees. And, temp can mean anything; from one month, two weeks, a few days, six months, or a year or two. It's not steady work, and frankly, organizations like these don't really care about the employee.

If you can, ALWAYS work directly with the employer.

Re:Out with the old... (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 9 months ago | (#44219151)

And, temp can mean anything

Temp only means one thing, "we're cheating you out of benefits".

Stop using the term "Great Recession" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44218989)

If ever there was a term that marks you as someone who lives on their couch and consumes carefully constructed media messages..

"Great Recession" leaves the impression the only way you can interpret current events is by franchising them out to old historic dramas.

Re:Stop using the term "Great Recession" (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#44219073)

Yeah, I'd lean towards a minor depression, in that there have been systemic factors that prevented a real recovery(in the U.S., U.K., and only a couple of other countries, that all had something very specific in common; I'll let you guess what that is.)

Re:Stop using the term "Great Recession" (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about 9 months ago | (#44219083)

Since this is the largest depression since the Great Depression, can we please stop calling it a recession altogether? It should at least be classified as a moderate depression.

Re:Stop using the term "Great Recession" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219295)

Since this is the largest depression since the Great Depression, can we please stop calling it a recession altogether? It should at least be classified as a moderate depression.

It's been pretty small. Most places define a depression as 10% drop in GDP. 2008: 14.22T 2009: 13.9T 2010 14.42T 2011 14.99. As you can see we only had a 1% drop in GDP and recovered that right away. This was nothing like the Great Depression. Not even close. Yes, it was the biggest thing since, but nothing close to the Great Depression in scale. That doesn't mean it won't get worse. This many temp workers is a sign we're not out of the woods yet.

Re:Stop using the term "Great Recession" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219347)

Since this is the largest depression since the Great Depression, can we please stop calling it a recession altogether? It should at least be classified as a moderate depression.

We can call it whatever-the-hell-we-want; the PTB who own all the major media outlets will continue to insist on calling it a recession, since in their eyes doing so takes the sting out of their ineptitude and piss-poor decisionmaking.

Re:Stop using the term "Great Recession" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219395)

The "Pretty Good Depression" gets my vote.

Lack of commitment (5, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 9 months ago | (#44218993)

Employers are afraid to commit and invest in their employees any more. I worked at a call center that was a "temp-to-hire" once - they had around 50 full time employees, including the 20-odd folks in management. Another 100 were temp workers who were brought in, worked to the bone until they burned out, then let go. The highest performers (read: the people who didn't screw up) were offered full time positions with the company, or promotions. The need for this could have been alleviated with better training, but training employees is expensive. Better to hire a lot of them short term through a temp agency, see which ones fit in, and just let the others go, in a constant pattern of churn.

I quit that place despite being one of the rare full timers, because I decided I'd much rather work on computers directly than just talk to people about them.

Re:Lack of commitment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219163)

I've had an account with a temp agency for years now for a recursive reason: I don't want to get "stuck" at a job that I find myself committing to and then years later wonder how I got sucked into wasting so much time there. It's more or less a personal problem/issue (but it hasn't really worked out so...), still I doubt some the tens of thousands of people working for this agency aren't following the same pattern of behavior. I'm rarely that unique.

It's just food for thought, a lot of 40+ year-olds will tell you they still have no idea what they want to be when they grow up. And a lot of them bummed around at temp jobs just as a matter of recourse.

Re:Lack of commitment (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#44219199)

Computers suck, when I grow up I want to be a fireman.

Re:Lack of commitment (3, Insightful)

KermodeBear (738243) | about 9 months ago | (#44219415)

Having worked in IT for over a decade now, I can say that computers do suck. I don't know anyone with my amount of experience that isn't burned out to the point of having no soul left. Problem is, being burned out, motivation is extremely low so that makes it difficult to find something you WANT to do. Then the effort of retraining. The risk of quitting, finding a new job. So you stay in IT because, hell, at least you know what to do and it brings in a pay check.

If anyone has a good solution please let me know.

Re:Lack of commitment (2)

Mitreya (579078) | about 9 months ago | (#44219197)

Employers are afraid to commit and invest in their employees any more.

You make it sound almost reasonable
I don't think "afraid" is the right word. Employees are no longer interested in investing in their employees by training them. Of course there is a good chance that well-trained and secure employees would be better for the company... but that's a long-run talk which does not generate a bonus in the current quarter.

I don't think this is about "picking the best" from the temp employees. I think it's about reducing costs.

Re:Lack of commitment (5, Interesting)

mx+b (2078162) | about 9 months ago | (#44219201)

I have seen this attitude on the job hunt lately myself.

Anecdotal, sure, but here's my favorite story lately: Thru some networking, I managed to grab ahold of the HR Manager at a company recently, and apply to a job that sounded pretty cool. After a few interviews and tests, HR called to make me an offer like this: "Hi, we'd like to make an offer!", "OK, great! What are you thinking?" "Well, we will give you salary of your past employer + 1$/hr AND have you work through one of our trusted third-parties". "Wait... what about a third-party??". I had to tell the guy that I contacted him because I wanted a FULL TIME WITH REGULAR BENEFITS position, not temp/part-time contract. If I wanted that, I could have called the temp agency myself. The hours expected of me, for the marginal pay increase but lack of benefits on a 3 month contract with only vague allusions to future career, made me decline it. I have no idea what they were thinking, that such a "package" is attractive. I heard the usual "we need to make sure it's a good fit" deal, but my attitude is you either believe me at my skills or don't. That statement is just trying to get free work out of me, and I don't appreciate it.

Re:Lack of commitment (1)

afidel (530433) | about 9 months ago | (#44219333)

Temp to hire isn't that unusual, I've gotten all my long term jobs through temp to hire offers and as a hiring manager I've had a couple that didn't work out where it was good for the company that I didn't do a direct hire as firing someone is much more expensive and legally risky than not renewing a contract.

Re:Lack of commitment (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 9 months ago | (#44219473)

my last temp to hire was 1099 no 3rd partys to bad the employer lost out on a big contract. so I was let go.

Re:Lack of commitment (1)

kimgkimg (957949) | about 9 months ago | (#44219281)

A large corporation here in town has a rotating temp program where they hire you for 18 months and then let you go for 3 before you're then free to apply again for another 18 month stint. This way they get out of having to offer you a full-time position and benefits.

Re:Lack of commitment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219355)

This way they get out of having to offer you a full-time position and benefits.

Which is the main reason temps are much better than full time workers. Things are only going to get worse thanks to Obamacare making full time employees so much more expensive than they used to be.

Of course, creating thousands of temporary jobs is a great way to artificially inflate employment numbers, so I doubt Obama really cares just how badly his administration has completely screwed working Americans. And as the last election proves, you can apparently fool enough Americans into thinking they're getting free stuff to keep his position. Or at least, Acorn up enough "voters" to do so. Can't wait to see what happens when voter ID laws go into effect and we start (gasp) checking for voter fraud...

Don't panic ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44218997)

Executive bonuses are at an all time high, we Have It Under Control.

Le'ts face it, corporations are killing the economy by moving all of their work to foreign sweat shops and leaving no jobs.

But, as long as executives still get their huge payouts and stock prices continue to rise in the short term, Everything is OK. Never mind the fact that long term things are headed for the shitter.

And now Roman Mir will tell us another bed time story about how trickle down economics works and the Republi-fucks will save the economy by cutting all those regulations that keep them from making even more money by not polluting or making products which are dangerous.

You know, the political school of thought which says government should only protect the wealthy's interests, enforce contracts and leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves.

Economy Needs To Transition (3, Interesting)

ranton (36917) | about 9 months ago | (#44219011)

Here is our opportunity to lessen our average work week to be less than 40 hours. Now we just need our safety nets to keep up with the fact that a large percentage of the population will probably be working less than 40 hours per week in the future. In my opinion either the percentage of part time workers will continue to rise or the number of unemployed will start to rise. Hopefully we decide to fix the social problems caused by this with welfare programs instead of higher minimum wage laws this time (since small minded regulations create these problems in the first place).

Re:Economy Needs To Transition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219157)

Now we just need our safety nets to keep up with the fact that a large percentage of the population will probably be working less than 40 hours per week in the future.

Hopefully we decide to fix the social problems caused by this with welfare programs instead of higher minimum wage laws this time (since small minded regulations create these problems in the first place).

These are mutually exclusive. Welfare programs have to be paid for by taking money from somebody. If you're reducing the amount people work, you're cutting their pay (ask all the government workers who now have mandatory furloughs; less working hours is a cut in pay), and then on top of that you're asking to take more money from them to provide money for people who are not working.

Re:Economy Needs To Transition (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 9 months ago | (#44219191)

Why do our safety needs to keep up. We have more safety net than at any prior time in history. Instead of treating the symptom maybe we should tackle the problem. Before 1970 very few households were two income. So somehow with ~40 hours of labor invested outside the home a comfortable standard of living could be maintained. Now days that otherwise comparable family in terms of living standard, education, etc, has to have two people working putting in a total of ~80+ hours outside the home; all while worker productivity has supposedly increased.

You will never fix this with higher minimum wages laws, that is just inflationary. The very fundamental problem is there is to much labor available. If you want to fix it you raise the cost, not dollar value, of labor. What we should do is adopt (preferable non gender biased) policies that strongly encourage single income households, and dare I say strongly discourage the import of finished goods except for nations that are vary similar to our own in terms of cost of labor.

 

Re:Economy Needs To Transition (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about 9 months ago | (#44219457)

Just to add a bit to your point, "comfortable standard of living" has also gone way up since the 70s. We have/buy a lot more crap, now, said crap is amazingly better and it doesn't matter at all in the end, just makes life a lot more expensive. I'm thinking of thngs like cell phones: we didn't have them and so they didn't matter. Now we have to have them, because if you don't, then you're condifered unreachable. Our expectations of time and availability for communications have shifted, and we are expected to maintain a whole new system just so we can remain just as adequate as before.

Re:Economy Needs To Transition (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 9 months ago | (#44219317)

Anecdotally, I disagree. A friend of mine was some kind of HR manager and said that when you factor in the logistical costs of an employee (benefits, health care, etc.), it's actually better to have one guy working a lot of OT than bring in two for 30 hours/week or so.

Re:Economy Needs To Transition (1, Interesting)

mx+b (2078162) | about 9 months ago | (#44219357)

I think that's exactly the problem. It shouldn't be cheaper to work one guy to death while others can't find jobs. The tax code, safety nets, regulations, etc., need to be adjusted to correct this problem. I do not trust business to self-correct, because as HR shows, it's all a numbers game without any emotion on what those numbers mean. People should be able to make money for hard work, but lack of empathy on workers never getting to go home is sociopathic.

Re:Economy Needs To Transition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219411)

What is next? Paid vacation time? The American work ethic is silly. "Work" all the time, but at 40% effort, but always "working".

Re:Economy Needs To Transition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219425)

Part of the small-mindedness of labor laws are mandated benefits for employees, while not having a mandate for what constitutes an 'employee'. The end result is what you see.

We can fix this by fixing the temp loophole and ensuring that temps get all the same benefits (and costs) that regular employees have. Then there'd be much less of a point to having a staff that is mass-outsourced to contracting agencies knowing full well that there is nothing temporary about these positions.

Microsoft recruiting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219021)

My main interaction (that I know of) with Kelly Services was with Microsoft Recruiting. I can't say they did a good job, though I don't know who's fault the issues were.

I'm starting a new company called 1099 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219033)

Seems like everyone will be working for a temp agency or 1099.
The economy and government is looking more crooked and rigged if you could even believe that possible.

Good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219037)

If those workers had good jobs and stable income they'd use their disposable income to wreck the environment with new cars and houses. Better that they subsist in a rental somewhere and keep voting for benefits.

Our society is already post-scarcity (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#44219043)

We no longer need 40-hour work-weeks in the US. The productivity of the average worker is really damn high. But we've decided that cutting back hours to what's needed justifies a massive pay-loss.

This manifests in temp-jobs, migrant workers, bored salaried office workers dragged into offices for 40 hours a week. The net result is a less stable society, with a high GDP, and awful wages.

Please note this post represents an observational opinion that doesn't not necessarily represent a rigorously studied position, but rather an intuited one.

Re:Our society is already post-scarcity (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 9 months ago | (#44219061)

Most people I know work far more than 40 hours a week because of all the cuts to make the workforce more "efficient". Temps are hired to fill in during especially rough times.

Re:Our society is already post-scarcity (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#44219243)

Most people who work 'far more then 40 hours a week' would get more done (and do it better) if they worked 40. In reality most of them are playing the 'facetime' game.

They should jump up and down until their balls drop, then explain to their boss that burned out people almost always do negative work. Constant overtime is a sure sign that they are not managing their managers.

Re:Our society is already post-scarcity (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#44219257)

Temps are also hired because they can be calved off if necessary with no explanation, especially when the contract expires.

By the way, by saying government spending should be proportional to GDP, rather than income, or need, you are saying all productivity gains are properly inhaled by government than by benefitting the people who make the optimizations. It's a trick, run! The killer is in the house!

get rid of salary no overtime pay or make it 100K (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 9 months ago | (#44219055)

get rid of salary no overtime pay or make it 100K mini pay to have it like that.

also have a double OT pay kick it at 50-60 hour weeks

Maybe even make 35 the new full time with ot starting at hour 36.

Re:get rid of salary no overtime pay or make it 10 (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 9 months ago | (#44219323)

Doesn't double OT already kick in at 50-60? I worked at a shoe factor one summer and I thought it was hours over X or on Sundays that triggered double-OT for us.

Why temp jobs suck (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219059)

Temp jobs are mainly an issue because being unemployed here sucks. If we gave everyone what we give the 1% of people in jail (food, medical coverage, shelter), being a temp employee wouldn't suck so much. If you didn't like it, you could quit without fear. That would solve the whole problem with shitty jobs (employers would have to pay you extra to be willing to do a shitty job). It would also put an end to the minimum wage issue: if they don't pay enough, you don't have to bother working.

And yet... (4, Interesting)

argStyopa (232550) | about 9 months ago | (#44219069)

Yes, having the 2nd largest employer in the country be a temp service speaks volumes about the alleged recovery and job market.

The first-largest is Wal Mart, which is pretty much the same, and horrible.
(2.2 million employees, 1.3 mill in the USA)

Yet curiously omitted from the figures?
Total number of US government employees? 2.8 million.
Total local/state employees? 19-some million.
So ~20 million people in this country get their paycheck from the government....that's what, about 7% of the entire electorate owes their income to the gubbermint? One might argue that due to a clear conflict of interest, they perhaps shouldn't get votes.

Some people would say that's even MORE revealing about the US (so called), not to mention the tendentiousness of the reporting on the story that it's NOT EVEN MENTIONED.

Re:And yet... (3, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 9 months ago | (#44219141)

Every American is the beneficiary of the government in some way or form so we all have conflicts of interest. It's not like these workers can somehow vote in a way that impacts their compensation or that they are all that well paid compared to the private sector in the first place.

Re:And yet... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#44219269)

Look at what FDR had to say about public unions. You are just wrong. They are overpaid, underworked and proud of it.

Re:And yet... (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 9 months ago | (#44219173)

Oh, the 7% of U.S. population doesn't get their wages from the government, they get their wages from the rest of the population - and only the part of the rest that pays taxes, with corporate tax payments being some sort of a joke these days. Remember: the government doesn't make any money, nor do they have any. They get it from the rest of us via taxes.

Re:And yet... (3, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 9 months ago | (#44219189)

To be fair, I get my salary from the rest of the population, too. If people didn't purchase my companies products I assure you I wouldn't get paid once the cash reserves dried up.

Re:And yet... (4, Insightful)

ahodgson (74077) | about 9 months ago | (#44219219)

Yeah but in your case the rest of the populace gets to choose whether to buy your stuff or not.

Re:And yet... (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 9 months ago | (#44219279)

No the problem is the government does "make money" and in doing so steals the wealth of everyone.

Re:And yet... (2)

jaymzter (452402) | about 9 months ago | (#44219193)

I'm still waiting for the President's "laserlike focus" on jobs to pay off. We've had close to 7 years of what effectively amounts to institutionalized stimulus with nothing to show for it except inflated CXO bonuses and Wall Street numbers that are being propped up by the Fed.

The leadership of both parties need to jump in the Potomac.

Re:And yet... (1, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | about 9 months ago | (#44219383)

There is nothing that the government can do to recover jobs short of bringing the manufacturing home by establishing protective tariffs. I do mean nothing. Given that tariffs are pretty much a no-go, the job recovery is a no-go as well.

ObamaCare, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219113)

ObamaCare requires companies to cover insurance for full-time employees or pay a fine.

Result? Companies hire part-time workers and temps [forbes.com], avoid the onerous mandate.

Why else do you think Obama is desperate to push out the mandate deadline beyond the 2014 election, even though there's no basis for the executive branch to perform such a pushout in the text of the law itself?

Re:ObamaCare, anyone? (5, Insightful)

Viewsonic (584922) | about 9 months ago | (#44219259)

Companies shouldn't have to worry about providing insurance to workers, regardless. They should be able to focus on the cost of running their business with static expenses. Countries like Denmark has some of the highest individual entrepreneurship rates in the world. Why? Because the government takes care of providing health care to everyone, as well as all schooling through college. Obviously these are all funded through higher tax rates, but it leaves a lot of unknown headaches from businesses and manages to provide everyone an opportunity to succeed.

Maybe a good thing, if we do it right? (1, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | about 9 months ago | (#44219145)

Maybe this is a good thing. Or at least, could be a good thing.

Imagine, for a metaphor, that workers are computer servers. This would be like virtualization - since the amount of work needed is often variable, being able to quickly "provision" workers could be a benefit. And having an agency that employs these people could provide more stability for the workers, in the way that Amazon and other cloud providers get more heavily-utilized servers. And, as with the computer cloud vs. dedicated server debate, employees they *need* to have, or who provide some function that interchangeable employees cannot, can be hired full-time as they currently are.

In an ideal world, these workers would get all the benefits of permanent employment (medical coverage, unemployment benefits, even regular promotions and wage increases) via the temp agency. However, in the "anything that reduces corporate profits by one iota is COMMUNISM" economy we have, something tells me this isn't the case.

Re:Maybe a good thing, if we do it right? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 9 months ago | (#44219235)

"When you've decided that you no longer need an instance, you can terminate it. As soon as the status of an instance changes to shutting down or terminated, you stop incurring charges for that instance."

Have a nice day.

an IT hiring hall in needed like the other trades (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 9 months ago | (#44219431)

an IT hiring hall in needed like the other trades have. at least then the temp agency can have more of clue about IT stuff.

Re:Maybe a good thing, if we do it right? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 9 months ago | (#44219441)

This already how a lot of contract programmers work. They're hired and fired based on the needs of one program in development. Upsides: Paid a superstar expert salary (I've seen 100K for six months advertised before), no long-term commitment if the place is terrible, no need to sell your house if you have to leave town, etc. Downside: No benefits, no job security, and no employee camaraderie with your co-workers, some of whom are also probably temps.

This is BY DESIGN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219179)

To avoid paying health & other insurances 2 create "Mo' Munny" profits 4 the 1%'ers (Yoodz) who don't work for their money (lol, you stupid fools do though), their monies work for them.

Fix the Wal-mart health care rip-offs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219181)

If you have more than say 50 employees, any employee that walks in the door, works more than 5 hours a week, must get full benefits.
More than 100 employees, if they work more than 1 hour a week, they get full benefits (including health care, paid vacation, etc)

Even wal-mart wouldn't be able to manage the number of employees it would require to fill 24 slots a day for 1 job slot...

It's not ABC or D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219183)

Decades of worker productivity increases have come to head. Worker productivity is too high right now, there is not enough consumption to match this. As a result we are left with companies reducing the workforce as fewer workers now do the job of many. This in turn lowers consumption, and a downward spiral is created.

To alleviate this we need to move to a 30-hour work week as standard of full time and our employment problems will disappear overnight. Yes you can still make your worker work 40 hours, but now pay him time and a half. It will be better to hire an extra body to cover the extra hours. The wages plummeting are a result of oversupply of labor will stop. More people hired means more consumption. We can get this pony going again, until robots and 3d printers make labor obsolete.

Sure you can poke holes in Swiss Cheese solution, but I spent quite a while thinking about this, and it seems like the only viable solution.

CITATION NEEDED (5, Informative)

Antipater (2053064) | about 9 months ago | (#44219213)

In fact, nearly one-fifth of all jobs gained since the recession ended have been temporary.'

What in the what? I'd REALLY like to see a source on that, given that it's directly contradicted by the BLS.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab9.htm [bls.gov]
Since the job market bottomed, we've created 5.4 million full-time jobs and 600,000 part-time jobs. How is that "nearly one-fifth"?

Re:CITATION NEEDED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219291)

Temporary does not equate to part-time. You can work 40 hours a week at a temporary position. You likely not have any benefits, and the temp agency gets a nice chunk of money.

Re:CITATION NEEDED (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219311)

You're assuming full-time == permanent,
and
temp== part-time

neither of which is necessarily true.

Re:CITATION NEEDED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219345)

What do the numbers you cited have to do with the "nearly one-fifth" claim?
You didn't cite anything on permanent vs. temp jobs.

I did temp work once (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219233)

Got a temp job at Deep 13. Never again!

10% and now a tenth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219287)

Those are the same....hopefully thats just a typo....

Wealth economy (5, Interesting)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 9 months ago | (#44219293)

People have been predicting the wealth economy for some time, but have no clear plan on how to transition to that model.

Here's an opportunity: redefine "full time" to be less than 40 hours. Our productivity is now so high that fewer people need to work, but at the same time we need to employ everyone in order to prevent unrest and revolt.

Productivity is high, so we should have more leisure time. GDP per capita has skyrocketed [google.com], it's doubled since about 1990, and the average citizen would get $40,000 per year if output was distributed evenly. That's every man, woman and child - employed or not, and every year.

Corporations have to start spending money on the people instead of cutting people out of production. Better educated workers, happier workers, healthier workers make your business stronger and give better return on investment than rehiring. Much better return than "cost accounting", which aims to make the cheapest product people can tolerate.

Government has to start rerouting wealth from businesses to the people, by way of infrastructure benefits. Free health care and free education, as well as infrastructure projects (national system of renewable power generation, universal internet service, &c) enrich the population without coddling to the lazy.

Production is met by an ever-dwindling need for human interaction. We should embrace this trend in a way that doesn't require armed revolt.

Math skills much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219299)

FTA:

Temp jobs made up about 10 percent of the jobs lost during the Great Recession, but now make up a tenth of the jobs in the United States.

Oh noes!

This might start to get to the heart of the issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219397)

Posting AC due to mod points.

In my limited experience, too many people my age (33) are still being funded by their parents. They work temp jobs, live at home, and keep saying they're going to do something but never do. I have to believe that there are many more of them out there who are being funded by all this baby boomer wealth. Again, it's anecdotal, but I do wonder how large this demographic really is.

Also, I agree that having some sort of minimum income safety net makes a LOT of sense, but we'd need to figure out some controls on who can get it and how to avoid fraud. Things like increased education and medical care probably would need to be put in place as well.

I don't see it ever happening, though, too much of this insane drive for profit plus the puritanical madness of work ethic. I just want to save as much as possible and retire early, live a simple lifestyle, and not look back. This working til you die thing is not what technology is supposed to enable us to do.

Government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44219437)

I thought the US Government was the largest employer in the US.

Germany in similar situation (1)

TheSync (5291) | about 9 months ago | (#44219459)

From this source [wsj.com]:

Germany's unemployment rate was unchanged for the seventh straight month at a relatively low 6.9% in May, after seasonal adjustment.

Yet nearly one in five working Germans, or about 7.4 million people, hold a so-called "minijob," a form of marginal employment that allows someone to earn up to E450($580) a month free of tax.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...