Slashdot Mirror
America's Second-largest Employer Is a Temp Agency
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."
and some places make you an 1099 but boss and work you like an W2 one.
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.
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.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
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).
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
No, they'll just all follow suit with Wal Mart and make sure nobody ever gets enough hours to tip over that threshold.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
-Styopa
And, temp can mean anything
Temp only means one thing, "we're cheating you out of benefits".
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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
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"?
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Got a temp job at Deep 13. Never again!
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.
Agreed.
Single-payer health care would definitely be a way to fix this.
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, 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.
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.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
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.
‘Bingo’: Iowahawk sums up the jobs report in one tweet about Taco Bell
David Burge @iowahawkblog
Unemployment report in a nutshell: the Taco Bell that had 30 40 hour workers now has 40 30 hour workers.
Behind the Dismal Jobs Numbers: The ‘New’ Economy Takes Shape
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
We only start whining when the C-levels do stuff like give away 2 million pizzas, and then pat themselves on the back with a five million dollar bonus for a marketing job well done. All while complaining that they'll have to raise pizza prizes 14 cents if they have to pay for healthcare. Personally, I'd pay a dollar more a pizza just to be assured that the kid who was making it had gotten his case of the flu treated two weeks ago.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Obamacare is a Republican idea.
Yes, that's why it originated from that well-known Republican state, Massachusetts. No, wait, that's not right.
Now I know Obama wanted desperately to pin the MA health clusterfuck on Romney, but the reality is that the self-infected health care debacle MA created was thanks to their Democrat dominated legislature. The health care mandate was a last-ditch attempt to allow people to keep some degree of choice in their health care, rather than throwing everything into the control of the government.
Liberals originally wanted single-payer system like that found in most civilized countries.
Completely false. Obamacare was passed with Dems having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and having control of the House. If they wanted single-payer, they would have made single-payer. They wanted Obamacare instead, as a hand-out to their friends in the health care industry.
Actually, I'd argue that not many people thought that so many employers are immoral shit-sucking assholes who'd intentionally try to screw their employees out of health care. I would never imagined that any business would publicly announce they're trying to fuck over their employees. I'm shocked, quite frankly, at hearing so many businesses declare that they are, in fact, run by immoral fucktards who not only couldn't give two shits about their employees, but actually see no problem with it.
- An employer who pays for health insurance for all of his employees
I don't respond to AC's.
A single Republican in both house and senate, combined, voted the the bill.
Democrats overwhelmingly voted for it.
The Democrats wrote it.
The Democrats pushed for it.
The Democrats voted for it.
The Democrats single-handedly passed it.
Yet you are now already calling it a Republican bill, even before its been fully implemented. Seems to me that Democrats never want to take responsibility for the shit they do.
Before you go on some diatribe about the bill being similar to the one passed in Mitt Romney's State of Massachusetts, that State is damn near as Democrat as it gets. You dont get to escape responsibility by pointing out that a State notoriously run by Democrats implemented it first. The Democrats own the health care bill lock, stock, and barrel. Its all yours.
Admit that you guys fucked up really badly, or be proud of it. Dont try to blame others for the shit you did.
"His name was James Damore."
In most countries the number of birth/1000 is decreasing and it appears to be tightly coupled with the economic state of each country. In addition, there is nothing new about humans being replaced by machines (Farmers, phone operations, lumber cutting...). It has been happening since before the 1800 yet we live hundreds of times better than they did in the 1800. Human kind has a way of making it work out. As long as we keep working on world issues we will make it.
Unfortunately for you, the Buckeye State managed to defeat a stricter-than-Walker bill and the state is still doing fine. It also helps that the Republicans here know well enough to leave labor relations issues alone lest they incur a third 1958-level event.
If you want an example of how labor and business can cooperate, Ohio would be one of the better examples. Certain must-pass bills that are considered business-friendly in other states (the ALEC-written, multiply deployed Walker bill as well as the Ohio-defeat-by-referendum-inspired RTW bill) are not necessarily considered business friendly. That, and against the trend for transplants to opt for worker-hostile states (read: the entire South), Honda chose to locate itself in Marysville.
Certainly there's plenty of pressure against the state to harmonize itself with the South, but I don't expect it to be a law-violating lockstep action.
(Before you start citing the departure of NCR as evidence of business hostility, they were already on their way out in the 1990's)
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Yes, that's why it originated from that well-known Republican state, Massachusetts.
No, it originated with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
An individual mandate to purchase insurance is indeed just about the only possible way to try to awkwardly cram "free marketness" onto health insurance.
Completely false. Obamacare was passed with Dems having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and having control of the House. If they wanted single-payer, they would have made single-payer. They wanted Obamacare instead, as a hand-out to their friends in the health care industry.
You're mistakenly conflating Democrats with Liberals. There are many Democrats in tossup districts, who probably figured it would be better to fix healthcare with Republican ideas, so as to fend off challenges by Republican rivals. What Democrats probably didn't count on was that the Republican base is so incredibly ignorant, that they could be trivially reprogrammed to think what were once their own party's market-driven, individual-responsibility policies are now radical socialist handouts to slackers.
The original version of the healthcare plan was written 15-20 years ago, including the mandate, by the Heritage Foundation, well known as a pinko-commie-lib think tank. (For the mouth-breathers out there, that's a joke). Go look for other Heritage Foundation proposals and see what you think.
So why do most of the other countries in the developed world, that do have universal health care, deliver better overall health care outcomes for 60% less (10% of GDP) than the current US system (16% of GDP)?
Let me stop you right there chief. You are sorely mistaken. About most everything you said. Much of the blueprint for Obamacare came from Romney's work in MA. Romney is a Republican, and it was very much a compromise effort.That being said, real liberals (not Obama) want health care to be a fundamental right, and single payer is the most popular method for achieving the practical side of this. Republicans want health care to be a choice, a market commodity. Obamacare was an attempt to get more people covered, and slightly widen patient rights (eg coverage for people with pre-existing conditions). Additionally, the biggest mistake you can make is to consider Dems liberals. They are centrists, with a few liberals and a good chunk of conservatives (google blue dog democrats) rounding out party composition.
Yep. Obamacare == guaranteed money for insurance companies, particularly since the "Public Option" was dropped.
Read up on the history of Medicare / Medicaid. It was spearheaded by insurance companies. Because they kept losing money on old people visiting hospitals. Easy answer = get the government to cover all of the old people for them!
Also notice that every bump on social security for "Cost of Living Adjustments" corresponds to an equal bump in the medicare / medicaid premium that comes out of it. Insurance companies have fine guaranteed revenue growth under their control right there.
Neither the liberals nor the conservatives are in charge of policy. Just follow the money.
You're conflating an idea from a Republican think tank in the late '90s with a 2000+ page bill drafted by Democrats and signed by a Democratic President.
One think tank does not speak for every Republican. And Republicans certainly do not own 2000 pages of nonsense.
Careful, the cognitive dissonance cause by the sudden introduction of "facts and figures" can be injurious to an ideologue's brain.
Fuck the "job creators". They've had tax cuts for 10+ years now, so where are the goddamn jobs? According to conservative orthodoxy, low taxes on the rich somehow create jobs, but it sure looks like they lied to us.
I completely agree. Obamacare is very business unfriendly. A Canadian style system where the employer bears no specific responsibility because healthcare is paid out of general taxes would be much more business friendly. Toyota, for one, certainly thought so when a major reason they put a plant in Canada instead of the US was Canadian healthcare. Republicans should also value maximizing the benefit for the money spent, and Canadian healthcare, which costs only 2/3 of the US, certainly qualifies as a savings.
So why aren't Republicans, with their concerns for business friendliness and cost effectiveness, pushing for Canadian style healthcare? It's an obvious win-win.
The National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession as:
And according to the NBER, the last recession in the US lasted from 4Q2007 to 2Q2009. We are not currently in a recession.
why do most of the other countries in the developed world, that do have universal health care, deliver better overall health care outcomes for 60% less
Because they pay their doctors less. When government is the primary employer or leading negotiator with physicians, they can't bargain much.
But of course doctors in those other countries do sometimes go on strike.
Healthcare got rammed through? The health care plan as written by the right wing Heritage Foundation and previously implemented in Massachusetts by Governor Romney? That Republicans stalled, limited, and forced further to the right at every opportunity just so the majority could bring it to an up or down vote?
Unfortunately, those ideas had to be included to appease Democrats from more conservative districts.
This idea that things were included to "appease districts" doesnt make sense since "we have to pass it in order to find out whats in it."
The people did not know what was in it when it was passed. Not only was no attempt made to "appease districts", there was a clear plan to intentionally keep people uninformed about it.
Clearly the Democrats were trying to appease their campaign donors, not their districts. Yes, thats the insurance companies.
"His name was James Damore."
I can actually verify this one from personal experience. I was making 15 an hour for a company. They paid the temp company 35 an hour. I saw the invoices. That was with a company called teksystems. I did temp work also for the state of illinois. I did various admin stuff there. made like 11 an hour. They paid 20 an hour for me. So yeah the AC is actually correct. The temp shit is a racket for the temp companies.
The bill was modified several times, in attempts to get Republicans on-board to support it, yet they still stonewalled it. It would have taken too much time and effort to completely undo the Republican damage, instead it was passed as-is, because it's an improvement, with the possibility of future laws fixing it.
You can't claim it isn't the Republicans' plan, just because they decided to pull out at the end, after negotiating the changes to it. If it was the Democratic plan, it would be single-payer, like Medicare, like every other industrialized country in the world, and for-profit health insurance companies would be a thing of the past.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I understand your attraction to the single payer model. It is true, they could have tried to go that way, but I don't think there was enough political support to do it. There are other ways they could have gone as well that might have been better than what they got. Instead Congress passed a bill on a pretty much party line vote that was whatever they could scrape off the wall in the hopes of just passing anything and then patching it up after it passed. I guess we'll find out what the consequences are.
PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’
You might find some irony in this:
Richard Nixon -- the last great liberal
Nixon was not only a fervent supporter of the Clean Air Act, the first federal law designed to control air pollution on the national level; he also gave us the Environmental Protection Agency. The creation of the EPA represented an expansion of government that would face fierce opposition were it being debated today. The EPA is also one of the agencies on Capitol Hill that the business community most detests—along with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which polices working conditions. OSHA is another Nixon creation.
Herbert Stein, chief economic adviser during the administrations of Nixon and Gerald Ford, once remarked: “Probably more new regulation was imposed on the economy during the Nixon administration than in any other presidency since the New Deal.”
How many remember that Nixon was a champion of affirmative action? “Incredible but true”, as Fortune magazine put it in 1994 when Nixon died, “It was the Nixonites that gave us employment quotas.” Though many credit John F. Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson with initiating affirmative action, it was rather Richard Nixon who first sanctioned formal goals and time frames to break barriers to minority employment.
Social Security benefits, a cornerstone of the Democratic Party platform, were also crucial to Nixon’s policies. He ushered in a minimum tax on the wealthy and supported a guaranteed income for all Americans, a move that would rile today’s Republicans to unprecedented heights.
And finally, consider health care: Nixon’s proposed reform would have required employers to buy health insurance for their employees and subsidize those who couldn’t afford it. Nixon’s version of national health care was a far more liberal concept than Bill Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s—and it failed because of Democratic opposition, not lack of support from Nixon’s own party. (Ted Kennedy later said that opposing Nixon’s health-care plan was one of his biggest political regrets.)
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If only the employers hadn't been dicks and cut hours, then the whole thing would be working as advertised. But the capitalists are experts at optimizing profit at the expense of everything else. It's that attitude that broke the country. It will never recover, the only question is how soon it will fall, and how quickly to recover after (and who it will take with it).
Learn to love Alaska
If you think Obama is a D I have some swampland in Florida you might be interested in, what we have is simply Bush's third and fourth term which is how those at the top wanted it to go.
I mean do you honestly think its a coincidence that Obama supported every jack booted policy that Bush supported, increased spying, increased drone strikes, and pretty much ended up more right wing than the right wing itself? He cashed the check and read from the cue card just like the last guy and the guy before that and so on for several decades now.
There is a REASON why no matter who is in the white house Goldman Sachs is running the fed, why a handful of guys on Wall Street can gamble like its Las Vegas and when they lose we get told they're "too big to fail" and why no matter who you vote for things NEVER get better, only worse. If you honestly and truly believe the right wing gives a flying piss about you when you are not one of the 0.01% I hate to break the news to ya, but they don't and neither does the so called "left".
Every time i see a rant like yours I'm reminded of the late great Bill Hicks "Well I believe the puppet on the left shares MY beliefs! Well I believe the puppet on the right has MY interests at heart....hey wait a minute, there is one guy working both puppets!". There is a reason why all empires fall friend and you are seeing it right before your eyes, those at the top always become too greedy and tilt things so badly out of alignment that the whole thing comes crashing down.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Here's a little assist with the history. You're a bit off.
ObamaCare's Heritage
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Link
You're not a person. You're not an employee. You're not even worthy of respect.
Are you kidding? "Job Creators" will be the first people to whine about the corresponding tax increases to cover that kind of scheme.
People like to think money for this kind of stuff just comes from some magical pocket universe somewhere. That's not the case. Spain and Greece are great examples of this.
People need to get over this idea that the idle rich are "job creators".
It's the people who make products and provide services who create jobs and support the economy. For the most part, these people are not rich enough to be paying the top tax bracket.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I know this will not be a popular opinion here - and I will likely be moderated into oblivion for even daring to suggest it on this right-leaning site - but seriously a single-payer healthcare system could do a lot to resolve this problem. There are a large number of people in this country who seek out full-time work not because they want to work 40 hours or because they even want to live the lifestyle of a full-timer, but because it is the only way to get health care (and don't try to claim that the health insurance bailout act called "obamacare" changes this in a meaningful way, because it really doesn't). There are plenty of people who would take a 25% pay cut to work 30 hours if they could still get health care, but the vast majority of employers in this country won't allow it. There are others who would work fewer hours and then take the time difference to pursue an education or vocational training (and are hence instead stuck in a dead end position because they have lost that flexibility). There are even some who would take two part-time jobs to accommodate their scheduling needs, but again can't do it because of health care.
These people won't be served by the current system, or any system that has been proposed in the past two decades. These people would also make jobs available by leaving full time positions, which would help those who seek full-time employment currently.
But instead our "main stream media" has told us such things are "un-American" and "communist". Why will we never get single-payer health care in the US? The same reason we'll never get solar power or a manned mission to Mars; people make more money on the current system than changing it to anything else.
I've already put on my fucking asbestos. Flame away.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
you don't want the slaves being told they have rights, do you?
Advantage to the employer of offering only part time/temporary employment through an agency:
No unions to deal with (there is no temp union anywhere)
No pensions to contribute to (part timers don't get an employer-provided pension)
No liability (for things like temps breaking their wrists - been there, worn the t-shirt, had to foot the fucking medical bill myself!)
No employers rates (things like tax/NI which is a bloody headache if you're dealing with hundreds of employees all of whim pay tax/NI and since most of them will be on PAYE, it's all on your books which means that for every employee you have to garnish their pay by 20someodd% and send it to the Treasury, on top of which a recent additional tax which is scaled according to how many *full time* employees you have)
No contracts (except with the agency, where it's pretty much a case of "I have this many spaces, I accept your rates, send me bodies.")
No medical insurance (you're not employing the slave, you're employing the agency, *the agency* employs the slave and their employment contract more often than not has a specific medical disclaimer. See above)
No employment tribunals (you're contracting with the agency, not the slave)
Minimal wage bill (they may pay a premium for being able to hire through an agency, but it's still cheaper than employing someone full time who's not up to the task and not being able to fire them because they've technically done nothing wrong)
Maximum profit per unit labour
Advantage to the employee:
None. I don't count being able to work to pay your rent an advantage, that is a basic need along with food, clothing and medical intervention when necessary.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
No irony, it's just depressing but not entirely unexpected in a land where simple Christian charity is now seen as Communism.
Doesn't matter so much since the costs for them to practise medicine (insurance, legal costs etc) are much higher in the US as well so they are not any better off than in some other countries with lower doctors income.
Funny you should mention that because my oldest, which is as "true believer" as you can get now refuses to step into ANY church because he sat there in shock as they basically proclaimed their love for Supply Side Jesus and spoke of their disdain for the poor. In one church they asked him when he was walking out why he was leaving and he said "I know this place, its the same kind of place Jesus took a whip to, you can't worship money and God in the same breath". Man what I wouldn't have given to see that!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
That's not the case. Spain and Greece are great examples of this.
No. Spain and Greece are great examples of a typical boom and bust where too much is attempted in a short amount of time using borrowed money in a country with large amounts of corruption and tax evasion both from greedy big shots and "Average Joe [tm]". The same is the case for Ireland and the other countries struggling the worst in Europe. Ireland had a Taoiseach (Prime Minister) who didn't have a bank account for years, but kept cash in his office safe and received "gifts" from influential businessmen. This is a milder version of the same problem that exists in most African countries.
You never mentioned Sweden, Finland, Germany, etc. who all have socialised medicine and whos main economic problem at the moment are paying for the mess of southern Europe (and Ireland).