PDA

View Full Version : Say goodbye to full-time jobs with benefits



Gingersnap
06-01-2010, 04:52 PM
Say goodbye to full-time jobs with benefits

By Chris Isidore, senior writerJune 1, 2010: 11:40 AM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Jobs may be coming back, but they aren't the same ones workers were used to.

Many of the jobs employers are adding are temporary or contract positions, rather than traditional full-time jobs with benefits. With unemployment remaining near 10%, employers have their pick of workers willing to accept less secure positions.

In 2005, the government estimated that 31% of U.S. workers were already so-called contingent workers. Experts say that number could increase to 40% or more in the next 10 years.

James Stoeckmann, senior practice leader at WorldatWork, a professional association of human resource executives, believes that full-time employees could become the minority of the nation's workforce within 20 to 30 years, leaving employees without traditional benefits such as health coverage, paid vacations and retirement plans, that most workers take for granted today.

"The traditional job is not doomed. But it will increasingly have competition from other models, the most prominent is the independent contractor model," he said.

Doug Arms, senior vice president of Ajilon, a staffing firm, says about 90% of the positions his company is helping clients fill right now are on a contract basis.

New college degree, no job
"[Employers] are reluctant to bring on permanent employees too quickly," he said. "And the available candidate landscape is much different now. They're a little more aggressive to take any position."

Cathy, who asked that her last name not be used, lost her job as a recruiter for a financial services firm in February 2009. She started working on a contract basis four months later. She believes that many employers are taking improper advantage of the weak labor market.

"I work in HR, I understand that sometimes you need to hire a contractor because you have a project and you won't need the person when it's done in three months," she said. "But that's not what's happening here."

Cathy said her co-workers who had permanent jobs didn't treat her differently, but she still felt like a second-class citizen.

"At one job they were giving out H1N1 flu shots but the contract workers weren't eligible to receive them," she said. "I said 'You guys are still in trouble if I get the flu.'"

Much of the change is due to employers' desire to limit their costs. Stoechmann equates the shift to the one seen in retirement plans, in which employers moved away from the traditional pension plan toward defined contribution plans, which passes more of the burden onto the employee.

CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/01/news/economy/contract_jobs/index.htm)

Wei Wu Wei
06-01-2010, 05:01 PM
If only we were seriously pushing for pro-labor, pro-worker policies like I've been saying for years.

The very structure of the economy is changing, we went from a nearly 100% domestic manufacturing economy to a global economy based on low-skilled service jobs which are easily replacable or outsourcable.

This is the nature of change of the economic structure, and while it benefits the companies who are able to get cheaper and cheaper labor, it hurts workers.

Rockntractor
06-01-2010, 07:07 PM
If only we were seriously pushing for pro-labor, pro-worker policies like I've been saying for years.

The very structure of the economy is changing, we went from a nearly 100% domestic manufacturing economy to a global economy based on low-skilled service jobs which are easily replacable or outsourcable.

This is the nature of change of the economic structure, and while it benefits the companies who are able to get cheaper and cheaper labor, it hurts workers.
Bah bah bah bleat bleat bah!

FlaGator
06-01-2010, 07:12 PM
If only we were seriously pushing for pro-labor, pro-worker policies like I've been saying for years.

The very structure of the economy is changing, we went from a nearly 100% domestic manufacturing economy to a global economy based on low-skilled service jobs which are easily replacable or outsourcable.

This is the nature of change of the economic structure, and while it benefits the companies who are able to get cheaper and cheaper labor, it hurts workers.

That is not necessarily true, as wages decline the cost of production declines and the cost of living declines. A company can not sustain those type of high profits if no one can afford their goods and services. Prices come down in order to create a demand. That is the way of capitalism. If capitalism is left to it's own devices (within the bounds of reason) the price of goods will level out at what the market can bear.

Union protection has outlived its usefulness and now labor goals are not longer so much about the employee as they are about the survival of he union. Employees only benefit in that the unions have to have some tangible service to sell its members. There are enough labor laws on the books to protect workers so unions strive for higher wages. Higher wages create higher cost goods and that creates a higher cost of living because the market can now bear over priced goods.

I work in one of the most outsourced professions in the U.S. and thanks be to God I have had no problem finding and maintaining employment and my income has actually increased. I do not have a union and by the grace of God have found success in the capitalist system.

Rockntractor
06-01-2010, 07:21 PM
Wee Wei weenie says workers of the world unite!

malloc
06-01-2010, 07:50 PM
That is not necessarily true, as wages decline the cost of production declines and the cost of living declines.

Exactly, and the inverse is also true, and very devastating to those who are the supposed beneficiary of governmental pro-labor policies.

For instance, suppose there are 5 labor groups in a given economy, the annual average cost of living is $1,000. The five labor groups don't start off equally. Let's say that fry cooks make $900, mechanics make $1,000, factory workers make $1,100, executives make $1,500 and bankers make $2,000. In this example it's clear that fry cooks and mechanics might be poor, factory workers and executives might be lower- and upper-middle class, and the bankers are on top.

The labor groups unionize, and the fry cooks negotiate a 50% wage increase, the mechanics negotiate 20% and the factory workers negotiate 10%. So the current annual wages now look like this:

fry cooks: $1350
mechanics: $1200
factory workers: $1210
executives: $1500
bankers: $2000

Now everyone is above the $1,000 poverty line aren't they? Isn't that what pro-labor policies have done? Unfortunately, in order to facilitate the raise in wages, the cost of living expressed in prices must also rise. Either that, or labor must be laid off, which would cause one of two effects, either the lost labor would be automated, which costs money and increases prices, or production would lag demand which increases prices, and on top of that you would have high unemployment.

Labor expenses have increased by 32%, which would also increase the cost of living by a similar amount. So now the poverty line is around $1320 annually. So the fry cooks are now above this line, but at the expense of the mechanics, factory workers, and to some extent the executives. Now the fry cooks are still poor, but the mechanics and factory workers are more poor. On top of this lies the feedback loop wherein, factory workers, and executives buy less burgers, factory goods and cars because they are being priced out.

So now the mechanics and factory workers re-negotiate for another 10% raise to 'get above' the poverty line, and the inflationary cycle repeats itself, each time one group of unionized labor displaces another group in a game of leap frog.

This same example also applies to hikes in minimum wage rates, and there are several other consequences, such as less overall employment and more investment in automation that stems from hikes in the minimum wage.


Henry Hazlitt (http://jim.com/econ/chap20p2.html) explains it better than I.

I would say this temp and contract hire trend has more to do with market uncertainty, than with labor costs. If I had a large business I would make sure I either had fixed costs at the present via contract labor, or I could have the stop-loss mechanism of laying off temps if things went south, and credit didn't come through for a project or something like that.

Wei Wu Wei
06-01-2010, 11:57 PM
That is not necessarily true, as wages decline the cost of production declines and the cost of living declines. A company can not sustain those type of high profits if no one can afford their goods and services.
Prices come down in order to create a demand. That is the way of capitalism. If capitalism is left to it's own devices (within the bounds of reason) the price of goods will level out at what the market can bear.

This assumes a purely domestic system where the company only works within the country and only hires within the country and only sells within the country. This is not true in this new age of Global Capitalism.



Union protection has outlived its usefulness and now labor goals are not longer so much about the employee as they are about the survival of he union. Employees only benefit in that the unions have to have some tangible service to sell its members. There are enough labor laws on the books to protect workers so unions strive for higher wages. Higher wages create higher cost goods and that creates a higher cost of living because the market can now bear over priced goods.

I work in one of the most outsourced professions in the U.S. and thanks be to God I have had no problem finding and maintaining employment and my income has actually increased. I do not have a union and by the grace of God have found success in the capitalist system.

Unions don't have any power any more, not like they did several decades ago. Workers need to keep pushing for their own interests.

Rockntractor
06-02-2010, 12:00 AM
This assumes a purely domestic system where the company only works within the country and only hires within the country and only sells within the country. This is not true in this new age of Global Capitalism.




Unions don't have any power any more, not like they did several decades ago. Workers need to keep pushing for their own interests.

You are either ignorant or a liar, almost all government jobs are union now.

PoliCon
06-02-2010, 12:21 AM
You are either ignorant or a liar, almost all government jobs are union now.

actually - you have that a bit off . . . . I believe that union members count for between 30 and 40 percent of government employees - but government employee's count for nearly 60% of union members despite the fact that there are 5 times more workers in the private sector.

ETA: Yup. I'm right: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

Rockntractor
06-02-2010, 12:31 AM
actually - you have that a bit off . . . . I believe that union members count for between 30 and 40 percent of government employees - but government employee's count for nearly 60% of union members despite the fact that there are 5 times more workers in the private sector.

ETA: Yup. I'm right: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
They will be before long. in my area i can't think of any local government jobs that aren't union. schools, fire police, public utilities etc....

PoliCon
06-02-2010, 12:39 AM
They will be before long. in my area i can't think of any local government jobs that aren't union. schools, fire police, public utilities etc....

You're forgetting how many jobs there are as staffers for politicians not to mention bureaucrats. ANYHOW - IMHO no public sector job should be unionized. You work in the public sector and feel you're not getting a fair shake - take it up with the voters.

Rockntractor
06-02-2010, 12:45 AM
You're forgetting how many jobs there are as staffers for politicians not to mention bureaucrats. ANYHOW - IMHO no public sector job should be unionized. You work in the public sector and feel you're not getting a fair shake - take it up with the voters.
Off subject but nothing frustrated me more than when we bailed out GM. My money was taken at gun point to pay their very lucrative retirement plans, health care plans, gulf courses etc. and I pay cash for my health care and this money i could have saved for my retirement. I guess I should have a warm feeling inside knowing that someone i don't know in Michigan will get to enjoy iy.

lacarnut
06-02-2010, 02:05 AM
No union civil service jobs in Louisiana that I know of. State employees can join a wannabe union but it is a joke; they can not do any negotiating or call a strike so very few join.

MrsSmith
06-02-2010, 09:02 AM
If only we were seriously pushing for pro-labor, pro-worker policies like I've been saying for years.

The very structure of the economy is changing, we went from a nearly 100% domestic manufacturing economy to a global economy based on low-skilled service jobs which are easily replacable or outsourcable.

This is the nature of change of the economic structure, and while it benefits the companies who are able to get cheaper and cheaper labor, it hurts workers.
Leftists have been pushing pro-labor policies for decades...things like the minimum wage, which was supposed to raise families out of poverty. Only, strangely enough, it has the opposite effect. Take, for example, my first job as a 16 year old kid. I worked in a little fast-food place for $2.65 an hour in 1976. It was a part-time job, and I only kept it for a few months. Today, my kid would have to find a part-time job making $10.31 to have equal spending power, according to http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm. Isn't it funny how leftist policies keep impoverishing those they say will benefit?

PoliCon
06-02-2010, 09:40 AM
Leftists have been pushing pro-labor policies for decades...things like the minimum wage, which was supposed to raise families out of poverty. Only, strangely enough, it has the opposite effect. Take, for example, my first job as a 16 year old kid. I worked in a little fast-food place for $2.65 an hour in 1976. It was a part-time job, and I only kept it for a few months. Today, my kid would have to find a part-time job making $10.31 to have equal spending power, according to http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm. Isn't it funny how leftist policies keep impoverishing those they say will benefit?

What many people also do not know is that most union contracts have their pay indexed to the minimum wage - so one of the things they can do to force a raise without actually campaigning for it is campaign for an increase in the minimum wage which automatically increases their pay without having to renegotiate a contract.

Gingersnap
06-02-2010, 10:04 AM
Unions really do fight to protect.......the union. Out here, anyway. People were shocked when several unions in Colorado began to actively support legislation that benefited illegal aliens - and to recruit illegal aliens. American jobs for American workers became a meaningless phrase.

The minimum wage is an interesting thing. I don't know of anybody who is attempting to finance a family of four with a stay-at-mom on the minimum wage. That's pretty mythical. The minimum wage is just an entry-level wage for the most unskilled, least experienced worker. Nobody stays at it for more than 60 days (or the number is microscopic).

When the minimum wage goes up by law, employers just try to trim jobs that would qualify for it. It's a better business decision to spread new work out among existing employees and to become more efficient. If government really wanted to see more jobs in the private sector, it would drop the minimum wage down so that more businesses would be interested in hiring teenagers and retired people.

PoliCon
06-02-2010, 10:20 AM
Unions really do fight to protect.......the union. Out here, anyway. People were shocked when several unions in Colorado began to actively support legislation that benefited illegal aliens - and to recruit illegal aliens. American jobs for American workers became a meaningless phrase.

The minimum wage is an interesting thing. I don't know of anybody who is attempting to finance a family of four with a stay-at-mom on the minimum wage. That's pretty mythical. The minimum wage is just an entry-level wage for the most unskilled, least experienced worker. Nobody stays at it for more than 60 days (or the number is microscopic).

When the minimum wage goes up by law, employers just try to trim jobs that would qualify for it. It's a better business decision to spread new work out among existing employees and to become more efficient. If government really wanted to see more jobs in the private sector, it would drop the minimum wage down so that more businesses would be interested in hiring teenagers and retired people.

The last time PA raised the minimum wage - we started seeing more and more self checkouts at stores. Funny how that works.

noonwitch
06-02-2010, 01:17 PM
You're forgetting how many jobs there are as staffers for politicians not to mention bureaucrats. ANYHOW - IMHO no public sector job should be unionized. You work in the public sector and feel you're not getting a fair shake - take it up with the voters.



It all depends on the job and the situation. Workers need a union to represent them in workplace issues, not just those of salary and benefits. Our union can't do anything about the last two in this economy, but they can do a great deal about safety issues. The employer doesn't really care about our safety-we've been told repeatedly that the security guards are here to protect the building and the equipment, not the personnel. The union also will represent workers who are being harrassed by bosses, they address work load issues, and so on.


Greedy teacher's unions make all public employees unions look bad.

Wei Wu Wei
06-02-2010, 02:07 PM
Leftists have been pushing pro-labor policies for decades...things like the minimum wage, which was supposed to raise families out of poverty. Only, strangely enough, it has the opposite effect. Take, for example, my first job as a 16 year old kid. I worked in a little fast-food place for $2.65 an hour in 1976. It was a part-time job, and I only kept it for a few months. Today, my kid would have to find a part-time job making $10.31 to have equal spending power, according to http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm. Isn't it funny how leftist policies keep impoverishing those they say will benefit?

First "Leftists" isn't a real thing also there's a LOTof things that have happene since the 70's, namely the entire restructuring of our economy, high inflation, economic globalization, ect.

Ive bseen posting over and over that Real Wages have stagnated and the cost of living has increased starting in 1973.

FlaGator
06-02-2010, 02:15 PM
First "Leftists" isn't a real thing also there's a LOTof things that have happene since the 70's, namely the entire restructuring of our economy, high inflation, economic globalization, ect.

Ive bseen posting over and over that Real Wages have stagnated and the cost of living has increased starting in 1973.


Denial... Not just a river, a philosophy.

Wei Wu Wei
06-02-2010, 02:28 PM
The minimum wage is an interesting thing. I don't know of anybody who is attempting to finance a family of four with a stay-at-mom on the minimum wage.

I've known plenty.


That's pretty mythical. The minimum wage is just an entry-level wage for the most unskilled, least experienced worker. Nobody stays at it for more than 60 days (or the number is microscopic).

Right now the #1 job and fastest growing job sector is low-skilled service jobs like retail and fast food, these jobs pay minimum wage, and yes plenty of people stay at it for more than 60 days.

Not everyone is firmly middle class.



When the minimum wage goes up by law, employers just try to trim jobs that would qualify for it. It's a better business decision to spread new work out among existing employees and to become more efficient. If government really wanted to see more jobs in the private sector, it would drop the minimum wage down so that more businesses would be interested in hiring teenagers and retired people.

Labor laws too, working hours, workers need to push for all of it, because no one else is going t.

Gingersnap
06-02-2010, 02:44 PM
I've known plenty.

I've known none and I've worked for below the minimum wage in the restaurant industry and I've also worked in the agricultural sector. I was hardly "middle class".

There may be somebody out there who fully expects to support a non-working wife and 2 kids on a minimum wage job but there can't many people that economically naive.

Virtually every minimum wage job holder gets a pay increase at the end of 30 or 60 days and periodically thereafter until topping out for that job. Supervisors have no interest in training new hires every month but they have no interest in retaining employees who don't show up, come in late, or horse around. That's why the increases happen at 30, 60, or 90 day intervals.

Workers can push for anything they want but employers will always push for efficiency and productivity. This is one of the fundamental issues in labor today. We simply don't have huge employment sectors that can absorb uneducated, unskilled, and/or unproductive workers today. A hundred years ago we did.

Wei Wu Wei
06-02-2010, 02:49 PM
I've known none and I've worked for below the minimum wage in the restaurant industry and I've also worked in the agricultural sector. I was hardly "middle class".

There may be somebody out there who fully expects to support a non-working wife and 2 kids on a minimum wage job but there can't many people that economically naive.

it's not about naivete, it's about necessity. you get the job you can get, and if the only jobs available are minimum wage jobs what else are they to do?


Virtually every minimum wage job holder gets a pay increase at the end of 30 or 60 days and periodically thereafter until topping out for that job. Supervisors have no interest in training new hires every month but they have no interest in retaining employees who don't show up, come in late, or horse around. That's why the increases happen at 30, 60, or 90 day intervals.

Right, a 50 cent increase above min. wage, fantastic.


Workers can push for anything they want but employers will always push for efficiency and productivity. This is one of the fundamental issues in labor today. We simply don't have huge employment sectors that can absorb uneducated, unskilled, and/or unproductive workers today. A hundred years ago we did.

Yes and Big Business holds more wealth and power than any other lobby in the nation, so workers need to push a little for balance.

Gingersnap
06-02-2010, 03:14 PM
You have to take some responsibility for your own direction. Minimum wage jobs are not "careers". You can't expect to feed a family of four on one and you can't expect an open-ended career path in one. They give very young workers experience, they give pin money to seniors, and they can be a temporary gig until something better comes along for those working below their capacity or desire.

It's up to you to get the skill set you need to be attractive to a company that pays the kind of money you want to earn. This means that most people will not be able to become independent film-makers, or performance artists, or wildlife rehabilitators because there isn't enough call for those jobs and they don't pay enough for most people.

The working world is changing in dramatic ways. People can't continue to cling to these old models of success anymore. Neither the organizational man nor the union worker are relevant for most people today.

PoliCon
06-02-2010, 05:27 PM
It all depends on the job and the situation. Workers need a union to represent them in workplace issues, not just those of salary and benefits. Our union can't do anything about the last two in this economy, but they can do a great deal about safety issues. The employer doesn't really care about our safety-we've been told repeatedly that the security guards are here to protect the building and the equipment, not the personnel. The union also will represent workers who are being harrassed by bosses, they address work load issues, and so on.


Greedy teacher's unions make all public employees unions look bad.

There are oversight and ombudsman positions in the government to take care of the problems you mention - unions in government should NEVER exist.

PoliCon
06-02-2010, 05:28 PM
I've known plenty. Of course you have. :rolleyes: and everyone here believes every word that falls from your lips. :rolleyes:

noonwitch
06-03-2010, 02:55 PM
There are oversight and ombudsman positions in the government to take care of the problems you mention - unions in government should NEVER exist.


None of the ombudsman or oversight people are in their jobs to protect employees. They are there to protect either the general public or management.

My union does not have that much power. We are forbidden to go on strike by state law, and we haven't had collective bargaining since 1991. The state can't give us raises, because they don't have the money to do so. The main purposes for the union are to represent employee grievances and to enforce work safety standards. The one thing I wish they would get for us is confidentiality at the SOS office, so that our clients can't track our home addresses through public information (the SOS is our version of the DMV). If they can do it for cops, they can do it for us.

MrsSmith
06-04-2010, 09:53 AM
it's not about naivete, it's about necessity. you get the job you can get, and if the only jobs available are minimum wage jobs what else are they to do?



Right, a 50 cent increase above min. wage, fantastic.



Yes and Big Business holds more wealth and power than any other lobby in the nation, so workers need to push a little for balance.
50 cents above minimum is above...and counts as such for your little Dim counters, too. The facts remain that the more government involves itself with wages, the poorer their "chosen" people become...the same as their welfare people. The only way up is to work your way their, Uncle Sam can't do it for you. Just ask Star Parker...if you aren't too racist...