Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Should Part Time Jobs Have a Higher Minimum Wage Than Full Time Jobs?

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 17, 2013, 2:11 a.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We all know 9 dollars an hour is bare bones struggle if you're an adult, especially if you live in a big city like New York City, or have a kid, or if you work a part time job.

First I will explain the obvious. Why do major businesses and corporations have part time work when full time work is available? Answer: In their eyes, if you have one full time employee that also gets benefits, why not replace that employee with 2 part time workers with no benefits and pay out bonuses to CEOs and other higher ups instead. It is also another way for corporations to bust unions, particularly in "right-to-work" states.

A common reason someone has a part time job is often due to the fact that they are unable to find a full time job. In this economy with corporate trends ranging from replacing full time work with part time work, to outsourcing, to replacing workers with robotics, to replacing them with the internet, etc - all in the name of bonuses for CEO's and other higher up's - part time jobs are often all that is available to many workers.

2 Common Forms of Part Time Worker Exploitation -

  • If someone can only find part time work, it is common for them to work multiple part time jobs, having them working much more than 40 hours a week. Stephen works for Corporation A. This corporation is only hiring part time workers at the moment. Stephen would like to work full time at 40 hours a week, and full time work at this corporation is possible, but this corporation is cutting back on full time workers and replacing them with part time workers, so they can pay CEO bonuses and make profits for shareholders. Stephen needs to bring in more income to pay his rent and his bills so he gets a second part time job at Corporation B and this corporation has the same policies. Corporation A and B both need Stephen to work 30 hours a week at their corporations. Stephen is now working 60 hours a week without benefits and no over time pay. Stephen is still unable to find a full time job and he barely gets to see his kids or spend time with his wife.

  • Laura has a part time job in her profession that she went to college for... One day she will get promoted... It could be in a couple years, maybe 10. She is still trying to find a full time job in her profession. Laura only has this 1 part time job, one that varies her hours and days. On the premise of potentially being promoted to full time, or not being able to find another part time job that can fit her varying work schedule, she is only able to work 30 hours a week. This corporation could hire her full time, but the corporation she works for has administered polices of cutting back full time workers and replacing them with part time workers to avoid paying benefits, so they can pay bonuses to CEOs and shareholders. At 30 hours a week Laura is unable to get ahead on bills. She has college loans and rent eating her paychecks. Laura is not able to work 2 full time jobs at 60 hours a week like Stephen because she is a single mother of 2 kids. Her 2 kids are her pride and joy, and they are worth the high price they carry, a much higher price since her husband ran out on her and doesn't pay child support. Laura has been looking for full time work for 2 years.

I like the MIT standards on their living wage calculator, but their calculator doesn't factor in what was mentioned of Laura and Stephen.

Part time jobs should have a higher minimum wage than full time jobs to make up for the exploitation listed above. I think this wage difference would provide incentive for corporations to provide better full time work and help out part time workers getting screwed over by bogus corporate policies. Policies designed to bust unions in "right-to-work" states and pay bonuses to CEOs and shareholders instead of paying benefits and overtime to workers.

MIT living wage calculator - click your state and county and find out what their rate is for you. It varies per state - http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Should Part Time Jobs Have a Higher Minimum Wage Than Full Time Jobs? What Should the Difference Be?

72 Comments

72 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

I don't think a wage should vary based on full or part time since the employee is doing that same job with the same requirements on a daily basis. I don't know why part time employees are considered to be of any less value since they do the same job, with the same dedication as other full time employees.

I believe everyone should at least earn 15 dollars an hour. 15 dollars an hour would at least provide someone with 15,000 to 30,000 a year which is necessary today for the mere essentials.

Women's lib movement was a good thing AND a bad thing for our economy. It forced employers to pay women more than they had ever earned before which is a good thing. However, we all know that men still earn more than women in most cases. But, what the women's movement caused was a shift in employer mentality that led to both men and women being discriminated against. Employers realized that they could pay men less and women ' more' to create that ' equality' standard and get two employees for the price of one. Prior to women's lib, men were paid well enough to support their families while the good woman stayed home barefoot and pregnant. Even today, employers discriminate against both men and women who have spouses who also work by paying them less or not promoting them as they should or not increasing their wages as they once did. In the employer's mind, they more easily justify this wage oppression by telling themselves that ' they'll be ok, they have a two income family'.

So based on that same 'chauvinistic' mentality that has culminated into generalized greed, employers today have extended that paradigm to include such behaviors as employing only part time workers who don't get benefits. They get twice the workers for the same money and the few that are full time ( managers) are often put on salary so that they can then be forced to work more than 40 hours a week at the same rate of pay and manage even more part time employees.

I had a job once that was salary and if I had only worked 40 hours, I would have earned about 35,000 or 17/hr but given the number of hours I was often working ( 50-60), I was only earning 13 or 11 dollars an hour. Even with that salary /net pay, I still needed to have a house mate or spouse with a second income in order to save a little bit for emergencies like auto repairs, medical expenses, etc..

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1943) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Unions!!

[-] 0 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

I have often wondered if we shouldn't have an American Union that consists of ALL employees/workers. Forget those gov't agencies like EEOC.

" Every worker under ONE American union"

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Remember the Wobblies? They were banned in the USA. I guess the US Governments were worried about Communism at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World

I don't really know a lot about the times or the IWW. But have seen some stuff.

Membership also declined in the wake of government crackdowns on radical, anarchist and socialist groups during the First Red Scare after WWI. The most decisive factor in the decline in IWW membership and influence, however, was a 1924 schism due to internal conflict, from which the IWW never fully recovered.[8][10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare

The First Red Scare had its origins in the hyper-nationalism of World War I. At the war's end, following the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, American authorities saw the threat of revolution in the actions of organized labor, including such disparate cases as the Seattle General Strike and the Boston Police Strike and then in the bomb campaign directed by anarchist groups at political and business leaders.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

I wanna be a wobblie ;D

Yeah yeah...they'll accuse everyone of being communist. BUT wait, if everyone who works in America is communist, who cares? hahahha

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I like your Idea, One Big Union is more powerful than all the divided unions. Not sure if we have cultural impediments like TV, after school sports, video games, Iphones, computers, other tech gadgets, cable tv, sports on tv, long work hours .....

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Sounds like something for the Conglomerate to explore. At least with the Conglomerate, amongst its subsidiaries, this would be achievable with little to no resistance.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

I think so..definitely. I'm not a union expert at all so I really don't know how it all works. I just know that we need a new congress..one that represents the american employee.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

It was once suggested that a shadow/parallel government should be created with the Conglomerate. I wasn't against the idea as it seems doable with some planning. It would be a good exercise in preparation for post Phase 3.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

In any event, our current representatives in Washington are just figure heads. I sometimes wonder if voters actually pay attention to how well they do their jobs? I doubt it in most cases. But, it's not the voter's fault really. Once anyone gets elected, they are playing in an entirely different world that is very disconnected from the voter's reality.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Yup! What I've been thinking for a post Phase 3 government has 3 options to replace the role of President:

  1. Robot

  2. Hologram

  3. A group of top department leaders

But that's all for the Conglomerate to decide when the time comes, not me of course!

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1943) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Hallelujah!!

Where do we sign up??

Union Made in America!!

Certified American Union Employer!!

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

Why have we not considered such a thing? Seriously! Am I being simple minded and ignorant?
American workers of all industries need to take control of the decisions regarding wages, benefits, etc... Why should big banks, insurance and drug companies and others be deciding our fate behind closed doors without our approval? We could have local chapters with representatives that meet annually at our own ' union congress' and everyone would make decisions that truly represent us. It's a way for all Americans to contribute and take charge. If a local chapter rep doesn't represent their community well, then they get fired- unlike our leaders in congress. I think it's worth considering and I know we need to think through this more thoroughly.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1943) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Unite and Win!

I thought it said it all when I was trying to unite the unions and Dems in the 80s.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Having an employers market is the problem. It's what you're talking about pretty much. With a desperate workforce and more people looking for jobs, you can replace high paid workers with newbies and part times that don't get benefits and work for less. And they might not even complain about it because "at least they have a job." This is a very manipulative system, similar to a pyramid scheme.

The crash and the policies are about control.

If we reformed monetary policy and used it for job creation and city building like in Kucinich's National Economic Employment Defense Act, we could create a workers market that provided good paying jobs. This would create competition for workers and would lead to increasing wages and benefits to compete for workers.

Some people usually argue against this and they suggest that increasing minimum wage would cause inflation. Those "some people" forget inflation has been going on for years while wages have been stagnant, and labor has gotten cheaper for many goods due to outsourcing. What these "some people" don't understand is that Inflation has been caused by commodities futures trading and the Fed's policies devaluing the dollar by creating it from nothing and backing it on a theory. Inflation is caused when you create new money without new wealth. Another cause of inflation is the fact that we buy oil in US dollars from Foreign countries, so the Fed's policies from Greenspan to Bernanke, of giving trillions to banks is causing our oil bill to go up. Which then increases the prices in almost everything.

Would you consider roads, railways, water systems, and housing to be real wealth? I do. Most people would too. Our monetary policy should reflect that. Create new wealth when we introduce new money.

With real reform like the NEED Act we could create a more prosperous and structurally sound home.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

The American economy in reality IS a big pyramid scheme.

I hear what you're saying but I still believe that American employees need to have more say in determining their wages. Granted, most of our jobs have been outsourced but I believe that would also change if we had more of a voice in this country. In other words, consumers and workers alike would support each other. Remember how some people would only buy American made cars? We're moving back to that mindset because more and more are fed up with cheap expendable goods. Our system is designed with cash flow in mind, not sustainability, not quality. I was thinking the other day about how much of UPS's deliveries are made due to having to replace shoddy items that people ordered. That alone drives up fuel costs, air pollution, road wear and tear, etc... Our systems are so wasteful and undermine the value of our dollar.

Infrastructure is only one source of job creation and yes, it's wealth to a nation but the problem is that those municipal contracts are so over inflated and full of corruption and most Americans don't even work those kinds of jobs anymore- mainly because the bosses will only hire cheap labor which translates into more money for the bosses, not the worker.

It's all so complex. There's probably no easy answer. However, until the average American can start earning a livable wage, America will continue to be a country that survives only on credit/artificial money.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

This is more than a new deal. Dismissing what was discussed in my previous comment is pretty outlandish, especially with your justifications.

It's not complex. It's simple. People like Kucinich, Nader, Hedges, Chomsky, all of them have been discussing the solutions for years. Most people don't want to listen or they get cynical and bleak and say things like "over inflated and corrupt" to trash talk public works projects.

The monopoly on money is the largest contributor to the pyramid scheme.

Creating a workers market gives workers more say. Gives people the ability to unionize without fear. And the ability to win contract agreements without the fear of being fired and replaced.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

Your comments are ignorant if you don't believe that municipal contracts aren't loaded with unnecessary fat. I've been contractor for 18 years and worked for both the state and the federal governments and I can tell you that it's absolutely criminal how they waste money and the contractors are not paying their employees anymore than anyone else.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

So you're saying we should never invest in our communities or build bridges because of this? I never said there isn't fat. That was an assumption.

Trim the fat. We really going to have bridges from the 70's and 80's in 2050?

Stop the waste. Don't stop building the cities.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

I'm saying that there needs to be strict regulations on pricing and bidding. The people who approve these contracts are clueless about how much it costs to complete a job. It's a terribly corrupt good ole boy network that lines the pockets of gov't officials and contractor business owners..NOT those breaking a sweat. Much of the infrastructure today is so shoddy and the engineering is so bad that bridges are failing, roads are not surveyed properly. It's a cash flow game designed to create more work year after year and it's practically a miracle that we have what we do that even works. Let me give you just one minor example of the corruption tied to these contracts: In 2006, I bid on a small parking lot job where all I had to do was dump enough gravel and spread it in a 50 x 25 foot area. I gave them an honest price based on cost, labor and material ( 6 tons of gravel at 50/ton cost my highest cost) My total price was 1200 dollars installed and that was higher than I would have actually charged someone ( normally about 1,000 installed). But they gave the job to a giant materials contractor who had more clout and guess what he charged? 14,000 dollars!!!! I was livid and even complained to the state. Our tax dollars paid for that!!! This type of abuse of tax dollars is criminal.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I fully agree with the regulations on commodities. Allowing Goldman and Wall Street to manipulate the futures markets and manipulate prices the way they have is bogus. Reforming monetary policy would solve a lot of this issue, as it is the federal reserve pumping billions into this.

Alan Grayson talks about it a little bit here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXmNpdYpfnk

Saying we should not invest in the public because you list acts of corruption is extreme. We must avoid the corruption and include provisions on how the money is used. What workers are paid etc, make the pay high. Make it abide by MIT's living wage calculator, with a minimum of 18 per hour. That is what I'm talking about in creating a workers market. Make employers compete for workers. Better wages and benefits follow. We already established that increasing wages are not the reason for inflation. Congress has the ability to include provisions like this in it's federal contracts. It however does not. We must add these provisions to create this workers market. Just as we must add American labor laws to trade laws.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

I could barely get through the video. Flames are flying from my ears and nose. Double speak, double speak. It never ends. Where is the accountability..that's the problem- too many cooks in the kitchen who create such a convoluted mess that no single person can be held accountable for the disastrous outcomes.

In the depression era there was a lot of room for growth in infrastructure. There only so many roads and bridges that are needed. The collateral costs of infrastructure are also enormous...environmental destruction and degradation, the costs of mitigation and more. I live on the Chesapeake Bay so I'm ultra concerned about this issue. Not to mention that the American labor force is mainly immigrants will work for minimum wage.

The state and federal governments depend on expensive and often, unnecessary contracting so that they can justify their need for an increased budget and higher taxes. It will be impossible to ' avoid' corruption given how the system currently works.

I totally agree with the MIT wage calculator. 18 dollars/hour should be minimum today. We need a union to put this into action right away. Time is dear and we needed reform several years ago but Trev, if we rely on our leadership to make this happen, we'll be waiting a LONG long time.

Are you familiar with the architects who are renovating abandoned strip malls with recycled building materials? Their work is amazing, beautiful and encourages new businesses and jobs. I can't remember where I heard about this or the company's name.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

So you're saying we should not invest in public works? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

You come off very defeatist in regards to addressing corruption.

Government can be used for good. The people must take it back from the corporations.

Do you have a link to the strip malls?

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

No link to the stripmall construction. You might be able to find something. I saw it on TV a couple of months ago.

Corruption is what it is and our nation was built on it. So, my point is that if Americans want more take home pay, they need to find a way to force that through union activism or something else separate from government.

To overhaul the current system will take years..years that we don't have. Obama promised to sever the lobbyist ties to legislators and it's been 5 years. Enough is enough.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

So are you saying no to monetary reform? Or just no to building roads and mass transportation? Because I also listed water ways, housing, and in Kucinich's proposal he also suggest health care schools and more. The monetary policy could be used for anything essentially that benefited society and was real wealth. Including community gardens and more.

Everything will take years. EVERYTHING. There is no quick fix. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement only got a fraction of what they wanted accomplished and that took over a decade of dedication. Not to forget about all the years and years of oppression before that.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

bump that to 25 instead of 18. 18 is low. The government is paying privately contracted mercenaries hundreds of thousands a year overseas. Probably should even be over 30 an hour. These are real jobs we're talking about. Not fraudulent futures trading.

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

It sounds like a great idea, however, there are those who would probably complain about indenturing workers by giving them full time jobs at lower wages.

And then there might be full time workers who might prefer to make more money per hour by working less hours.

Maybe the compromise would be automatic healthcare benefits for part time workers who work less than 20 hours a week.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I like the compromise, I would suggest any hours per week.

This post is kind of a compromise with what they're talking about potentially maybe putting on the table with a minimum wage increase.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

Consumer debt is most likely the overriding factor that determines whether a company hires or not. Too much consumer debt and corporations are ironically doing the right thing by not hiring people to create products and services that won't be purchased.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

the debt is a scam. A common symptom of pyramid schemes and monopolies.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

Consumer debt is different than the national debt.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

it's still scam. The entire money system has been corrupted. Prices have been corrupted. We have inflation for wall street profits, trading some of those futures.

What happens in a monopoly? Hence debt.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

But not a scam to the point where all consumer debt should be forgiven.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

the entire monetary system, prices in commodities, housing, etc have all been corrupted by banks.

What happens in a monopoly?

Debts in this regard should be forgiven due to the corruption. The businesses that sold the products still get paid.

The federal reserve creates money out of nothing gives it to banks and then the banks loan you money at interest. It is in their best interest to keep you in need of debt, so they further corrupt the system, cause prices to go up etc, giving them trillions more.

"A debt-based monetary system, where money comes into existence primarily through private bank lending, can neither create, nor sustain, a stable economic environment, but has proven to be a source of chronic financial instability and frequent crisis, as evidenced by the near collapse of the financial system in 2008."

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

Is it the debt, or the UNBEARABLE interest rate charges on the debt that is destroying the world and the surface of the planet by forcing people into working way too many hours doing jobs of questionable value.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

the debt is based on a corrupt system. meaning without corruption the debt would not exist in the astronomical figures that it does.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

But on a localized, personal level, people borrow money and get something in return, some do it better than others, to socialize this aspect by saying all debts are off would probably just assure more of the same bad behavior.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

if anything money and debt based on corruption and manipulation assures much worse and terrifying behavior.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

But that's not the only component in play. People worked hard over the past couple of centuries building up a foundation in this country.

Yes, those in charge can both corrupt and provide because of that. Either way, just allowing people to walk away from their debts without paying any of it off does not seem right.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

"But that's not the only component in play. People worked hard over the past couple of centuries building up a foundation in this country."

what does that have to do with forgiving debt created through corruption and manipulation?

THE BANKS GOT THE MONEY FOR NOTHING AND KEEP PEOPLE IN DEBT TO THEM. IT'S CALLED A MONOPOLY.

The businesses who sold product, houses, etc, do not lose out on any money. The corrupt banks who got the money for free would be the only one's missing out. Fuck the corrupt banks. Fuck Goldman. Fuck Citi. Fuck Bank of America. They all scam us and corrupt our government.

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

Planned perpetual indebtedness is different from borrowing money so one can purchase an item or service, than paying it back.

yes, they cross paths, but to then use that as a reason to walk away entirely is a slippery slope of irresponsibility.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I think you're defending a corrupt system.

in reply to you comment below.

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

I would suggest there is a middle ground between upending and defending that might produce an ideal result.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

When our economies decided to get rid of the gold standard, and "float" our currencies as commodities, that's when the SHTF.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I like Kucinich's ideas for monetary policy much more than a gold standard. It makes more sense and creates jobs and provides more funding with less taxation.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I sometimes wonder where all that gold went.

Canned tomatoes are every bit as relevant and tradable as a currency.

Long shelf life too.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Here's why I like Kucinich's plan over the Gold standard.

He who has the gold has the power.

Kucinich's plan puts the power to investment in building our cities. Creating true wealth.

Have you ever read through HR 2990 or watched Kucinich talk about it?

I never understood gold either. Why not tomatoes? LOL.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I'll look into it for sure.

Canned tomatoes are so important in trade, the mafiosa controls the market in Italy already.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

actually I think it's "thee who has the gold makes the rule" or something like that. Golden rule.

but yah you should check it out

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2990/text

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CaYuss28HQ

I have to say, I love Dennis's tie in this video

[-] 2 points by Shule (2030) 1 year ago

Not enough minimum wage is not the problem. Higher minimum wage is just a temporary bandaid. In a few years given inflation, the average employee on minimum wage will be right back to where he is now; scraping for scraps. The real problem is not getting a piece of the pie....

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I've been trying to get people to talk monetary policy for a while. I have a lot of posts on it. Particularly in regards to Kucinich's HR 2990. Usually go untouched.

This post is kind of a compromise to what the system is talking about potentially maybe putting on the table in regards to minimum wage.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2030) 1 year ago

I have yet to read HR2990 closely to really understand what it says, but in general I find monetary reform like which HR2990 addresses is more what is needed in this country rather than a simple patch like a minimum wage raise which only provides temporary relief to a much more fundamental problem (I suppose I'm preaching to the choir.) I'm thinking we need to get away from this idea of hourly labor compensation, and need to think something along the lines of "profit share buy-ins" as compensation for labor. Otherwise labor will forever be working while never getting any opportunity to attain a part in the fruits of their labor.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I think most people shy away from monetary policy because they don't know anything about it. Even though it's incredibly simple to explain. The federal reserve creates money out of nothing, gives it to banks, the banks pay high CEO bonuses all while the rest of America falls apart.

They seem fine with ignoring the trillions given to banks and corporations instead of housing programs, job creation, and real wealth creation.

[-] 2 points by Shule (2030) 1 year ago

Yeah, something like that. I see it as somebody with a printing press prints up some money which most people work to get, but the guy printing up the money gives some of that money he prints to his buddies for nothing.... But that is all aside. Seriously, I personally believe one key root of our economic problems are these real low interest rates we are seeing today. Interest rates are so low nobody can earn any returns on their money which they worked hard to get. Seniors in particular who rely on investment incomes are getting screwed. But in essence almost every facet of our economy is getting screwed in one way or another by it.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

hey and that's one of the many things the feds manipulate.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

government should provide public healthcare

so employers won't have to do so for full or part time employees

[-] 1 points by ChamberlinFranklin (0) from Grand Rapids, MI 1 year ago

I am the Founder of a creative organization that wants to negotiate prices throughout America's businesses and talk employers into providing advanced benefits such as access to luxury home, luxury cars, and other recreational vehicles on ocassion to help everybody live a better life. They want to help America make the smooth transition from 8 hour shifts to 6 hour shifts and help provide America with more entertainment because entertainment is money. They also want to talk business owners to contribute to a public account funded by profit dividends. They also want to represent the average person in getting paid by their employer or other companies for their ideas however small they may be. Please Donate At Chamberlin-Franklin.Org

Here Is Questions Businesses Need To Be Discussing With Us. Bring This Questionnaire To Your Employer To Talk Over, Or If You Are A Business Talk This Over With Your Suppliers And Customers. This Is Regarding Making Changes To Lower Prices As A Nation, Lower The Cost Of Living, And Providing Employees With Creative Benefits. 1. Are You Willing To Discuss Lowering Your Prices If Chamberlin-Franklin Contact Your Suppliers To Help? 2. Are You Willing To Discuss Making The Change From Three-8 Hour Work Shifts To Four-6 Hour Work Shifts? For 8 Hour Shift Jobs Try Adjusting To Two-6 Hour Shifts. 3. Are You Willing To Buy A Company Collection Of Vacation Homes And Allow Employees To Use Them? 4. Are You Willing To Buy A Company Collection Of Luxury & Exotic Cars And Allow Employees To Use Them On Their Birthday Or Anniversary? 5. Are You Willing To Buy A Company Collection Of Recreational Vehicles Such As Ski Boats, Motorcycles, RV’s, Jet Ski’s, Snowmobiles, Dirt Bikes, Snowboards, Ski’s, & Etc. And Allow Your Employees To Sign Them Out For Free Or Little Cost? 6. Are You Willing To Start Recruiting Employees From A Close Proximity And Provide Bus Transportation? 7. Are You Willing To Buy Store Credits In Bulk Such As $100,000 for $75,000 And Passing The Savings On To Your Employees? It Can Count As Wages. 8. Are You Willing To Pay Dividends In An Amount Of Your Choice To All Citizens Of Your State Or Country As A New Economic And Business Ethics Trend? It Could Invite More Loyal Customers. 9. Are You Willing To Pay Employees & Even Non-Employees Their Rightful Share For Coming Up With Creative Contributions To Your Company Such As Inventions Or Innovations, TV Commercial Or Ad Layout, Logo Or Company Image Ideas & Etc.? 10. Are You Willing To Have More Company Outings Such As Golf Or Seasonal Parties?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Wow. Are you related to Chamberlin Franklin that fought in the Civil War?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

People/sheeples should do what they are born for. They enjoy being productive. They are happy and raise individuals that make a community worth living in. Their needs are met, their future secure. No one takes and no need to save. Resources are plentiful and energy renews making humanity thriving on happy Liberty defining Freedom and everyone rests well because they know it is so all over the world AMEN All One...

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

No.......

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Yes...................!

Yes, they should.

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

then I would like to submit this argument: A parent wants to spend more time with their family. This requires fewer hours at the workplace. However, this job is the means that the parent has to provide. So should they receive a pay for a part time job that is equivalent to the same full time pay; In other words, should a part timer working 20 hours earn the same pay as a full time employee?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

NAH. Just sell the kids into slavery in Somalia so you can put 100hrs a week for the good of the corporation.You know you can't afford kids anyway, and if you sell them to slavers it's a plus, plus, you get more money and they become productive members of society, if they survive.

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

I like that. Except lets have them work as farm labor here. You can pay with the Snickers bars and the consumer cost of food would stay low.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Sorry. That would create liability and responsibility issues.

The small government in Somalia doesn't have that problem.

The aim is to raise consumer costs in the US.

Status quo, is the way to go.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

What if someone was working a part time job to supplement their income?

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

It's sad that someone needs to work more than 40 hours a week to provide for themselves, but considering that's the reality, I say it should make no difference. The way I interpret the post is that it is not really about those who choose to work more than 40 hours a week, but rather it is about incentivising companies to hire full time employees . If it costs more to hire part time employees, then companies will hire full time employees, conforming to their obligations to their employees.

Your question should be why does someone have to work more than forty hours a week to supplement their income.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Honestly, I would go crazy only working 40 hours a week, I just like to work, but you are right. There is no reason why someone should need to.

If we kept everything local, and never sent all our jobs overseas, then it would be very manageable at this point.

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Are you saying you would go crazy if you didn't work for a corporation for more than 40 hours a week?

Why wouldn't you want to pursue your own projects after the 40 hours is up?

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

What are the other "ifs" ? If we're going hypothetical, I'd like to know the full "if" situation.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Hey TrevoMr, what experience do you have with owning and operating a company? Your post reaks of "emotions" when you use CEO's bonuses as their reason for cutting back along with poor Stephen and Laura who has two kids.

So I ask you how much time do you have when it comes to being involved in business ownership that would give you legiticimy in bringing this issue up with a knowledgeable understanding of what owning a business is all about?.

Could you provide our readers with a "sample" of how it would work from a "business perspective" instead of providing us with a "living wage calculator.

Show us some factual information or provide us with a "model example" of just how this could work if it was "your own business".

Now I am not here to criticize but there are lots of people on this site who post stupid information and come to find out they have no "real life experiences" when it comes to what they post, but they love to blame and make examples when they have no experience theirselves.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You think running a business should be based on exploitation?

I have my own business actually! I work for myself. I also have another job where I work for a company - where more of my time goes. And I've hired people before. Usually just a days work but I pay 20 bucks an hour to that person. Job varies from helping move equipment to assisting with audio.

What business do you run?