"They hire people part-time so they don't have to give them benefits."

[raccoon]

Ever heard somebody say that? I have, lots of times.

This statement is based on a misconception, the misconception that if you are employed full-time, employers HAVE to give you benefits.

I don't think so. It's my understanding that, in a unionized (or nonunionized) workplace, where they have a contract, the employer has to give you benefits spelled out in the contract.

If you don't have a contract, employers don't have to give you anything.

Somebody out there, correct me if I'm wrong--but I don't think I am.

[hobbit709]

1. Most full time jobs provide at least some benefits

but part time-forget it. And it's got nothing to do with contracts.

[raccoon]

4. But do they HAVE to provide those benefits? nt

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Federal law requires pension contributions, paid vacation time, and...

a bunch of other stuff for full-time employees-- some state laws may, too. I'm not up on all of it now, but part-timers are essentially exempt from whatever is required for full-timers.

[uncommon]

11. Pension contributions? I don't think that is true.

I certainly don't get that where I work. I do get paid vacation time, sick time and health insurance paid 50% by my employer though.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. It may have changed, but once upon a time any business with over 100...

employees had to have a pension program, and you were guaranteed some sort of pension if you worked there 10 years or more.

However, there was no requirement that they had to tell you about it, and they wouldn't in high turnover places.

[Romulox]

16. None of that is true. nt

[dkf]

3. Its company policy. They don't negotiate every employees hr benefits separately.

[raccoon]

7. I expect that they could change that policy at any time. nt

[xchrom]

5. I belive some of it relates to states laws re: full time employees.

I.e. -- California has some laws regarding that.

[ejpoeta]

6. while the company may not by law be required to provide benefits

most do to full time employees. they can get around this if they hire people part time. i know that my sister used to work at walmart. she AND her husband actually were full time employees there. People who had a certain number of hours a week were eligible for insurance. When she was going to school she tried to maintain the minimum hours she needed to keep the insurance. At some point they started making that difficult for her to do. Probably around the time the manager left and a new one came in and moral went in the crapper. I am so glad both of them escaped and found better jobs. I know that my husbands employer is looking to hire someone to work 4 days a week. i'm going to bet there will be no benefits.

[Orrex]

8. It's intended in a way slightly different from how you're interpreting it

"They hire people part-time so they don't have to give them benefits."

"They" in this context means "employers who would provide benefits to their full-time employees." It's not a question of whether or not a given employer grants benefits to its full-time employees; it's whether that same employer grants benefits to both its full-time and part-time employees.

It must additionally be noted that employers like part-time workers because they're less apt to accrue overtime hours. If someone's standard work-week is 35 hours, then you can wring another 5 out of them before you have to pay time-and-a-half.

[raccoon]

9. Check out this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4559212

[DrDan]

10. if you are full time - I do not believe an employer can pick-and-choose

as to who gets benefits.

Make a person part-time, however, and they can be excluded.

[stray cat]

13. i hire people part time because I have to work within a budget

the same reason DUers don't hire full time maids or handypeople - you have to have the money to create a job and pay for an employee

[AldebTX]

14. Full Time Jobs Here Provide Benefits Part Time Do Not

Texas is a right to work state.

Our organization hires many part time employees and can work them up to 39.5 hours without benefits. If the employee is at any time schedule for 40 hours (or more) then benefits kick in.

[Recursion]

15. Many large companies have a policy that full-time employees get benefits

Local managers infamously avoid those costs by hiring part-time people, which I think is what that phrase is about. Think Starbucks, or even Wal~Mart (which, ironically, actually gives benefits to a higher percentage of its employees than Starbucks).

[TwilightGardener]

17. Everywhere I've ever worked (usually as a part-timer)--full timers get benefits,

part timers don't.