Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I'm saying they should be hired for an actual standard 40 hour week, not a 35 hour week. It's not worknig an 'extra' hour, it's working a standard day. It always costs more to hire a new employee than to use the ones you've got, so it would save money by needing fewer employees.
Not rocket science here.
I think it was at least 10 years ago I saw the "standard" 35 hour thing, so it isn't new.
And I' not sure how this justifies anything:
The rest of us are at work 9 hours a day and get paid for 8.
|
doubt it would happen.
what's happening that I see is the working weeks getting shorter. (in the fields I'm involved with, anyway)
instead of hiring a full time continuing staff, there is more of a transition to casual staff who do the same jobs but are not eligible for the benefits.
plus by giving them less hours, they don't hit their casual hour totals to get bumped up for compensation and added benefits.
to make up for less total overall hours being worked, they just add to the workload of those who are there. I've lost track of the people who retired and the position was just eliminated, or those who had their jobs "displaced" and the work just handed to others.
Calgary could probably just do the same sort of thing, even if they have to hasten it by offering a buyout to get some expensive older people out the door. rewrite the job descriptions, lower the salary expectations and benefits.
seems places more often value low paid employees over knowledgeable, productive employees.