|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If you're going to treat temp workers like on-call employees then you're going to loving pay them like on-call employees. This touches on a lot of points that have been rattling around in my head for awhile now: It seems to me that the other side of the coin of "just bootstrap yourself into a job you lazy gently caress" suggests that the private sector can, and *should*, provide 100% employment to 100% of the population. However, the prime directive of the private sector is "profit uber alles", which frequently involves doing as much as you can with as few employees as possible, and when you have to expand, to do it with as many "flexible" (temporary) employees as possible. It seems that putting these two conflicting ideals together and forcing that cognitive dissonance is about the right time to bring up "*somebody* should be an employer of last resort, even if the definition of employment at that point is 'acquire a fresh, hot new skill for our rapidly changing economy' ". Or, alternatively, clean up the park, or plant some trees today, or whatever. I mean, there's certainly no shortage of work to be done; the only argument is how much profit can be extracted from it. The other possible alternative to the above scenario would be to force people to pay every single employee so much that sudden bouts of joblessness don't horrifically impact the person or their family. Except, of course, that can't work for another reason (spending habits are frequently dumb, it would probably cost more in the long run to do it this way, etc.) that "employer of last resort" probably works out better.
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 08:57 |
|