Welcome to part-time Britain: Record 7.8m workers are not full-time

doire_2

kabayiri wrote: »

I did. The clue was in the previous post

Brilliant comeback. Lets go back to 1950 instead eh?

kabayiri

20 years / 10 years. Whatever . You pick a time period.

If I am an employer, and I need an accountant for 3 days a week, do I :-

a) employ someone for 3 days a week, or
b) take someone on full time and feel all warm and cuddly about it.

If you think this is not realistic, look at how the large scale employers of yesteryear have been replaced by much smaller SME's.

A company of 50 staff may not need full time HR support.

The point is ... things change.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

kabayiri wrote: »

20 years / 10 years. Whatever . You pick a time period.

If I am an employer, and I need an accountant for 3 days a week, do I :-

a) employ someone for 3 days a week, or
b) take someone on full time and feel all warm and cuddly about it.

If you think this is not realistic, look at how the large scale employers of yesteryear have been replaced by much smaller SME's.

A company of 50 staff may not need full time HR support.

The point is ... things change.

Or if you were Mr Tesco you could create 20,000 part time positions instead of 5,000 full time positions & pocket the extra £150,000 per week in National Insurance contributions you saved.......

So, while I get you point, yours is a 1 in 15,000 example.

vivatifosi

kabayiri wrote: »

A company of 50 staff may not need full time HR support.

The point is ... things change.

Exactly, I am what Charles Handy would call a portfolio worker. I have five jobs, four of which are paid. There is nothing stopping people doing several jobs if they want to in order to receive a full time wage equivalent. From my point of view it gives me a chance to do lots of different, interesting things. It also means that if I lose one job, I have other income streams which gives me greater security.

However one of my jobs is in the public sector. I've been told that one of the crafty ways of avoiding redundancy is to reduce the number of hours worked and hence pay pro-rata, so that people leave because they can't afford to work there any more. If that's the case, then that isn't fair. I guess my point is that there are different pros and cons to part time work.

Thrugelmir

doire wrote: »

Yeah a 40 hour per week role can be done in 15 to 20 hours. I despair. Nothing to do with the economic mess the UK is in then?

Its called flexible working. Many smaller Companies do not require full time workers for every post. The hours for the post are determined by the actual amount of work to be performed. This is far more efficent for the business and allows the employee to look after children, elderly relatives far easier.

Life isn't all about money.

Thrugelmir

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Or if you were Mr Tesco you could create 20,000 part time positions instead of 5,000 full time positions & pocket the extra £150,000 per week in National Insurance contributions you saved.......

So, while I get you point, yours is a 1 in 15,000 example.

Mr Tesco requires more staff at peak times. Why have them standing around doing nothing?

In fact by offering part time positions more people get a slice of the pie. Something that we may have to get to used to in the future.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Something that we may have to get to used to in the future.

Is that a "we are all in it together comment"?



Sorry Thrugelmir, if it is, your wrong.

Thrugelmir

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Is that a "we are all in it together comment"?



Sorry Thrugelmir, if it is, your wrong.

I realise that it may not be popular current thinking........

MsHoarder

A century ago everyone worked a 6 day week, then to increase consumer demand it went down to 5 days. I'd rather work a 4 day week and have 20% less unemployment and more leisure time.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I realise that it may not be popular current thinking........

I am glad we got there in the end....

I was worried for you....

Either that or I was going to rob you!! :eek: