200,000 jobs were created last year. Only 3 per cent were full-time

PasturesNew

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I really don't see an issue here.

Can always cut your neighbours grass to make up for the lack of a full time job.

a] Not if everybody did it
b] Not in flats

And more people'd have more time to cut their own grass.

Graham_Devon

PasturesNew wrote: »

a] Not if everybody did it
b] Not in flats

And more people'd have more time to cut their own grass.

It was tounge in cheek

tomterm8

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The work place has changed very rapidly. IBM launched the first PC in 1981. The internet became fully accessible in 1995.

In many industries the same number of people are no longer employed as 30 years ago. Finance is my industry and Companies employ a fraction of the staff now in this area.

Yes, but none of those changes intrinsically say much about whether it is more economically viable to hire someone full time or part time. They may affect the total number of people employed, of course.

Or, can you show such a significant change in working patterns in other countries?

Thrugelmir

tomterm8 wrote: »

Yes, but none of those changes intrinsically say much about whether it is more economically viable to hire someone full time or part time. They may affect the total number of people employed, of course.

Or, can you show such a significant change in working patterns in other countries?

From a Company's perspective. (I'm talking about SME's in this context). Its more cost efficent to employ someone on a fixed 24 hours a week then pay overtime, on an as and when required basis. Than contract someone for a fixed 30 hours and allow them to stretch the job out to fill the time.

People will say thats only 6 hours. But with 20 people for instance at a total cost of £12 per hour. The saving is around £75k a year. A significant sum for a small business.

tomterm8

That's not intrinsically the case, even with a SME. The first point is, I have worked for a lot of SME's and none of them have ever paid overtime. Most SME's don't tend to do that. Part time labour, as a rule, has a higher turnover, and costs more money to train, as well as there being a significant risk of your trained employees changing jobs to work at a competitor or just going sick. There are increased administration overheads, and increased hiring costs. For people who often don't stay long term.

No, I don't think these factors are the deciding factors. Your analysis applies throughout the western world. But in the UK, we have basically created next to no full time jobs in the last decade (at least, if John Redwoods recent blog post is correct). Is that the case in other countries in the western world?

Thrugelmir

tomterm8 wrote: »

That's not intrinsically the case, even with a SME. The first point is, I have worked for a lot of SME's and none of them have ever paid overtime. Most SME's don't tend to do that. Part time labour, as a rule, has a higher turnover, and costs more money to train, as well as there being a significant risk of your trained employees changing jobs to work at a competitor or just going sick. There are increased administration overheads, and increased hiring costs. For people who often don't stay long term.

Employees of any organisation respond to how you treat them. Flexibility in working practices has benefits for both the Company and the Employees. Resulting in higher productivity, reduced absentism etc. What I described earlier was only the fiscal side of the equation. Still requires a forward thinking innovative management to implement a different culture of work. There are plenty of people who are happy to work reduced or flexible hours.

Shakethedisease

There are plenty of people who are happy to work reduced or flexible hours.

However, 97% of job seekers, don't seem to have any choice in that anyway.. I think the original article states that it's a 'McJob or nothing' ?

Lets not start confusing the chronic lack of full-time permanent posts on offer, with 'flexibility' eh..