Text 15814, 133 rader
Skriven 2007-07-09 18:03:14 av Carl (2284.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Way OT Query...
===========================

"Bill" <feline_ranger@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1183912556.641549.31980@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 7, 9:30 pm, "Carl" <cengm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Bill" <feline_ran...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1183851183.633622.76880@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > I also think unions should be waging a very loud PR and legal campaign
>> > to reign in the use of temp services. Temp agencies have a purpose,
>> > but it's an extremely limited one. Most commonly, temps are supposed
>> > to be used as short term replacements for someone out sick or for
>> > short term bolstering of an existing workforce.
>> > A company has no business having a constantly rotating temp
>> > workforce *instead of* a group of full time workers.
>>
>> Why not?  A business offers and a worker accepts employment under
>> whatever terms are mutually acceptable.
>>
>> A business decides what they're willing to and can afford to pay for a
>> workforce.
>>
>> It's a calculated decision by a company; risk having to train a new 
>> employee
>> periodically and lose the productivity for a while whenever the "temp"
>> decides
>> to move on to something better, or pay them more and make them a 
>> permanent
>> employee (and also risk the extra expenses of having to terminate someone
>> if their actual workforce needs fluctuate).
>>
>> I suppose the alternative is to use more offshores.
>
> It's a calculated decision designed for the sole purpose of  saving
> money at the expense of good workers.

No, it is a decision designed to save the company money.  It's quite 
possible that
if the choice was permanent position or defer the work uhntil a later time,
a company might choose the latter.

The company has made a decision that they don't want more permanent workers.
They offer a temporary position to someone that is willing to accept it 
under those
conditions.  This would seem to be completely honest and above board.
Under those circumstances, it's not at any worker's expense.

> First off, temps rarely get the opportunity to move on or accept permanent 
> offers.

So?  They weren't given the work with any such promise.

> The typical merry-> go-round goes like as follows: 1) Get first temp job 
> as bridge between
> permanent positions, 2) Spend 90 days, the typical probationary
> period, 3) come home one night to a message on your answering machine
> that says your assignment is completed and you don't have a job any
> more. 4) Begin job hunting again only to discover that permanent
> positions aren't interested becaues you took a temp job, which means
> you are not reliable over the long run, 6) go back to 1). When I lived
> in the Seattle area, I was stuck in this cycle for two years.

I'm sorry that you had such difficulties, but if you understood that it was
a temporary position up front, then how is this anyone's fault?

Are you suggesting that businesses not be allowed to hire temporary
workers?

> Despite all the claims, I have never once seen the "temp-to-perm"
> offer come to fruition.

Well, I've been offered a permanent position when I was a contractor
(I turned it down), and the company I work for now has hired several
people under such circumstances.I can't tell you what the temp to hire
ratio was, but we don't have many contractors in the first place.

>Not for myself and not for anyone else even
> when the workload was there to support a fulltime workforce. At
> Nintendo, there was enough work to keep all the assembly lines working
> through two shifts.

Sure, but the company can't count on the demand staying there and they don't
want to hire a bunch of permanent employees and then watch demand drop to
the point that they don't have enought work for them.

> But they chose to *lose* time retraining new temps
> every 90 days instead of keeping an already trained full time staff.

Which simply means the costs of providing benefits for permanent employees
significantly outweighs the cost of that retraining.

> Finally, there are few extra expenses to terminating an employee. As
> it is, most states are "at will" states, which means that the employer
> doesn't even need a good reason to fire you. Employers also do not
> need to create a paper trail justifying the decision either. The most
> that is involved is a few extra forms canceling whatever benefits the
> employee had.

Companies are generally much more careful than that.  These days companies
are even told to limit what they say when  a potential employer calls for a 
reference
because companies have been sued for saying something less than glowing.
I know several companies that will only confirm employment dates and 
position titles.

Having said that, if a company does want to fire an individual because they 
aren't
doing a good enough job they should be free to do so.  I've seen instances 
in
which companies give people "busy work" because they're afraid to fire them
but don't want to give them anything significant.  If the employee has been 
there
more than a couple of years, companies get anxious about firing someone.
There is a big cost to hiring the wrong person.

> Basically, people who work through temp agencies are little more than
> a variation on migrant workers.

I think that's overstating it, but I can only speak from my own experiences.
Overall, if a company clearly says that they want to hire someone on a 
temporary
basis, but they'll hire someone if they find "just the right person" then I 
think they're
being honest and not promising anything else.

>  The only way I got out of that cycle was my moving 3000 miles east and 
> starting over.

I'm glad you were able to overcome those circumstances.

Carl
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)