It's what works with employment once you get regular workers re-classed as temps or part-time, and it's the same magic with how Walmart handles the sometimes horrific starting points for its products. While he does mention other companies like Costco in terms of how they treat their direct employees, I'm not sure if this sort of supply chain practice is common across the business or exceptionally applied in Walmart's case.
I'm gonna go with probably yes. WRT the temp/full time arbitrage, I'm guessing that derives from the differential between cost of employing a worker part time vs full time. Moving the more expensive aspects of that transition onto government (eg national health care provider, national defined contribution pension plan, national worker's comp/unemployment insurance) and paying for it through tax rather than direct employer contributions would probably fix that particular bug.
Temping is never going to be awesome -- and nothing short of the apocalyptic Unions Uber Alles fever dreams of the right could make slinging boxes for Wal-Mart an attractive career -- but the behaviors of Wal-Mart and similar corporations in regards to their employment practices is an excellent example of how regulating employers into giving benefits isn't an ideal answer. Of course, "never regulate anything ever" is a strictly worse answer across the board, which I dearly wish our chattering class would just admit and move on from. It's almost like having a social safety net that improves labor mobility by lowering the transaction costs of seeking new employment, along with stronger and cheaper education, would be a vast improvement on our current situation. But we must man the gates and be ever vigilant against the insidious creep of Socialism lest we drown in a fetid swamp of mediocrity. So let's make sure to do that first.
Yes, that seems right. I mean, it's not exactly mysterious as to why they are doing it, but it is unclear whether the corner-cutting would really change that much in a business that explicitly relies on food stamps (while supporting politicians that demonize them, of course) to flesh out its "benefit plan", although it would certainly help out with less baldly ruthless companies.
Yeah. I wasn't trying to aim my snark in your direction, apologies if it came off that way because of their vertical proximity.
Sorry, this is probably a massive derail. Post full of suck ahead. Aren't employer contributions to healthcare premiums federal tax deductible? I believe they are, though I have no idea if they are capped or not. I'm in agreeance with Aeon that shifting the burden of financing these programs onto the government and then funding them via taxes/whatever would be a far better situation for everyone to be in, but I also share Adam and LK's skepticism that, barring (paraphrasing) Upton Sinclair's pinko worker's rights revolution, there would be a systemic change within the companies that are the most grievous offenders. Sadly, I doubt there would even be that large of a sea change in hiring practices, re: full/part timers, at least in regards to unskilled or trade-skilled jobs, simply based on the perception that part time = flex time. I've worked at plenty of companies before where the only person safeguarding the employees' hours or benefits was the founder. Once they're out of the way and the board installs someone with an MBA and a "can-do" attitude towards reducing the labor poor (see: the largest perceivable controllable cost to morons) then it is all over from there. So, er, I guess what I'm getting at is: it is a business culture issue that won't be solved by shifting the burden of funding around. Until the shareholders (and the people they entrust with the stewardship) of these companies and, more-over, the American public, stop seeing everything in dollar signs - specifically, the smaller, the better, without any consideration for what that might mean for their kids, parents or neighbors - then you won't affect change in any meaningful sense. You might allow people to jump ship to a better employer, but I think we've all seen the numbers, analyzed the data and hashed out the arguments enough on that one to know what the chances are there. It'd be great if I had socialized medicine, but working three part time jobs to make rent or to buy groceries would suck. I guess this speaks to a few broader points - what is college for (I don't expect "business ethics" courses to actually start teaching anything approaching ethics anytime soon) and how ill-advised it is for us to tie our entire economy's health to the way the broken markets react to a company's earnings call - but I'm not sure I'm the one to address how truly broken our entire business culture is in this country.
In the sense that they hit the income statement as an "expense" before taxable earnings are calculated, yeah. But since earnings are generally the starting point of calculating stock valuations, there's a tension between the clear benefit vs. people who want to exercise their options this quarter. Essentially you are exactly right, and then in your later paragraphs you are exactly right again pointing out the problem: stock price is too much the incentive to managers/shareholders. It is my view, probably overly hopeful and optimistic, that things are changing. Sustainable* business models are getting good grass-roots traction; but it's going to take years and perhaps decades to get it in the wide public consciousness. *not meaning environmentally friendly but meaning a business that has genuine and self-sustaining long-term prospects due to issues including managing inputs wisely (this would include environmental items), stakeholder theories of value, and so on.
Most colleges do the same thing. Very few schools can afford to hire enough full-time faculty, and so a lot of classes are covered by adjuncts. These workers are paid much less and receive no health care, because that keeps the system going and there aren't any other realistic options. I did it for a while when I first started teaching, and I was earning less money from it than I made from my graduate school stipend, which I think was a little under $25,000 / year when I finished.
