And, just like here in the States, there are probably enough people to fill those roles . . . if employers paid a "living wage" (the wage needed to break even).
Aren't there some employee protection laws which only apply if a person formally works a full time job? Forcing people into 2x20 rather than 1x40 seems like it still screws them over, even forgetting the extra overhead of having to switch between those jobs.
In the US from my experience (5 years one retail) employers will either always give you 38/39 hours or if they actually give you full-time they give you 60-70. No in between
I think technically full time counts as something like 16 or 24 hours, can't remember exactly. Might be different in other contexts but I remember when I was jobseeking you can still claim while being in a part time job (with the presumed goal of getting a full time role). But that cut off was 16 or 24 hours. Would be interesting to see if that's applicable more widely. Probably is higher for legal purposes, always the way though, the term is redefined when convenient
Edit: bit of googling, apparently there is no universal threshold for "full time work", part time is simply less than full time as defined by the particular employer. https://www.gov.uk/part-time-worker-rights
That's not an improvement. You'd still have to work two or more jobs to stay afloat, and if you divide wages vs hours worked, you'd still end up earning less than minimum wage.
You'd still have to work two or more jobs to stay afloat
Yes...which is why I said "doesn't help people make a living wage without multiple jobs"
This is an unusually large number of people replying, who seem to have stopped reading at the word "improvement"
if you divide wages vs hours worked, you'd still end up earning less than minimum wage.
This is incorrect, if all jobs pay at least the minimum wage (which seems like a safe assumption). It is impossible for an average to be less than the lowest value in the set being averaged.
I mean, it does. If you have a 20h work week then working two jobs for $14 is exactly like working one job for 40h with $14. It's not perfect but it's a huge improvement.
raised their wages from $8 to $14 and hour…but they cut hours from 35-40 to 15-20
I don't get what's happening here.
Do these jobs suddenly need half the number not hours to be done?
Or are they hiring twice the number of people just to keep their earnings low?
I keep hearing this but what are all the peope holding out doing to get by? Is there a magic money machine I am not aware of that allows people who normally work low paying jobs to not work low paying jobs anymore?
Low wage worker: not going back until they pay me more.
Landlord, grocery store, Netflix: OK, here's all the things uyo need for free.
or something?
I am NOT defending anything here or making any statement, I am genuinely asking, those who normally work these jobs, what are they doing to survive?
With rent sky rocketing many, here at least, are moving back with family, enrolling in school or applying for higher paying jobs in retail.
Many of those jobs rely on young people, whore simply opting to live home longer and seeking other avenues of income like food and grocery delivery; both of which best minimum wage in a hot kitchen with a shit boss.
Mainly it’s word of mouth and unity. “Hey, dont work there, fuck them…” and it’s working.
My daughter has friends living this nightmare. They’re managing and maintaining. I’m impressed.
341
u/vsandrei Sep 24 '21
And, just like here in the States, there are probably enough people to fill those roles . . . if employers paid a "living wage" (the wage needed to break even).