Part Time Jobs

I was phoning with my daughter in San Diego,  as we teased each other about the relative climatic advantages of Southern California vs Central Willamette Valley in Oregon.

She and her husband are trying to relocate to Central California.  Her mother (my ex wife) and stepfather (my best friend) are experiencing both  physical and economic challenges.  Daughter wants to move closer to her mom and step-dad, to support them.

The problem is, Daughter and son-in-law can't find jobs which will allow them to support themselves and their families. 

Said daughter:  "I didn't get the job I applied for; I was #2 on the list, and the woman who was #1 hasn't committed to the job yet.  I DID find another job, but it turned out that it was not a full-time job, but two half-time jobs."

To be more clear .. it was the same job with the same employer, except that it had been administratively redefined.  The same number of hours, the same work ... but not a full-time job.

Why?

Nobody knows.

---

Okay, we do know.

Any employer who offers a full-time job is required to provide benefits which meet certain governmental mandates .. including health-care.

Part-time jobs, however, are not addressed under these same mandates.

What is easier to make it possible for a small business to hire new workers, but to define the job as a part-time job?

The employer is then not responsible for providing full benefits ... such as Health Care.  Which is VERY expensive.

No, not as expensive as it was a few years ago, but MUCH more expensive!

The whole theory of governmental mandated health care is that the employer must provide health care benefits which are much more demanding than they were a few years ago.  Failure to meet those demands  results in penalties .. very expensive penalties .. imposed upon the employer.

But if the job is only part-time, the penalties are fewer, less expensive, or not applicable.

Think about it.  If you were a small business employer, would you hire a person full-time, or hire two people part-time?  I think we're seeing a trend, here.

For entry-level, or non-technical jobs, it's much more economically feasible for an employer to give new employees the choice of a part-time job with no health benefits than to hire a new employee with no or fewer benefits. And the most expensive benefit (now more than ever before) is health care.

And apparently, there is no reason why the employer cannot hire a single employee in two positions ... which just happen to overlap.  On a part-time basis.

Admittedly, I don't know the details here.  I don't know the law .. but who does, in a law for which the printed copy is taller than you are?

The point is that Our President, in his drive to revision re-engineer American society, has presented us with a set of laws which are not only difficult to understand, but also REQUIRE us to do the old things in new ways.

And as always, the American people  are looking for ways to get around the arbitrary laws without going out of business.

Who loses?  Well, my daughter loses.  And her family loses.  They have to find their own health care .. if they decide to accept the new job under the new rules.

This does not sound to me as if the new rules are performing in her favor.  Wasn't that the goal?

Are the new rules designed to encourage workers to improve themselves?  Or are they designed only for people with the lowest level of competence and experience?

What happened to Middle Americans?

Have they been thrown under the bus .. again?