When I took my last job (after retiring from the education field), it was as a Paralegal for The State of NJ. However, I was not actually a state employee, and instead was employed as a contract worker, via Kelly Legal Services. That, of course, meant that I got…no benefits…no sick days…and an hourly rate that was…very low. Luckily that hourly rate was sufficient when it was combined with my pension.
Anyway, that job began in 2006, and the trend toward using contract workers wasn’t new at that point. Many private enterprises–and governments–have been using this type of arrangement for at least the past 10-12 years, in order to cut their costs. And, of course, it is much easier to get rid of somebody if he/she is a contract employee, rather than working directly for your company or your governmental division.
The only ones who suffer from this type of employment are the workers–like me. I severely fractured my left foot, and for a job that included walking to the Court House a couple of times each day, this was a real problem. Because I had no “sick days”, I had to leave that job.
Contract workers is HUGE in the software sector. I worked as a consultant for over 15 years. Many were just 3 months contracts. Some were for a couple of years. One was for over 5 years. The pay is lucrative.
The downside is there’s no benefits. My wife has a nice career…and has good benefits so she just added me. But any day I took off (vacation or sick) - I didn’t get paid. But the pay was about 30% higher then someone working full time doing the same work…and you get paid overtime.
I have 3 contract employees working for me right now. I have to pay them more, but I don’t have to pay them any benefits.
Triedaq, I wholeheartedly agree that going with a high adjunct ratio is a serious problem in higher education. It sacrifices continuity, dedication, building and maintaining the currency of the programs, and having faculty available for academic support of the students. In short, I believe it seriously compromises the quality of the education. Administrators, in order to justify this cost-driven philosophy, have convinced themselves that once a course is developed, anyone qualified can teach it. But there are countless hours outside of the classroom that faculty should be there for program development and student support. Many administrators attempt to compensate by requiring the adjuncts to have an “online component” to their teaching, but IMHO that does not “fill the hole”. It helps, but it only HELPS.
This was and is a pet peeve of mine. I was an administrator, thank God, but never able to change the administrative culture. Had I been, I might not have retired.
Not trying to open a can of worms but it is something I have believed for a long time. The job market is more stagnent with less turnover, restricted hours, lower wages and with less movement and less job satisfaction, as long as healthcare is employer based. That has been a huge factor for every job my dad, my self and my bros have ever considered. People would and have, stayed at jobs their entire life that they did not like, that others might have been more qualified for, just to keep their families insured. Maybe things will work out in the foreseeable future, but imho, taking it totally off the backs of employers has to be part of it. Job satisfaction and matching people to the best jobs are easier in these conditions where unions are only allowed to negotiate wages and working conditions, and emplyees are much freer to move and healthcare does not have to be figured into a companies overhead. Companies would naturally pay higher wages to keep good imployees when the alternative is to losse everyone with their own personally funded healthcare that travels with them where ever they go.
I came to this conclusion after being appointed to the finance committee in two different schools with teacher unions to deal with. Health Insurance was the huge stickler for both tax payers and unions to deal with. Everything else was pretty easy to “meter out” during negotiations… The variability and the changes in cost from companies and help from states from one year to the next, left everyone who had to fund their employees who refused to move because of healthcare security, scratching their heads. It’s something explorers should not be dealing with.
Dag, in the interest of this thread not becoming another heated debate on the ACA, I’ll decline from responding. Too many threads are degenerating into the ACA debate.
Back to Leno’s advice, I’d tweak it just a bit:
“I’ll work for free for a week to show you what I can do.” instead of just starting to work (which could cause all kinds of problems and ill will).
All I can say is that I don’t think I had a day that I wasn’t insured and always had school or employer based insurance with an employee contribution. Never had any trouble changing employers or insurance. With group plans, they take everybody in the group and once you retire, you can stay in that group as long as you pay for it. I agree portability is nice as well as eliminating pre-existing conditions, but believe its a ruse eliminating employer based plans. Sometimes you don’t realize how far off the path you’ve gone until you look back.
Several years ago a young man working at the counter in a McParts store thought he could do well on radio. I suggested that he go to the station that most suited his tastes and tell the manager he would sweep the floors and clean the rest rooms for free on his days off if he would be allowed to sit in and learn the business. Amazingly the manager took hum up on the offer and now he is the morning drive time host earning many times more than McParts paid. The young man flagged me down not long ago to thank me for the advice.
I think something along those lines might well work. Land you a job I mean. It’s possible someone there might get upset and call the police. But more likely either they will let you continue and eventually hire you if you demonstrate your worth, or they’ll just tell you to leave.
The thought sounds good, but the legal problems and the liability of allowing an unknown nonemployee to work on one’s business/property are too great in today’s world for this approach. Someone using a dealer’s equipment washing his cars without being known by and supervised by the dealership creates too much risk to the corporation as well as to its products.
“Someone using a dealer’s equipment washing his cars without being known by and supervised by the dealership creates too much risk to the corporation as well as to its products.”
Exactly
If this “volunteer” was not an employee, he would not be covered by the dealer’s insurance policy, and would not have work-related disability insurance or Workman’s Comp. IMHO–any car dealer who allowed somebody to work under these circumstances would be…very foolish.
"But more likely either they will let you continue and eventually hire you if you demonstrate your worth, or they’ll just tell you to leave. "
If anything is to be taken from the advice, it’s that. It’s just the idea of “showing up” that makes it unreasonable in today’s society. But showing your worth is “worthwhile”.
Maybe if Jay had said…"park your detailed car every day in front of the main office with a sign that read ‘detailed by John Smith. I can do this for you’ "
