Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Working

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Working

    Employed persons facing layoff or full separation from their jobs due to consequences of CORVID19 have little or no recourse. However, there could be some relief employers could pursue (if financially possible) to reduce the financial strains caused by job terminations. These are my thoughts. Employees and employers could agree that workers would retain their health benefits, retirement plans in exchange for coming to the workplace, at no salary, to perform certain tasks such as equipment, building, work space maintenance, and other chores that are pushed aside when business is humming. Necessary and lesser priority tasks could be accomplished at little or no cost; workers would retain benefits and sense of worth and receive a form of compensation. I am interested in feedback, good bad or indifferent.
    You C.A.N.
    Conquer Adversity Now

  • #2
    I think you'd need a change in employment law, because right now it's illegal to hire someone for less than the federal minimum wage (and sometimes a much higher state minimum wage).

    But also I don't think employers would do this. If there's no work for the employees, why not just fire them? Obviously these tasks that have thus far been pushed aside during the boom years aren't essential, so why take on the extra cost of continued retirement and health benefits when you're business is in the shitter? Safer to axe the employees completely to cut as many costs as possible.

    Also, I don't know many people who would continue to work for no salary and only health benefits. Can you imagine paying hundreds of dollars a month in commuting costs and traveling to a job to do something considered pointless and unnecessary a few months ago for zero salary? Not very palatable, even if you somehow have the financial means to continue to eat and pay rent. Depending on your skill set it's probably better off to start hitting the pavement ASAP and try to find another job rather than hang around for free in the job you've currently got and hoping they decide to start paying you again one day.


    Edit: But I do think this might be a good demonstration of why a higher minimum wage is a bad thing. In the boom years of full employment there was little evidence that increasing minimum wage (at least the federal minimum wage) was detrimental to job growth. But as you've pointed out, now many people might be happy to work for less than minimum wage (especially if that is $15 an hour where they live) rather than go without a job because businesses can't afford a salary that high.

    Comment


    • #3
      Funk lab, your insights may be correct in certain situations. I am a glass half full guy, thus the nation’s employers should step forward, think bold and find ways to preserve their employees’ health and retirement plans. Rather than focus on the minimum wage, let’s keep folks working, even if means doing task outside one’s sphere of expertise. For example an accountant could perform ordinary tasks such as maintenance of work spaces. When I was gainfully employed, rather than becoming an idle couch tater. Doing rather mundane chores would give me a sense of worth,, while protecting my family with health and retirement benefits—however, for a willing work force to accept the deal you must have willing employers to acknowledge the positives of retaining valued workers. I am old enough to see value in working, rather than waiting for government to provide for me. Let’s face the truth, I am old fashioned and hopelessly out of date when it comes to self reliance.
      You C.A.N.
      Conquer Adversity Now

      Comment

      Working...
      X