06-01-2009, 03:00 PM
Lazy,
Very good question! But, I think there is something else to take into consideration. The type of employees hired by a store doesn't necessarily have a bearing on how said store treats its employees. So, a store that hires part-timers as a means of not having to pay for health insurance may still treat its employees well.
Health insurance is expensive. Full-timers get other benefits, too. In the end, you're talking monstrous amounts of money. So, you can't blame them for hiring a part-timer or two when they can do the job just as well as a full-timer and save them money in the long run.
So, to me, it's less a question of the type of employees hired by the company and more of one of how the company treats all of its employees, part-time and full-time alike.
Robert
Very good question! But, I think there is something else to take into consideration. The type of employees hired by a store doesn't necessarily have a bearing on how said store treats its employees. So, a store that hires part-timers as a means of not having to pay for health insurance may still treat its employees well.
Health insurance is expensive. Full-timers get other benefits, too. In the end, you're talking monstrous amounts of money. So, you can't blame them for hiring a part-timer or two when they can do the job just as well as a full-timer and save them money in the long run.
So, to me, it's less a question of the type of employees hired by the company and more of one of how the company treats all of its employees, part-time and full-time alike.
Robert