> Stackhouse has a serious heart condition requiring medical management, but his employer, Appen — whose sole client is Google — caps his hours at 26 per week, keeping him part-time, and ineligible for benefits.
What a cruel system.
Benefits should not be yes/no at some hours-per-week cutoff.
Or really, they shouldn't be a thing. Fix any tax bs that makes it cheaper for employers to pay for them rather than employees and remove any rules that say employees have to provide them. ... err, I guess time off might count as a benefit, so make sure any rules scale linearly all the way to zero.
How much an employee costs shouldn't have sudden jumps at particular numbers of hours. Employees shouldn't depend on their employees for anything more than a (fungible, because it's just money) paycheck.
sounds like what you're saying is that without this employer, this employee would have a worse or no job; if you start from that and then give them this job then it sounds pretty positive
> they won't even let someone survive anymore.
who's they?
Some jobs will pay the lowest wage... that it is these jobs? I actually would rate and expect these jobs pay lower than the typical lowest pay jobs which require physical labor like the typical low pay jobs in fast food, or building cleaning?
Or the specific amount given current circumstances? True.. on the other hand still well above the minimum wage by law in most European countries.. maybe not comparable well, but still not much out of range.
That rich companies pay low wages? Yeah, absurd and unfair, but that unfortunately never hold a rich company back where it could just pay that (I'd like different regulation here).
So the problem is really independent of these specific jobs or companies? And the answer to this is better regulation and worker protection laws, that many frown upon?
Much in the same way that you can’t pay an industry supplying you with critical parts forever because then the parts will eventually stop being built, companies shouldn’t be allowed to pay for less than the necessary amount to support the workers living. If this makes the job they are doing not valuable enough then the companies shouldn’t be engaged in the work that can’t be profitable without subsidies, ask the government for specific earmarked subsidizes if it generates a positive externality, or actually do some innovation and figure out a way to make the work profitable
That was my point, or "really?" Again, I'd like it to be more that way, but given current laws and what most people agree to: Do they even have to? No!