Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

J_F_Shepard

To: TimF who wrote (746643)	10/14/2013 6:38:41 PM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 1570077

For one, a business that small would not be required to provide insurance. But, I realize this is an illustration. The problem is finding enough employees willing to work part time and no benefits. And once you do, keeping them. Since all of the other businesses face the same set of conditions, there isn't much of a competitive advantage to be had. True, if all of the businesses in a given niche collude together, they might be able to pull it off. But there are legal ramifications about that type of behavior. And that doesn't address the extra costs associated with having 67% more employees. Your 3 to 5 employee business wouldn't have much of a problem. But going from 25, which is where the requirement kicks in, to 34 or so is more complicated. Because with that many employees, not all will be doing the same job. The ones who are more specialized are also going to have options when you cut their hours like that. And then the ones who you can get by with cutting their hours aren't going to be happy if they get their hours cut and some don't. Given they are likely to be customer facing, well that can be a problem. So no, the logic isn't simple.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next