Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

The talk of the work ethic of the young, it quite frankly depends on the attitude of the employer as well. I have worked a couple of jobs where you try your hardest as a part-timer and work your ass off, but the bosses treat you lower than dirt because you're not only a student but a part-timer. It gets to the point where you just start feeling lethargic about the whole place. The one job I would have quit outright if I didn't need the cash so bad, but the Manager of the store tried to keep us in the job as well. She was great, it was the GM of the store that was a complete asshole, not only to us as part-timers, but to our whole division in general (he paid bag-boys at the grocery store more than the pump attendents because apparently the bag-boys have it harder when they have to go outside). Sometimes the attitude works both ways...

   

Jade, through experience, I know that if that friend of Rev's fired the "bad employee" they would just be stuck with another bad one sooner or later. Someone on the team is always slacking at some point. It's just a matter of the manager being smart enough to figure out why, then try to fix the problem alongside the employee.

Yes, I also agree that some companies don't treat their employees very well, and that is a good reason for part-timers to not want to give a crap about their job. In my case, I have tried to hire an assistant twice in the past, and neither has worked out. One out of sheer laziness, and the other because she could not handle the workload. These are the exact reasons they gave me for quitting.

As a manager, who deals with a lot of the younger generation, I was starting to feel frustrated with my lack of choices, but I have finally found one young person who has come into my store in the past few months, and has been able to step up to the plate. These are the employees that I cherish, and appreciate on a daily basis - and they know it!

   

She has more than one location, but she does have less than 50 employees. If she can expand the way she hopes she will be able to in the next couple of years, she will have well over 50 employees.

She will fire her bad employee when she has the documentation to do so.



I've had full-time jobs like that.

   

Rev_Blair, your friend will nevebe effected by this legislation since she has less than 50 employees AND more than one location. It only applies to businesses with more than 50 employees at one location. This is basically a way to keep in check the poor business practices of businesses like west fair foods (loblaws), walmart and other major retailers. The problem is, this will hurt the small businesses as well, they big companies will be able to take it, the small ones won't. This, in effect, will squeeze out small business competition for major retailers, giveing them more power of the job market and allowing them to treat their employees as poorly at the law will allow.

I agree with tthe need for this type of legislation, but not in this form in particular. Here is what I would like to see ammended:

1. Either exempt resturants or give them flexability as to what 'full time' is considered. Resturants have peak times which are much more significant than retail stores. I've worked in both, I know. Resturants should be able to consider 35 hours full time and not be foreced to pay overtime until 45 hours a week. This will also enable workers to make a little extra money with the extra 5 hours since most employers avoid paying overtime like the palgue.
2. Force companies to offer full time benifits to anyone working 20 hours a week or more(barring minors of cource). This will destroy some of the incentive they have to just have part time employees.
3. Some businesses REQUIRE part time posititions, ie resturants, retail stores ect. When offering the new available hours, businesses should only be permited to offer the exact SHIFTS that have been made vacant. If a part tiimer who just works 5 hours onfriday and sturday nights quits, then those 2 shifts should be offered to all part timers who are not currently already working those shifts. If no one takes them/doesn't already work them, the employer should be free to hire a replacement.
4.Extend the legal worker probation time from 3 months to 6 months. I've seen first hand cases where an employee was hired and in their first 3 months even promoted! (new store) only to have them start to slack and get worse and worse until we were stuck with a terrible supervisor. After over a year she was demoted once enough documented cause was given and she quit the following day. Employers should be given the freedom to fire an employee without cause within the first 6 months, this of course will not show up on the persons employment record, as it was just a trial period.

If anyone has objections I'd love to hear them, but I feel my ammendments to the legislation are fair and protect the small-medium sized businesses in our province.

   

First of all there aren't that many small businesses that have more than 50 employees at one location and employ significant numbers of part-time employees.

Second of all, you are basically asking for a 35 hour work week (personally I'd push for 32) but expecting people to work up to ten hours of overtime a week without overtime pay. I don't care what industry it is, that is wrong.

Third of all the full-time benefits for part-time employees will just lead to full-time benefits being cut. To legislate a change like that you would also have to force companies to freeze benefits or put in a floor for minimum benefits. That's a non-starter.

Extending the probation could easily lead to abuse in a low-skill job. If a person spends the first month training and the second month becoming efficient, then it does not pay to fire them just before the end of their 3 month probation period. You don't have time to recover the investment made in training.

If the the probation period is 6 months that investment could be recovered before the end of the probation period leaving the employer free to fire people without valid reason to avoid giving them a wage increase.

   

There are many small-MEDIUM (note I was using the term medium) that have more than 50 employees at any given loaction. Both resturaunts I've worked at had between 45-50 employees at any given time. (they would flip flop between). Both places employ almost half part timers. The one I currently work at has 45 due to this being the low season. The owner, if this is passed, will not hire more than 49 people at any given time and either force people to work full time who don't, or fire somsone who only works a few days a week then hire a full timer.

Secondly, 40 hours is currently considered a work week AND IS WHAT THIS LEGISLATION IS PUSHING!!!! According to it, anything less than 40 hours is considered part time, even 39 hours. I'm just saying that if someone working in a resturant has got to be crazy if they think the owner can possibly give them exactly 40 hours a week efficiently. They should accept that if they want full time they might have to work up to 5 more hours a week to meet demands. Or accept that in slower weeks only 35+ hours is what they can accept.

Benifits are for the Unions to deal with I suppose. No company is forced to give any form of benifits so I was wrong in that respect.

Abuse in low skill jobs? Are you kidding me? Training takes about a 5-10 shifts in all of the low skill jobs I've been in; efficientcy maybe a month. The most time it taken me to be fully trained is 3 shifts. If a person doesn't take to training in a reasonable time frame, fire them. 6 m onths is a fair length of time to fully asses what kind of worker the person will be. To train a person making minimum wage would cost:
6.65 * 40(hours, or 5 full shifts & I'm low balling here)
=$266
80 hours of training
=$532
by your 1 month training
=1064
Giving a person a raise after 6 months (assuming full time employee)
assuming a HIGH .25 raise
.25 * 40(hours a week) * 56 weeks =$560

My math doesn't even include the cost you have when paying someone to train; firing someone every 6 months, esspecially if they are skilled, is in efficient compared to giving them a pay increase.

   

The restaurant business is not the only business on earth, Jade. Furthermore, most restaurants do not employ more than fifty people.

Besides that full-time hours are based on the 40 hour week. 5x8=40. If you keep the work week at 40 hours but insist on full-time benefits at 35 hours, the businesses will scream bloody murder. They did when that brought in here.

Most low skill jobs require more skill than working in a restaurant does, and I've received crappy service in restaurants enough times to seriously doubt your appraisal that somebody is trained in 3 shifts.

3 months is plenty of time to assess what kind of worker somebody is going to be. If that isn't enough, if the employer is unsure, they can extend the probation by three months. They have to document it though...write it down and make the employee aware of the situation and what the concerns are.

   

Have you been to saskatoon? We have more bars, resturants and lounges per capita than any other city in the country. Most of my friends work at resturaunts or bars and ALL of them have at one point or another. How many resturants have you worked at? Most teeter on the 50 employee line if they have part timers.

I got news for you, THE BUSINESSES ARE SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER RIGHT NOW!! Giving them the leway to call 35 hours part time in order to maintain flexible hours as a consession to this legislation; assuming the employees usually get more than 35 hours and still get all the full time benifits. Most benifits I know only require 36-38 hours a week anyway. Regaurdless I withdrew my suggestion that this would work in my last post, I'm starting to think you just like to argue.

I've been a supervisor at 2 different resturants. People are typically trained within a week, proficient in a month. Name a part time job that requires a full month of training; retail? nope grocery? nope, took me 2 days to know the entire job, construction? maybe 2 weeks, low skill jobs = LOW SKILL. I've had employees go bad after the 3 month probation at least half a dozen times. Employees will abuse it, but its simply not efficiet for employers do abuse it, even if it were 6 months. And by your math a full month of training and a month to gain proficietcy just for 4 months of low cost work doesn't justify firing someone just to avoid a pay increase (which is not mandatory unless unionized).

I have to speak up for small businesses here because it seems like in everyones blind rage against big business they have forgoten that this is A FIGHT FOR THE LITTLE GUY. The little guy includes small-medium busniness and consessions can be made that will stop this legilstaion from harming them and putting them out of business so big companys can just take over. Would you like seeing nothing but chain retail and resturants?? hell no.

   

Many, many times.



No, actually Winnipeg holds that distinction. Saskatoon does have a lot though. Most are fairly small. Many have very poorly trained staff. Others just have rude staff, but Saskatoon has never been as friendly as Regina.



Businesses have screamed bloody murder at every piece of pro-labour legislation ever. They get especially shrill when an NDP goernment enacts it.




Retail depends on what is being sold. Cameras, computers and that sort of thing require a lot of proficiency. Grocery? Are you talking about putting boxes on shelves or being proficient enough to be left on your own in the meat or produce sections? Construction? Two weeks is about long enough to learn how to cut your fingers off.



Good for you. I've been a supervisor and a manager in camera stores and photolabs. As a tech I was responsible for labs from Thunder Bay to Saskatoon. I ran my own renovation business for three years.

I have friends and relatives who own landscaping companies, farm implement dealerships, custom home businesses, retail stores selling everything from clothing to electronics, restaurants, bars, and even a hotel.
Those are all small businesses. Many of them are in Saskatchewan.



It is a fight for the little guy. The thing is that this legislation is not going to hurt them nearly as bad as they think it is, if at all. It's just the same as when the minimum wage goes up and the restaurants all scream that it will bankrupt them, but there they are a few years later...still in business and still screaming that the government is trying to bankrupt them.

   

Do you know what a knee-jerk reaction is?

You have just stopped debating my reasonable conssesions to the additional hours of work legislation and are now just trying to look smart. Give it up, all but the one I exempted are reasonable ways to not make the busineses too angry or scare them out of the provice, but still manage to help out the part timers who need full time.

   

Do you know what a knee-jerk reaction is?

You have just stopped debating my reasonable conssesions to the additional hours of work legislation and are now just trying to look smart. Give it up, all but the one I exempted are reasonable ways to not make the busineses too angry or scare them out of the provice, but still manage to help out the part timers who need full time.

You sound like extreme left wing, and in my opinoin phrases like:
"Businesses have screamed bloody murder at every piece of pro-labour legislation ever. They get especially shrill when an NDP goernment enacts it. "

That sounds like some things extreme right wings in the states would say:
"The liberals get horny when they take our guns away"

   

Typing something like this? or how 'bout

   

I know alot of places in Canada where you can go and get a free drink...

Not in Saskatchewan though, you have to charge $2.00(?)a drink at least (I'm talking about booze here).

When this legislation went through I thought the bars and restaurants would object because this would be infringing on their rights to attract customers. INSTEAD they embraced the change and they quit underselling each other to get business and everyone was on the same playing field.

This is the same thing. Everyone will be on the same playing field with the exception of the small business. All employees will have to treat their employees fairly and the cost will be spread equally among competing businesses. Instead of undercutting each other with more and more part-time staff and less benefits, businesses will be forced to pay fair wages and will do so because the guys across the street are doing the same.

And like I said, if you can't adapt to this and you feel that treating employees fairly is not what your business is about then go to the states or Alberta where you can do what you please.

We have lots of entrepreneurs to take your place.

   

Saskatoon lists 394 restaurants in the phone directory for a population of about 230,000.

That equals 1 per 583 people in Saskatoon.

Winnipeg phone directory lists 1283 restaurants for a population of 675,000.

That equals 1 per 526 people in Winnipeg.

Ottawa has 1,112,000 people and lists 2946 restaurants.

That equals 1 per 377 people in Ottawa.

Montreal has 4592 restaurants servicing a population of 3,509,000 people.

Thats merely 1 in 764. And I couldn't get a pizza delivered last time I was there.

So your both f-ing wrong.

My sources were mysask.com for Saskatoon and yellowpages.ca for restaurants outside of Sask.

Population figures are from Populations of Canadian Cities

   

I got my info from the restaurant and bar owners association guy here, Donny. He was on the CBC call-in show whining that the world was out to get him. The restaurant association is in a tizzy because the minimum wage might go up. Some NGOs are pushing for ten bucks an hour. That's a sizable rise, but when they worked the numbers it turned out that it would barely affect a restaurant's costs and could be covered by a less than 10% rise in prices...less than a buck on the average meal sold. Of course very few people think the minimum wage will actually rise by that much, but this guy was in a panic about it.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next