groundzeros2015 an hour ago

which is in unintended but predictable side effect of requiring those benefits for full-time employees.

shakes fist at sky "if only we didn't have to pay those pesky benefits then we wouldn't be forced to make the roles abusive contractor/part-time roles...Wild people even try to take this stance.

▲

groundzeros2015 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

I'm baffled. Do you not see the normative vs descriptive claim here?

The reality is that requiring benefits imposes a cost, and employers manage that cost by limiting who qualifies. So yes, this hurt many workers - and disproportionately impacted disadvantaged people who didn't make the full-time cliff.

Ignoring increntives is actually shaking your fist at the sky.

▲

rectang 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

Then can we agree on a government funded safety net for the sake of labor mobility? ;)

Typically the real disagreement here is over whether workers should get benefits at all.

	▲	groundzeros2015 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]