"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Search Result 1
From: NOYB )
Subject: as in Overtime
View: Complete Thread (37 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Date: 2003-06-08 07:17:01 PST


I didn't say "temp" workers. I said "part-time" workers...someone that
may
only work 20 hours per week. A dental hygienist is a good example. That
position is not "unskilled" labor. Yet, many of 'em work less than 30
hours
per week. It's more cost effective to have two hygienists work 25 hours
per
week without benefits and OT, than pay one hygienist OT and benefits.



"noah" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
m...
Nonsense. It's cheaper to bring in part-time employees that aren't
entitled
to benefits, and are usually paid less than the *regular* (non-OT) pay
received by the full time people. You obviously have little
experience in
the HR department, eh?

I had offered to let you off the hook, but you wanted to make an issue of
this
so here it is. Read it and weep.

More like "read it and giggle". Where does it say that *I* did such a
thing?

Then figure out who's spoofing your e-mail
address.

Next time, quit while you're (sort of) ahead. :-)

Granted, you stopped short of saying that you *did* what you recommend.

Nice try, Chuck! But here's what *you* asked:
"Didn't you recently post that you keep all of your employees down to 30
hours a week, or less, to avoid paying certain fringe benefits?"


And my answer to that was and is...NOPE!

Since you accused me of stating that *I* hired part-time employees in my
practice to avoid paying benefits, I'd say you owe me an apology.