09-07-2016, 01:44 PM
(09-07-2016, 01:07 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Would a company save the money spent on benefits (such as paid leave) by hiring two part time employees who typically don't receive benefits (such as paid leave) compared to one full time employee who does receive benefits?
Normally, yes. In practice it is tough to split jobs like that, and find two people equally capable of doing the work. Inefficiencies and other issues probably end-up costing more in the long-run.
Obviously companies do it, I just don't think it happens a lot. It's really only feasible for adding staff in peak volume periods, places like call centers and non-union warehousing. You're probably not going to take a full-time accounting job and make it two part-timers.
It could probably be done more, but usually more trouble than it's worth. The far more prevalent trend is contract employees, which usually receive no benefits. Some people actually prefer that, because they normally get a little higher base (take home pay) and already receive benefits from a spouse, and there can be additional tax benefits, as well.
--------------------------------------------------------
