In response to Heidi Leung’s post, I agree that part-time jobs can be quite unfair as employee benefits are not given and they may not work for the same duration every shift. However, there is a reason why employers do not give part-time workers full benefits and longer shifts. Why would they invest their money in someone who, in the long run, may no longer be working with them? The length of time a part-time employee would like to work varies from person to person. Generally speaking, longer hours may provide an incentive to workers. Last class, we discussed Zappos and how the employer motivates employees with benefits to work hard for the company. I do not expect employers to follow suit and spend a large sum of money on employee benefits, for both part-time and full-time workers. However, providing more hours, or even more shifts during a week may serve as an incentive to part-time employees and unlock their full potential with the task on hand.

It would be difficult to set a certain number of hours a part-time worker must meet per week. Although this guarantees a stable income for the employee, it also takes away the flexibility of schedules for them. If a part-time employee must work 15 hours a week, they must allocate their time to accommodate this requirement. What if they can only work two days in a week and for four hours each shift?

I do agree with Heidi that this would be optimal but in reality, the number of hours to be worked weekly would be difficult to achieve.

Sources: Blog Post, Image #1, Image #2