Temp Jobs Rise, Permanent Ones Lagging

Los Angeles Times ^ | March 5, 2004 | ADAM GELLER, AP Business Writer

[Willie Green]

NEW YORK — Conventional wisdom says that once companies begin hiring temporary workers, a turnaround in the overall job market must be close behind.

But nearly 2 1/2 years after the economy officially began its recovery, old assumptions about new jobs are providing more confusion than comfort.

A report released by the government Friday showed temporary employment increased once again in February -- by 32,000 jobs -- just as it has been doing for the better part of a year.

But the permanent hiring that was supposed to flow from the temp jobs is still not materializing. The economy as a whole added a scant 21,000 jobs last month, far below the 125,000 that analysts had forecast. That has economists, and even temporary staffing businesses, scratching their heads.

[IonInsights]

Temp is becoming the a new mode of doing business.

[JLS]

All jobs are temporary. Attempts to make private sector jobs less temporary lead to businesses using temporary services to keep the jobs temporary.

[anniegetyourgun]

Temp to hire is the biz equivalent of courting. It acts as, replaces, or extends the old "probationary period."

[neutrino]

Hey! We're gonna make the big bucks now!

[Revel]

This is because the laws make it so hard to get rid of deadbeats. If an employer says your fired then he can expect lawsuits. If he just calls up the temp agency and says don't send that person anymore then the problem is solved. The law is now written to protect the deadbeats and users of society. It does not protect the honest and decent people. The same thing goes for rental property. The landlord has no rights against even the most vile and delinquent tenants.

[techwench]

i would agree with everything you said. i once was a rental property owner (gulp!) however, in addition, companies are now exclusively hiring temps as replacements for permanent workers. i believe we will shortly be a nation of permatemps with no benefits etc. which is actually better than having the jobs go overseas.

having said that, IF the company is really going to hire you temp to perm and you do an outstanding job in a period of say 6-18 mos, then i think hiring you permanently at that point would be good. usually though, companies have no intention of hiring you permanently, kinda like a "fiancee" that has no intention of marrying you. they just say you could be hired permanently to string you along and get the best performance out of you for as long as possible.

[Merdoug]

Yeah! Employers shouldn't have to put up with workers who expect any loyality. And workers shouldn't get health insurance; that's just a drain on profits! And take away that extra lump of coal; those lazy good-for-nothing cogs don't need it!
sarcasm off.