Job sharing Options

[thekohser]

I'm going to keep tabs on this and report back on...

• Impact on Google search results
• Traffic trends
• External links to (currently zero)
• Article development

I am a scientific practitioner at heart.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 30th June 2009, 4:36pm

[CharlotteWebb]

I'm going to keep tabs on this and report back on...

• Impact on Google search results
• Traffic trends
• External links to
• Article development

I am a scientific practitioner at heart.

Hey nice start. I will say I've worked for a few companies which engaged in this, but I didn't know there was a prettier term for it than underemployment.

As a disadvantage you missed the part about failing to earn a living wage, and in some cases not being allowed to take a second job on the basis that it might somehow create a conflict of interest (as every other company doing business within the same xx-mile radius, whether we've heard of them or not, is a competitor in vast field of "trying to making money somehow" are they not?).

Sometimes I think it's a conspiracy to keep their workforce barefoot and pregnant—in the looser sense where one is legally employed (thus not part of any embarrassing economic statistic), but not making enough money to buy a pair of house-slippers (nobody wants to spill food on their work-shoes) much less sustain an independent, single lifestyle. I don't think it's always sexism either... I'm sure some guys get stuck in situations like too, just depends on who the company chooses to hire that week. Most are equal-opportunity inflictors of economic co-dependence and unassistable hey-you-got-a-job-so-quit-yer-bitchin' poverty but I digress.

Note, Greg: I would have stuck with the traditional Alice and Bob—"Jimmy and Sue" do strike me as obvious innuendo.

[anthony]

Hey nice start. I will say I've worked for a few companies which engaged in this, but I didn't know there was a prettier term for it than underemployment.

Underemployment? The first time I heard about it was in the late 90s, where a married couple on my development team would switch off and work every other day.

As a disadvantage you missed the part about failing to earn a living wage, and in some cases not being allowed to take a second job on the basis that it might somehow create a conflict of interest (as every other company doing business within the same xx-mile radius, whether we've heard of them or not, is a competitor in vast field of "trying to making money somehow" are they not?).

Whether or not that's a "disadvantage" depends on your personal situation, of course, as does whether or not it's a "living wage" (I don't know about you, but most full-time jobs I have held have paid more than twice a living wage).

Like I alluded to above, it's a great deal for a some families with small children. It offers a great choice besides having one parent put their career on hold or leaving infants in the care of strangers.

Sometimes I think it's a conspiracy to keep their workforce barefoot and pregnant—in the looser sense where one is legally employed (thus not part of any embarrassing economic statistic), but not making enough money to buy a pair of house-slippers (nobody wants to spill food on their work-shoes) much less sustain an independent, single lifestyle.

That's just crazy talk. My family of four has lived off of a single full-time salary for years now (instead of both holding part-time jobs my wife and I have taken turns holding full-time jobs). None of us are forced to wear house-slippers, though as I recently admitted on Akahele I do drive an 11 year old Honda Civic.

If we had an opportunity to both work half-time, it'd be great. Unfortunately, no such opportunities have presented themselves. So I'm stuck watching Dora the Explorer for the next 6 months while my career skills atrophy, as I also admitted on Akahele. (Actually, I'm still self-employed for about 10 hours a week, so in effect we've created our own "job sharing" program where the overly regulated employment market has failed, keeping the atrophy to a minimum. Unfortunately, my wife is in an industry where self-employment is not a realistic option.)

P.S. the poverty level for a family of 2 is $14,570. I would guess that the vast majority of "job sharing" arrangements pay at least this much for half-time work. Probably significantly more, since the whole point of job sharing is that you can get part-time work in an otherwise "normal" skilled-labor job - part-time work in a non-skilled-labor job didn't need inventing. If my wife and I wanted to each get a 20 hour/week job at McDonalds we'd have no problem. But that wouldn't be "job sharing", and it'd pay a lot less than one of us working full-time and the other one not working at all.

This post has been edited by anthony: Tue 30th June 2009, 6:27pm