new low or now the norm?

In the past year or so my shop has pretty much replaced almost every newsroom FTE that leaves with full-time part-time employees who work 37.5 hours per week but get no benefits.
Obviously it's a lot cheaper. I'm wondering if any other shops are doing this?

 

Can it be both?

 

Contract employees are a new rage now, too.

 

Isn't 37.5 hours over the average that makes you be full-time?

Each state can be different but I believe all but a few consider 35 the cut-off.

 

Yeah ... isn't this exactly why Walmart got in trouble a few years back?

Also, to answer the original question on the thread title: Yes.

 

Ideally, I'd love for people not to leave or be ushered out.

But I'd love for the opportunity to replace folks with even part-timers.

And giving no benefits for 37.5 hours a week sounds illegal unless you work in China.

 

I thought the cutoff used to be 29 hours averaged over the course of a year. In the past year, though, we have had a couple of newsroom people leave who left and were replaced with this new designation.

 

If they get rid of them before they can average 29 hours over the course of a year, it'll probably be legal.

 

There isn't a federal law regarding whether employers have to provide benefits, vacation or sick days. Massachusetts and Hawaii have laws requiring certain companies to provider health insurance, but most employees are at the mercy of the corporate overlords.

 

There is a law that determines whether someone is full-time, part-time a contractor or employee. The suits certainly get edgy about making sure those lines are not crossed. Must be some reason.

 

Companies don't have to pay FICA or Medicare payroll taxes, nor unemployment insurance, for contractors.

 

Mrs. Editude is a full-time contract worker. She used to be on site but now is at the dining room table. She is paid the same, with no benefits. Here, an average of 30 hours for more than a short term sets off full-time alarms in HR.