2+2 == False
This is all a hypothetical scenario...
Imagine for a moment there is this particular business that employs three IT staff full-time and two part-time evening staff. These two part-time employees alternate working 2-3 hours per evening, with the exception of 5+ hours on Saturday evenings. Total part-time evening hours amount to 22-24 hours per week covered by these two part-time employees.
Now, imagine eight months ago this business is told it must reorganize and incorporate two other, smaller business units into its operation. In addition, the Director/CEO/President/whatever is told from those above him/her to "eliminate wasted resources and concentrate on efficiency." Over the course of this reorganization, several employees from the two smaller business units and the main business are transfered to entirely different businesses, and six employees are told they will be "laid off" (fired) by the end of the fiscal year (June). Included in these six, are the two part-time IT employees that perform a set of specific duties that can only be accomplished during the evenings and not during regular business hours -- otherwise the three full-time IT staff could possibly do these tasks. All of this is decided by the business Director/CEO/President/whatever. To complicate matters, the Director/CEO/President/whatever decided that the three full-time employees, who generally work 8am - 5pm during the business week, are to cover these recently recovered hours in addition to their regular work. They are not given over-time pay, nor any pay increases. All they are told is that they must use flex time to redistribute this increased work load so they do not go over 40 hours per week. [Disgruntled] IT staff #1 is to cover the Tuesday and Wednesday shift (4-5 additional hours), [disgruntled] IT staff #2 gets Monday and Saturday evenings (7-8 additional hours), and [useless] IT staff #3 is assigned Thursday, Friday, and Sundays (6-7 additional hours). Note that before this reorganization, these full-time IT staff never had to cover the evening hours, other than the rare occasion that one of the part-time employees could not cover their shift (sick, vacation, etc). They only worked during the day and generally did not have to work any split-shifts and/or weekend work. They are given no choice and no say in any of this decision making process.
Now as just about anyone can see, this makes little to no sense from a cost perspective. This business had employed the two part-time employees at a nearly 40% lower rate of pay than the lowest paid of the full-time IT staff. They were given no benefits (health insurance, 401(k), etc). The most this business did was offer a little bit of paid sick leave and vacation time -- which did not amount to more than 5 days/year per part-time employee -- and they were technically not obligated to do even that. In addition, an increased cost (or loss of time might be a better term) is gained in that the three part-time employees will be physically in the office less to do their normal day-to-day duties. Each of the full-time IT staff will have to "flex" the additional 5-6 hours per week (with the exception for the one that has to work the Monday evening and Saturday evening shifts). Another cost, more so from the full-time IT staff's perspective, is that this cuts off avenues of taking vacations or weekend trips, as the evening shifts must be covered and cannot go without completion every evening. The costs of going this course of action increases, rather than decreases.
Someone please tell me this hypothetical scenario is not fucked up?
Imagine for a moment there is this particular business that employs three IT staff full-time and two part-time evening staff. These two part-time employees alternate working 2-3 hours per evening, with the exception of 5+ hours on Saturday evenings. Total part-time evening hours amount to 22-24 hours per week covered by these two part-time employees.
Now, imagine eight months ago this business is told it must reorganize and incorporate two other, smaller business units into its operation. In addition, the Director/CEO/President/whatever is told from those above him/her to "eliminate wasted resources and concentrate on efficiency." Over the course of this reorganization, several employees from the two smaller business units and the main business are transfered to entirely different businesses, and six employees are told they will be "laid off" (fired) by the end of the fiscal year (June). Included in these six, are the two part-time IT employees that perform a set of specific duties that can only be accomplished during the evenings and not during regular business hours -- otherwise the three full-time IT staff could possibly do these tasks. All of this is decided by the business Director/CEO/President/whatever. To complicate matters, the Director/CEO/President/whatever decided that the three full-time employees, who generally work 8am - 5pm during the business week, are to cover these recently recovered hours in addition to their regular work. They are not given over-time pay, nor any pay increases. All they are told is that they must use flex time to redistribute this increased work load so they do not go over 40 hours per week. [Disgruntled] IT staff #1 is to cover the Tuesday and Wednesday shift (4-5 additional hours), [disgruntled] IT staff #2 gets Monday and Saturday evenings (7-8 additional hours), and [useless] IT staff #3 is assigned Thursday, Friday, and Sundays (6-7 additional hours). Note that before this reorganization, these full-time IT staff never had to cover the evening hours, other than the rare occasion that one of the part-time employees could not cover their shift (sick, vacation, etc). They only worked during the day and generally did not have to work any split-shifts and/or weekend work. They are given no choice and no say in any of this decision making process.
Now as just about anyone can see, this makes little to no sense from a cost perspective. This business had employed the two part-time employees at a nearly 40% lower rate of pay than the lowest paid of the full-time IT staff. They were given no benefits (health insurance, 401(k), etc). The most this business did was offer a little bit of paid sick leave and vacation time -- which did not amount to more than 5 days/year per part-time employee -- and they were technically not obligated to do even that. In addition, an increased cost (or loss of time might be a better term) is gained in that the three part-time employees will be physically in the office less to do their normal day-to-day duties. Each of the full-time IT staff will have to "flex" the additional 5-6 hours per week (with the exception for the one that has to work the Monday evening and Saturday evening shifts). Another cost, more so from the full-time IT staff's perspective, is that this cuts off avenues of taking vacations or weekend trips, as the evening shifts must be covered and cannot go without completion every evening. The costs of going this course of action increases, rather than decreases.
Someone please tell me this hypothetical scenario is not fucked up?