Government worker logic: Hiring too many people is a cost saving measure

[tinfoil]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/67156

People like Cypress have this logic. That's why they are global warmers, also. they lack critical math skills.

How can anyone ever say that hiring too many people for the work required is a cost saving measure unless the workforce is at maximum hours worked and thus enerting into overtime rates, which clearly was not happening with the census workers, many of whom have said they trained for more time than they worked.

This was job padding by the dishonest Obama admin. I tried to give these scumbags the benefit of the doubt, but they're screwing the country.

Right now they're ready to fight laws that would penalize emplolyers who hire illegal workers. They are not working for this country.

 

[Big Gubmint]

The American people demand Big Gubmint.

Big Gubmint responds to the demands of the American people.


http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=AFGEFacts


http://www.nffe.org/ht/d/sp/i/279/pid/279

 

[WinterBorn]

I am not sure what the workforce being used for the census cost, but overhiring can actually save money.

Many businesses use more part-time help than full-time. When you hire full-time workers, you have to add in the cost of the benefits. With part-time help that often doesn't apply.

 

[tinfoil]

I am not sure what the workforce being used for the census cost, but overhiring can actually save money.

Many businesses use more part-time help than full-time. When you hire full-time workers, you have to add in the cost of the benefits. With part-time help that often doesn't apply.

You'd be correct if these were permanent jobs. they are not, however. The training costs... nevermind. It's obvious you want to ignore the waste and fraudulent jobs stats

Thanks, libtard

 

[WinterBorn]

You'd be correct if these were permanent jobs. they are not, however. The training costs... nevermind. It's obvious you want to ignore the waste and fraudulent jobs stats

Thanks, libtard

Hey numbnuts, I didn't ignore anything. I just pointed out the facts of the cost effectiveness of using a larger workforce. I said I didn't know the specifics of the census work.

Its called debate or discussion. If you expect on cheerleading, you are in the wrong spot, neocon.

 

[tinfoil]

Hey numbnuts, I didn't ignore anything. I just pointed out the facts of the cost effectiveness of using a larger workforce. I said I didn't know the specifics of the census work.

Its called debate or discussion. If you expect on cheerleading, you are in the wrong spot, neocon.

Uh puhlease! You are aware of the news involving census jobs inflating the employment numbers. You are a little liar. Be honest to yourself at least, you dishonest piece of shit

 

[WinterBorn]

Uh puhlease! You are aware of the news involving census jobs inflating the employment numbers. You are a little liar. Be honest to yourself at least, you dishonest piece of shit

You really have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you?

I made a simple comment about how a larger workforce can be cost effective. And now you want to tell me what I know, what I meant and what I am lying about?

Why bother to post if you are going to refuse any views that are not within your own narrow "all libs are evil" mindset?

 

[tinfoil]

I am not sure what the workforce being used for the census cost, but overhiring can actually save money.
you see, this is where you said you think hiring too many people saves money
Many businesses use more part-time help than full-time. When you hire full-time workers, you have to add in the cost of the benefits. With part-time help that often doesn't apply.

Thanks, capatain obvious. I think I already mentioned I understood when the princicple makes sense-- at the point where employee benefits would be part of the equation-- but, --and here's the tricky part, so I understand why you can't comprehend it-- this does not apply to temporary labor. It's dishonest to ignore that the points you are attempting to interject have no relevance to the case at hand. It's a red herring!

 

[WinterBorn]

Thanks, capatain obvious. I think I already mentioned I understood when the princicple makes sense-- at the point where employee benefits would be part of the equation-- but, --and here's the tricky part, so I understand why you can't comprehend it-- this does not apply to temporary labor. It's dishonest to ignore that the points you are attempting to interject have no relevance to the case at hand. It's a red herring!

When you said "How can anyone ever say that hiring too many people for the work required is a cost saving measure unless the workforce is at maximum hours worked and thus enerting into overtime rates,..." you obviously didn't understand.

My post was simply explaining to you that there are times when hiring a larger workforce is cheaper. And its not only when the workforce is at maximum hours.

 

[Onceler]

" I tried to give these scumbags the benefit of the doubt"

I must have missed that. I blinked at one point, so maybe that's when it happened.

 

[tinfoil]

" I tried to give these scumbags the benefit of the doubt"

I must have missed that. I blinked at one point, so maybe that's when it happened.

How about for the entire first year of his pathetic presidency. Now they've shown their true stripes.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm having trouble deciding who is more idiotic......the people who over hired, or the people trying to justify it here.....