American Workers Growing More Flexible About Temp Work, Changing Careers

With about a half-decade of a blah economy and weak employment, Americans are growing more amenable to taking temporary employment, changing their viewpoint from the glass-half-empty opinion of “it’s a job without permanence” to “it’s a job that may lead to something permanent one day.”

This is according to the latest Workplace Insights Survey from the folks at Adecco, which found that 63% of Americans now look at temp jobs more positively than they did last year, while 86% believe that a temp gig is a viable option for someone who wants to gain work experience.

To that end, 68% of respondents say they are now more willing to look for a job outside their specialty or field of study. Unemployed Americans are even more willing to be flexible, with 73% saying they could be flexible if it means a job.

For those of you with jobs, the Adecco survey finds that only 32% of Americans received a pay raise, bonus or promotion in 2011. Of course, considering that only 13% say they asked for the extra pay, that’s not a horrible sign.

And it looks like workers’ expectations may be improving, with 41% of respondents saying they expect a raise/bonus/promotion in 2012, with 24% saying they intend to ask their employer for one.

Since it’s a presidential election year, we have to mention that 49% of survey respondents say that jobs creation will be the biggest factor in which candidate they vote for in November. Healthcare reform followed a distant second with 18%.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Cat says:

    Workers become more flexible when the companies they work for require them to bend over further and further every day.

    • dolemite says:

      Word!

      Yeah, it’s all great people hop between jobs, but guess what? Temp jobs have few or no benefits, no retirement, and no stability. So people might be able to pay their bills in the mean time, but what does it mean for their future?

      • JollyJumjuck says:

        Logan’s Run had a great idea. Kill off everyone when they reach 30 (or we could use some other arbitrary age). We’ll keep executives around because they are soooo much more important, but let’s say anyone without a large portfolio at a certain age goes to the knackeryard.

    • Hungry Dog says:

      Yep, my head is so far up my ass I can see my own teeth.

    • spamtasticus says:

      Evil evil companies. Everyone should make the exact same salary regardless of experience, responsibility and performance. Then we would be happy. Companies will simply spark into existance out of Obama’s rear, fully capitalized, branded, and with ingenious business plans without the need for any entrepeneur to use their head and risk it all to create them from scratch. The warm chewy sweet bliss….I can already taste it.

      If you dont like your job get another. If you cant find one that makes you happy then create your own. You only live once,

      • beaverfan says:

        That’s right! Forcing businesses to pay for health insurance or retirement is making it hard for businesses to grow. That’s why we need socialized healthcare and socialized pensions so that businesses don’t have to shoulder all the burden!

        • BurtReynolds says:

          Shhh. The “conservatives” refuse to see how that argument works. The people that vote for them think “Socialism” = “Communism” = “Fascism” = “Totalitarian Regime” = “Brave New World”/”1984″ new world order.

  2. u1itn0w2day says:

    Problem is a lot of employers don’t like that attitude. They want an indentured servant mindset when interviewing for the very mediocre job. They want you to think that you will have a lifetime of employment with them. A career with them. Neither of which they have any business at all promising or implying that you will get it.

  3. pop top says:

    American Workers Open to Taking Anything They Can Get, Realize That Looking Down on Others Because of Their Occupation is Ignorant

  4. Mark702 says:

    No benefits, no raises, little or no opportunity for advancement, this is the new American economy. Thanks Bush 2 and Bush 3 (aka Obama).

    • Mudilo says:

      lol because raises and advancement are guaranteed at any perm job.

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      No raises, no benefits and no time off. Most temp jobs want 24/7 availability/loyalty especially if shift work or callout are involved.

    • BurtReynolds says:

      You can probably start with thanking Reagan. The American worker has been on the downslope since the 80′s when the Boomer’s decided to ditch pensions for Las Vegas style retirement planning, aka 401(k). Since Reagan, every politician has become pro-business and screw the worker. Even Clinton was basically a Republican when it came to big business. It is just tough to see now that 99% of Republicans are raving lunatics and our “Democrat” POTUS leans far enough right to pass as a 60′s or 70′s GOP’er.

  5. The Twilight Clone says:

    The only way to create jobs is to give people like Mitt Romney a tax break. A Republican told me so.

  6. smarmyjones goes cattywampus says:

    Hey Chris, it’s Adecco, not Addeco.

    -A former Adecco employee.

  7. rmorin says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all

    Read this if you really want to understand why there are a lack of jobs in this country. Jobs have gone elsewhere because of a combination of liberal policies, conservative policies, our educational system, corporate greed, as well as external decisions made by other countries.

    There is no bumper sticker answer for what caused this. In moving forward, there is no bumper sticker solution to it either, so attributing blame to one source is short-sighted at best.

    • The Twilight Clone says:

      Oh, I can fit it on a bumper sticker:

      BILLIONAIRES FOR MORE TAX CUTS

      That work for ya?

      • rmorin says:

        If you think that the lack of jobs in the U.S. is caused by that, and that alone, then you are extremely misinformed. Instead you are falling into the trap that people often do; you find one thing you disagree with and blame large complex problems on one component.

    • DariusC says:

      Correct. Blame is rarely held by a single party, which is exactly what the majority of people don’t understand. Hence why we have a “my political party is correct and yours isn’t” attitude. People need to drop the ego and humbly try to seek a solution that benefits everyone, even if we all may have to pay for it by reducing the size fo government and paying additional taxes (for the wealthy, as they will receive their money back when people spend their money on the wealthy’s businesses and invested companies).

      • MrEvil says:

        Precisely, America’s economy is too dependent on consumer spending. Giving tax breaks to business owners does little to create jobs as they don’t have sufficient demand to create more jobs. Put more money in consumers’ pockets and business owners will start creating jobs to satisfy their demand.

    • Tiercelet says:

      Actually it’s pretty simple, from the subtext of the article:

      Your job went to China because Chinese people will work in slave-labor conditions (getting rousted out of bed at 1 AM from your at-the-factory dormitory to work back-to-back 12-hour shifts) and the Chinese government will provide all needed infrastructural, R&D, and facilities-construction funding.

      The solution is also pretty simple: unions in America, tariffs on goods made in countries that will not adopt corresponding labor standards, and more redistributive tax policies to break down the ever-increasing permanent class stratification in this country. Oh, and tighter regulation of exploitative financiers.

      But I guess one seems more Serious if one says that everybody is at fault, and it’s just the way the world is changing, and no one could ever possibly do anything about it so we’d better get used to it. Works for Tom Friedman anyway.

      • rmorin says:

        You didn’t read much of the article. The article was very clear that wages and conditions of working are only a small component of why America loses on electronic manufacturing.

        There is no educational system in the United States that delievers a work force which is needed in electronics manufacturing. Specifically, engineer type position that require more technical knowledge then one would get an American high school, but not so much that would warrant a B.S. and the associated high salary costs.

      • shepd says:

        http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/37357/64926/E94CHN01.htm

        “Section 36. The State shall practice a working hour system under which labourers shall work for no more than eight hours a day and or more than 44 hours a week on average. “

        Sure, companies and employees violate it. Companies in North America violate labour law every day. One company I worked for tracked the time you spent in the washroom and deducted it from your government mandated 10 minutes break every 4 hours. We’ve all watched the 20/20 report years ago about the factory where workers regularly pissed themselves due to the same treatment.

        I won’t argue that many employees willingly violate labour law themselves and work longer than they are permitted to, with companies turning a blind eye to it, but that’s because in China often a single family members wages are to support the entire family–the family member is CHOOSING this, not being forced to do it.

        I also will not argue that they are paid less, either, however, that gravy train is screeching to a halt:

        http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/09/05/chinas-rising-wages/

        Expect that in the next decade, manufacturing will shift from China to a different country as government intervention and unions makes the country less attractive, along with rising wages. Hmmm… …sounds a lot like back home, when you think about it. But that’s my Libertarianism showing. ;-)

        I believe the labour will shift instead to African countries, war-torn Middle East, and, at the current rate, possibly to Russia. All offer residents who are impoverished enough not to demand more regulation, very low wages, and a government very willing to accept (and keep secret) bribes to help keep the situation like that.

    • Invictus says:

      The loss of jobs has nothing to do with liberal or conservative decisions and everything to do with economic decisions and the short sightedness of Americans. If you ask someone on the street, “Can get something for nothing?”, they “appear” smart enough to know that you generally can’t get something for nothing. In practice, however, when it really matters we fail. We believe we can buy cheap goods from China and India and there are no impacts.

      The impacts are:
      * Rising unemployment rates as we support Chinese and Indian workers over our local friends and neighbors.
      * Increases in personal taxes. Think about it. As your dollars support workers in other nations, folks left working have to pay more since taxes only go in one direction.
      * Erosion of social security. Since we need multiple workers working to pay for each retired person. We’ll have to pay in more or it will go bankrupt.

      How do we reverse all of this? Spend your money locally and support American companies. I do not mean the multinationals that begun here. They are NOT American companies. They became multinational to NOT pay their fair share of taxes and to screw their workers. These bloodsucking corporations (Apple and Walmart are among the worse) should be taxed at 95% to gain access to our markets. Despite all their $$$, Apple only employs 43,000 employees here.

      If we continue mindlessly voting with our money for the cheapest “appearing” option we will eventually become more of a third world country. We are already on our way, thanks to all politicians who value multinationals corporations over people.

      • rmorin says:

        The loss of jobs has nothing to do with liberal or conservative decisions and everything to do with economic decisions

        Right, because liberal and conservatives aren’t the ones making decisions? There have been decisions made by both sides at the level of the president, congress, and the senate, which have hurt us economically. You really don’t think politicians had anything to do with this? o_0

  8. coffee100 says:

    Management has won. They have succeeded in cutting your pay, stripping you of your benefits, destroying your job security, increasing your stress and dissatisfaction at your job and treating you like a caged animal day to day. They get away with it because there is a ready supply of sycophants there to shout you down when you complain.

    All of the things people wave in the air as solutions to your lack of employability become worthless in this system. Education? Meaningless, ESPECIALLY if you have a specialized or advanced degree. Why? Employers are illiterate, uneducated scumbags. They don’t know what a college degree is much less what it means.

    Here’s a free tip: If anyone questions your major, you can conclude immediately they are either a) uneducated and/or illiterate, probably both or b) they don’t understand what a university education is for. Ignore them.

    Work experience? Meaningless. Why? It’s not specific to the job you’re applying for. Congratulations, 10-year veteran. You just become entry level. Whoops. Now you’re rejected. Back to scraping mud.

    Why is this all happening? Simple. Employers are lying assholes. They want it all and they want SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY FOR IT. Someone else needs to train their employees and provide them with the perfect candidate. Someone else needs to pay for their internships. Someone else needs to cover the cost of the benefits. Someone else needs to make up for the lack of raises.

    Essentially these people are not grown-ups. They can’t take responsibility for employing adult professionals at adult wages because they are immature, irresponsible crybabies who want someone else to pay for them being important.

    You want proof? Between 1953 and 1973, the average wage for the American worker doubled. Since 1973, it has dropped 16%. We invented the modern world between 1953 and 1973. We haven’t done jack shit since. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    The American workplace is lost. Leave and don’t ever go back. Start your own business. Right now.

    • dolemite says:

      Basically, it’s all related to trade agreements and “globalization”. For some reason, all that crap was touted as ‘job creation’, but we see where it lead: depressed wages for Americans and jobs shipped overseas. How do we combat this? Apparently by giving the rich even more tax cuts and defunding our education system further.

      The 1% are only concerned with their immediate profit. The welfare of their country be damned.

    • rmorin says:

      All of the things people wave in the air as solutions to your lack of employability become worthless in this system. Education? Meaningless, ESPECIALLY if you have a specialized or advanced degree. Why? Employers are illiterate, uneducated scumbags. They don’t know what a college degree is much less what it means.

      Here’s a free tip: If anyone questions your major, you can conclude immediately they are either a) uneducated and/or illiterate, probably both or b) they don’t understand what a university education is for. Ignore them.

      This is pure rubish and reeks of self-entitlement.

      The fact of the matter is that certain degrees with offer more job opportunities then others. This is not novel or incorrect. Certain majors are going to grant the student more skills in certain areas. Certain skillsets are more broadly applicable across professions then others. Your advice is dangerous for people to accept and wildly incorrect. Students should consider whether 1. University is right them at this time, and 2. How to select a major that balances personal goals, with the very real job and salary prospects. For you to advocate people blindly select a major only on what they most enjoy shows your gross entitlement and ignorance towards the world.

      • coffee100 says:

        You misspelled “rubbish.” How ironic.

        The new definition of self-entitlement: Expecting the benefits of having earned something, like a university degree. Anyone who is not willing to abandon their achievements and re-litigate and re-justify their value to society regularly is “self-entitled.”

        “Call me ‘Doctor’”

        “What, you think you’re entitled or something?”

        “I have a Doctorate degree from an accredited university.”

        “So?”

        That’s America now. Won’t be much longer before we’re all standing barefoot in a sewer-contaminated river .

        People should study what interests them. In that way they will be most valuable to society and culture. This horseshit about “skill sets” is a red herring invented by employers to dilute the value of higher education so they can underpay their employees.

        • rmorin says:

          Expecting the benefits of having earned something, like a university degree.

          When you select a major you do so knowing the job and salary expectations. You are extraordinarly self-entitled if you think that in selecting a degree with few job, or poor salary expectations that means you are entitled to much more then that; few job opportunities or a poor salary.

          Your example of being a Dr. is beyond terrible. If someone gets a degree with poor job prospects, they still have a degree and are called a college graduate, this just does not entitle them to a job.

          • coffee100 says:

            “When you select a major you do so knowing the job and salary expectations.”

            Yeah. There’s no job, and if there is you’ll be underpaid.

            It doesn’t make any difference what your degree is in. Your employer doesn’t understand what a university education is, so you can’t expect them to evaluate it intelligently. They are either a) looking for a reason to disqualify you so they can hire someone cheaper or b) trying to convince you of your unemployability so they can underpay you.

            The only skill set that matters is “can you give us money or something we can gouge customers for while being cheap or free? If you can’t do this, we will never hire you no matter what you majored in or how qualified you are.” The end.

            Start your own business. The American workplace is lost and it is never coming back.

            • rmorin says:

              There is so much wrong with what you say, from vilifying all employers as some sort of parasite to your profound lack of knowledge about job qualifications, that I’m not going to put the effort in on a Friday afternoon to show you how incredibly incorrect you are.

            • Darury says:

              “Yeah. There’s no job, and if there is you’ll be underpaid.”

              You’ll be underpaid of what you think you’re degree is worth, not what the market will bear. I’m sorry that your Master’s Degree in 14th Century Latin Speaking Poets of Midgaard from an Ivy League school isn’t worth the same as a Medical Degree from a mid-range state university.

              Wait, I’m not.

              If by the time you’re old enough to attend college you don’t have a basic understanding of what’s a useful degree and what’s a waste of tens of thousands of dollars in college costs, maybe you should put it off until you do.

              • coffee100 says:

                Spoken like a truly unlettered hiring manager bereft of understanding as to what a university is assembled to do. Colleges and universities are not training facilities for your HR department.

                YOU are the training facility. Do your job and stop crying to America to pay for the training of your employees. We are busy educating citizens.

                For the record, even spoken Latin had long since (700 years or more) fallen out of use by the 14th century. Midgaard poetry, further, would have been written in High German or English if at all. If you’re going to come up with some bullshit, at least try and make it sound like you’ve read a book that doesn’t have full-page pictures.

                P.S. If you have the chance to hire someone with a Master’s Degree from an Ivy-League school and you reject them based on their major, a) you are an asshole and b) you deserve to go out of business trying to compete with them.

                • VotaIdiota says:

                  Bravo.

                  This is the best imitation of a pretentious, completely isolated from reality, elitist stereotype I’ve seen thus far.

                  Truly award-winning performance.

            • shepd says:

              So, I’m interested, from an employers standpoint, what is a university education, to them? What will it do for the company?

              Is it as worthwhile to the company as my HAM radio license is when I’m repairing a mail server? Or is it worthwhile to the company the same way my past experience building a mail server for my previous business is?

              Or, is it just another hole in the wall and rectangular stain they’ll need to patch and clean when you move on?

              Just because it’s worthwhile to YOU doesn’t mean it’s worthwhile to someone ELSE. In fact, to someone else, they just might find it baggage that they hope doesn’t clutter the workspace once you’ve used it as an ace in the hole against HR.

    • Alisha Gray says:

      I kinda wish this was Facebook or something so I could ‘like’ your post. I don’t really have anything to say except that I agree with what you said. -_-

    • who? says:

      You’re partially right. Management has won, to a certain extent. However, it’s not about management winning or losing. It’s about global changes that have happened in the last 30 years, primarily as a result of trade costs plummeting.

      Our parents and grandparents didn’t have to compete with the Chinese (or Indians, or whatever the hot nationality of the day is), because the cost of shipping goods back and forth to those countries was high, the cost of communication was high, and countries generally had tariffs protecting locally made goods. It was cheaper and easier to pay higher American labor rates than it was to produce goods in a foreign country, so companies produced goods here.

      Our parents and grandparents did, however, have to compete with cheap labor from abroad, in the form of immigration. This was especially bad during the early part of the 20th century, when European immigrants were flooding into Ellis Island. One article I read (sorry I can’t find it now, despite the powers of google) said that for every million immigrants that came into the country in a year, wages were pushed down 1%. From 1880 to 1920, 20 million people immigrated to the U.S. In 1910, 58% of the American workforce was foreign born. So the globalization we’re dealing with has been happening since before any of us was born. It’s just accelerated in the last 30 years.

      Anyway, like it or not, we’re competing against a global workforce. It isn’t a fair fight, because labor and environmental laws and standards vary widely around the world. The Chinese government will say (and does say in the NYTimes article) that their labor laws don’t allow dragging employees out of their dorms at midnight to go to work, but it’s an open secret that those things really do happen. Of course the U.S. as a country can’t compete with that, because in the U.S.A., that kind of thing is only acceptable when you’re employing illegal immigrants. I personally think we need laws that protect us from competing against countries that don’t enforce the same labor and environmental standards that we do, but since big corporations have bought out our political system, there isn’t the political will to change anything. This is the game that management has won. Having been to China and seen what a truly unfettered, unregulated market economy brings, I don’t believe for a second that less regulation in the U.S. is the answer. China is an absolute mess. I’d much rather have protective tariffs and regulation.

      As far as what we as employees can do about it? We have to realize that it’s business, and if the employer can get the same work done for less money by hiring someone else, they’re going to hire someone else. As an employee, it’s really up to me to make sure that my skills are marketable, and it’s up to me to be good at selling those skills to an employer. As I get older and my salary goes up, this get harder and harder to do, but I don’t expect an employer to pay me more money than someone if I’m not actually more valuable in some way.

      I spent all summer interviewing and hiring recent college grads for a large American corporation, so you probably think I’m the enemy, regardless of the fact that I just hired about 30 of your colleagues. What I do know that you don’t seem to, however, is that the people that got hired spent their time in college learning the skills they needed for an entry level job in the field I was hiring in. This included a couple of people who majored in fields that were completely different than what I usually look for.

      I’m thinking that if I’d met your entitled ass, you wouldn’t have been hired. But I’m just guessing.

      • coffee100 says:

        “I’m thinking that if I’d met your entitled ass, you wouldn’t have been hired.”

        Boo hoo. I build jobs. I don’t need to look for one.

        By the way, had wages kept up with inflation from 1973 to the present, the average entry level salary for a college educated applicant would be about $82,000. Whatcha payin’ those oh so qualified recent hires, huh?

        They wouldn’t be UNDERPAID would they?

        • rmorin says:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States

          The percentage of the population with college degrees has increased as well in that period from ~20% in 1973 to 29% today. Increase supply, equals lower wages. This is economics 101.

          Your facts completely contradict yourself. The more people that attain a college degree, the lower their starting wages will be yet you keep lauding the value of an higher educated society.

          And let me guess, you build jobs in selling Acai Berry juice, Herbalife, Amway, or some other MLM scheme? There is no way a legitimate business owner would share your highly ignorant views.

          • azgirl says:

            But are these degrees in anything useful to the job market? I know a lot of people with art degrees and such, but although I think this is valuable- it is only valuable to a certain type of job..
            I got a degree in a pretty specific field- Environmental and Safety. It was unique at the time I got it, and was directly applicable to the work I wanted to do, and the work I continue do…most people in my field have degrees in chemistry etc, but I find employers look at my education a little differently since it is a direct skillset.. (not that chemists dont make good EHS people- I could not do my job without chemistry.)
            My point- I know many good engineers that have had a hard time getting jobs.. and knock on wood, I have not had as hard a time, and wonder if its more than luck….

        • shepd says:

          As long as new workforce entrants feel that college is necessary to *get* a job, rather than to improve their life, they will be paid and hired as per their expectations.

          I’ve talked to college/university students from the past 20 years. As time marches on, they feel more and more strongly that it doesn’t exist to help improve their educational skills. Rather, it is so they can get a piece of paper that says “hire me”. It also explains the declining difficulty level of university study, since universities realize that their role is now 4 years of baby sitting and grooming someone so they are ready for employment, rather than 4 years of intense study so are prepared to continue research in that field.

    • Kuri says:

      It may not be ignorance, more often than not, they likely don’t care.

  9. SwaggeringCuban says:

    ugh, too true.

  10. John says:

    This is one of those circular issues, especially given people’s leanings.

    I could say that Companies have to earn a profit, and so they need low costs. Unions, for example, are the opposite of that. That is why airlines keep going bankrupt for the sole purpose of getting rid of the union contract.

    To avoid union’s (and minimum wage laws to a lesser extent), Companies have to go out of country.

    If the U.S. wants to be more competitive, it should take a hard look at labor contracts. You can’t have it both ways.

    • coffee100 says:

      It’s funny. We had none of these problems in the 1950s and 1960s when union membership was high. In fact, those two decades comprised one of the greatest periods of economic expansion in human history. Wages doubled. The capstone was the moon landing in 1969.

      Now, we couldn’t build dogshit if we drove a dumptruck full of scrambled eggs into a kennel.

    • Tiercelet says:

      You could also say companies need to earn a profit, so they need to have customers who can afford their products. For that, they need the kind of income security that only unionized labor can provide — along with a government providing actual material support for an industrial policy and American-based labor.

      Airlines keep going bankrupt to break labor contracts solely because they can. We let them, so they break their word and screw over the working people, in order to goose the share price another five cents. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are profitable, only with how much profit they will yield.

    • Solkanar512 says:

      Why does Germany have such strong unions and such low unemployment then?

  11. sponica says:

    career? what is a career? how does one change careers if one lacks a career?

  12. pot_roast says:

    Now we need the attitudes of clueless HR droids that say “oh, you’ve had several jobs.. you must be unstable” and other stupid crap like that. That’s why I write “CONTRACT” next to the company name on my resume. People still miss it…

  13. Firevine says:

    The pic reminds me, I’m tired of working for other people, so I’m opening my own comic book store. :D I won’t get rich, but I’ll be happy every day!

  14. The Twilight Clone says:

    It’s a symptom of the gross negligence of government in this country since 20 January 2001. That’s what it means.

    The mindset that billionaires need tax breaks, combined with the mindset that we need to invade a country that did nothing to us — that mindset, those completely fucked-sideways priorities — is what has led to the current disaster and fuck-up of this country since that day. When you give a fucking monkey the keys to the castle, and give him an army of troglodytes willing to carry out the orders, well, look where it gets you. Throw in a healthy dose of a brain-dead, complicit media, and your fate’s sealed.

    You can sit and pontificate all day long. Or you can look at the god damn 9000-ton elephant in the room. The answer couldn’t be clearer.

    Yes, the Democrats are completely worthless. There is no question about that. But most of the Democrats are not actively fucking this country six ways from Sunday the way the GOP are.

    • Firevine says:

      A healthcare bill meant to push insurance companies out of business. Forcing thousands of Dodge employees out of work. Blocking Republican efforts to try to prevent the housing market crash five times. Practically causing the housing market crash. The Solyndra mess.

      I mean, are you sure they’re not doing everything they can to wreck the economy? They’re beyond “worthless”. They’re actively fucking this country six ways from Sunday.

  15. RandomHookup says:

    The headline is a bit reminiscent of “Drunk Men Far Less Selective at Closing Time”.

  16. NotEd says:

    I’m sorry if I consider the source somewhat biased, since Adecco considers most of the positions they staf as “Temporary” positions, even if the positions themselves are essentially permenant.

    It allows employers to treat the employees as disposable and minimal benefits to be paid to said employees.

    • drbtx1 says:

      My experience with working through Adecco 8 years ago were endless promises that my position would go permanent in just a few more weeks. Needless to say, that never happened.

  17. Lyn Torden says:

    The “blah economy” was from 2000 to 2007. Then it went down hill and recently leveled off and has hinted at maybe considering going back up a tiny bit.

  18. pythonspam says:

    I took a temp job because it was officially temp-to-hire. It gave me experience in my field doing the job that the company would later offer me as full-time. But even if I had never gotten the job, the experience looks better than staying unemployed hoping the perfect position will fall into your lap.

    • tsukiotoshi says:

      Exactly. I worked unpaid internships after school just to try to get my foot and the door, while also having something to put on my resume other than “sat around playing video games in pajamas all day; wrote a shitty novel.”

      Ultimately the first job I was offered was a temporary job, but you take what you have to. I think a lot of people are in that position now.

      • coffee100 says:

        Exactly. You work for free in the hopes of being promoted to temp. Then you put it on your resume and offer it to the next fat blobass hiring manager while averting your eyes.

        Just out of curiosity, did they serve you gruel in a bowl or on a wooden trowel?

    • sponica says:

      i would have taken a temp job, but even the temp agencies i applied to told me I was overqualified and I never got placed….

  19. jeni1122 says:

    I went from construction to technology once the economy started to get bad and it is the best thing I have ever done.

    I know that seems like a big shift, but really construction and technology are both technical jobs, just different types of technical. Glad my current employers agreed and took me on. I have taught them some things that I know and they have taught me some things that they know. All in all it has been a very lucrative and beneficial experience.

  20. HogwartsProfessor says:

    *sigh* I guess I will have to call the temp agency back that I worked for before. They liked me enough that I actually worked for THEM a few times. It helped get me through, but I don’t really want to do it again.

  21. retailriter says:

    The problem is, the companies want the same loyalty and work ethic out of employees as though they are paying them decent wages, benefits, and providing job security.

    What’s that saying about respect begin earned, not given?

  22. Fantoche_de_Chaussette says:

    The French have 35-hour work weeks.

    The Germans have an excellent system of technical schools and apprenticeships that have allowed them to actually keep more good-paying industrial jobs than any other country in Europe or America.

    America has … temp jobs. And you will like it.

    Who is running this country? (answer: not us)

  23. tooluser says:

    The gold standard is and always will be to hold one job for a long period of time. If you are sapient (which excludes me, a monkey) you will only get better every day, and eventually, if you hang in long enough, you will be the best in your field.

  24. ShinGetterPoPo says:

    I’m following the thank god I have a job method.
    Until I get enough money to pay the bills properly again, I’ll take what I can get.

  25. jedifarfy says:

    I started focusing on temping this summer. I got small jobs, then in August, a job for 6 months. I left my crappy retail job, lived without benefits, and saved all the money I could. I just got hired at the place I’ve been temping. After years of trying to find a job on my own, I made some sacrifices and they paid off. I have one more week as a temp and then I’ll have a good paying job, triple what my retail job paid me a year, benefits, and can buy a car.

    So many people told me I was stupid and it was a mistake. If you find a great agency and work hard, you CAN get somewhere.

  26. bitplayer says:

    Insurance copanies were totally on board with the health care reform. Why wouldn’t they? The plan gives them more customers. Read the bill first guy.. Geez. By the way if the Repubs fix for housing was snapping their fingers and closing Fannie and Freddie that would send real estate into the abyss ask anone in real estate. They want more peope buying houses not less. Bottom line house prices were overvalued in relationship to wages in this country. Now it’s evening out in places.

  27. BurtReynolds says:

    So basically the American worker has finally been broken. No longer is the dream a good career with benefits that allows you to take care of yourself and family leads to a comfortable retirement. Today folks are thankful for just a paycheck, any paycheck, one week at a time. Benefits are a luxury.

    It really is unfathomable how much the Boomers sold out future generations. All of the gains of their parents are being systematically destroyed.